Language may easily be learned in a short time by converse with Welsh-men And the Statute of 1 Eliz. which establisheth the Book of Common Prayer ordaineth that the said Book of Common Prayer shall be put in use in all the Parish Churches of Eng. and Wa. without any provision there for the translation of the said Book into the Welsh Language But afterwards by a private Act it was done by which it is enacted That the Bishop of Wales should procure the Epistles and Gospels to be translated and read in the Welsh Language which matter our Presentee might do by a Curate well enough And he conceived that by divers Statutes Aliens by the Common Law were capable of Benefices See the Statute of 7 H 2. Cap. 12. 1 H 5 Cap. 7. 14 H 6. Cap. 6. and before the said last Statute Irish-men were capable of Benefices Gawdy Serjeant contrary and he confessed that at the Common Law the defects aforesaid were not any causes of refusal but now by reason of a private Act made 5 Eliz. Entituled An Act made for the translating of the Bible and of the Divine Service into the Welsh tongue the same defect is become a good cause of refusal in which Act the mischief is recited viz. That the Inhabitants of Wales did not understand the Language of England therefore it was Enacted That the Bishops of Wales should procure so many of the Bibles and Books of Common Prayer to be imprinted in the Welsh Language as there are Parishes and Cathedral Churches in Wales and so upon this Statute this imperfection is become a good cause of refusal And he likened it to the Case of Coparceners and Ioynt-tenants Ante 28. who now because that by the Statute of 32 H 8. Ioynt-tenants are equally capable to make partition as Coparceners were by the Common Law Now Partition betwixt Ioynt-tenants within age is as strong as betwixt Parceners within age But as to that point it was said by the Lord Anderson that it is very true that upon the said Statute the want of the Welsh Language in the Presentee is now become a good cause of refusal but because the said Act being a private Act hath not been pleaded by the Defendant we ought not to give our Iudgment according to that Act but according to the Common Law. Another matter was moved because here appeareth no sufficient notice given to the Patron after the said Refusal for the Plaintiff did present the thirtenth of August the Church voyding the fourteenth of March before the nine and twentieth of August the six months expired the fourth of September the Defendant gave notice to the Patron of the refusal and the fourteenth of September was the Collation and it was said by the Lord Anderson that it appeareth here that there are two and twenty days between the Presentment and the Notice which is too large a delay And the Defendant hath not shewed in his Plea any cause for the justifying or excuse of it and therefore upon his own shewing we adjudge him to be a disturber See 14 H. 7. 22. 15 H. 7. 6. and note by Periam it was adjudged in the Case of Mollineux if the Patron present and the Ordinary doth refuse he ought to give notice to the person of the Patron thereof if he be resident within the County and if not at the Church it self which is void XL. Mich. 27 28 Eliz. At Serjeants Inn. THis Case was referred by the Lords of Council to the Iustices for their opinions I.S. by Indenture between the Queen of the one part and himself of the other part reciting that where he is indebted to the Queen in eight hundred pounds to be paid in form following twenty pounds at every Feast of St. Michael until the whole sum aforesaid be paid covenanted and granted with the said Queen to convey unto the Lord Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer and to their Heirs certain Lands to the uses following viz. to the use of the said I.S. and his Heirs until such time as the said I. S. his Heirs Executors or Administrators shall make default in payment of any of the said sums and after such default to the use of the said Queen her Heirs and Successors until her Heirs and Successors shall have received of the issues and profits thereof such sums of money parcel of the said debt as shall be then behind and upaid and after the said debt so paid and received then to the use of the said I.S. and his Heirs for ever I.S. levyeth a Fine of the said Land to the said Lord Treasurer and the Barons to the uses aforesaid and afterwards being seised accordingly by deed indented and enrolled bargains and sels the said Land to a stranger default of payment is made the Queen seizeth and granteth it over to one and his Heirs quousque the money be paid and after the money is paid And upon conference of the Iudges amongst themselves at Serjeants Inn they were of opinion that now I.S. against his Indenture of bargain and sale should have his Lands again for at the time of the bargain and sale he had an estate in Fee determinable upon a default of payment ut supra Post 93. 3 Len. 43. Owen Rep. 6. 1 Inst 49. 2 which accrued to him by the first Indenture and the Fine which estate only passed by the said Indenture of bargain and sale and not the new estate which is accrued to him by the latter limitation after the debt paid for that was not in esse at the time of the bargain and sale but if the conveyance by bargain and sale had been by Feoffment or Fine then it had been otherwise for by such conveyance all uses and possibilities had been carried by reason of the forcible operation of it XLI Taylor and Moores Case Hill. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. TAylor brought Debt upon an Obligation against Moore Debt Error who pleaded in Bar upon which the Plaintiff did demurre and the Court awarded the Plea in Bar good upon which Iudgment the Plaintiff brought a Writ of Error and assigned Error in this that the Bar upon which he had demurred as insufficient was adjudged good Vpon which now in this Writ of Error the Bar was awarded insufficient and therefore the Iudgment reversed But the Court was in a doubt what Iudgment shall be given in the Case viz. whether the Plaintiff shall recover his debt and damages as if he had recovered in the first Action or that he shall be restored to his Action only c. And Wray cited the Case in 8 E. 4. 8. and the Case of Attaint 18 E. 4. 9. And at last it was awarded that the Plaintiff should recover his debt and damages See to that purpose 33 H 6. 31. H 7. 12 20. 7. Eliz. Dyer 235. XLII Higham and Harewoods Case Hill. 28. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. More Rep. 221. 3 Len. 132. IN an Ejectione firmae the Case was
the Letters Patents and the Office given by the Letters Patents ought to be exercised according to the Indenture c. And here appears upon the Declaration no Indenture for no enrolment of such Indenture is shewed and if it be not enrolled then there cannot be any Indenture betwixt the Queen c. and then the Qeeen cannot have an Action upon it for want of enrolment See 21 H. 7. 21. 1 H. 7. 28. and 31. 5 E. 4. 7. and also if there be not a sufficient Indenture then the Plaintiff is not Master of the Mint and then also there is not any new Indenture And then the Plaintiff ought to make the money according to the the old Standard and then might the Defendant well justifie the words Another Exception was taken because the Plaintiff is not at any damage for the Queen cannot have against him but an Action of Covenant upon the said Indenture because the Defendant hath not made the money accordingly which matter is not actionable no more than if the Farmer of the Queen had brought this Action against one for speaking that he had broken the condition or covenants of his Lease And as unto these words So that the Defendant hath saved four thousand pounds those words are not actionable for it may be he hath saved this four thousand pounds to the Queen and such construction the Iudges ought to make of such ambiguous words in such cases scil in optimam partem It was adjorned CXII Mounson and Wests Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Challenge 3 Len. 22â— IN an Action of Trespass between Mounson and West the parties were at Issue and now at the Return of the Pannel the Defendant challenged the Array because it was made by Bartholomew Armin who took to Wife the Cosin German of the Plaintiff ex ea had Issue living the mother being dead And upon this challenge the Plaintiff did demur in Law And it seemed to the Lord Anderson that it is not a principal challenge but only to Favour For the matter of the challenge is not consanguinity but only affinity And so it seemed to Periam And Rhodes cited a case adjudged in the Kings Bench. Markham brought an Action upon the Case against Lee who at the Nisi Prius challenged the Array because the Sheriffs wife was sister to the Plaintiffs Wife and that was before the Lord Dyer at Nottingham and that challenge was holden there not to be a principal challenge upon which Error was brought in the Kings Bench And Error assigned in that and for that cause the Iudgment was reversed And by Windham the Writ of Venire facias is quia nulla affinitate c. so as affinity is presumed in Law not indifferent And by Anderson that is to be intended of the Iurors and not of the Sheriff 22 E. 4. 2. The Array was challenged because that the Sheriff c. had married A. Daughter of Eliz. Sister of the Mother of the Plaintiff and that was holden a principal challenge 20 H. 7. 7. 26 E. 3. 21. And afterwards at another Term the Case being moved Anderson Rhodes and Windham were clear of opinion Dy. 37. 191. 319. that it is a principal challenge but Periam haesitavit and put a difference betwixt consanguinity and affinity for affinity is not a principal challenge unless it be averred that the Issue c. is inheritable to the Land. And Anderson put the Case in 14. H. 7. 2. Where one challenged because one of the Iurors had married the Mother of the Defendant it was holden a principal challenge And 15 H. 7. 9. where the challenge was for that the Brother of the Wife of the Defendant had married the Daughter of the Sheriff CXIII Sir Thomas Greshams Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer SIr Tho. Gresham being seised of the Manors of Walsingham and Milcham in the County of Norfolk 12 Eliz. Revocation of uses enfeoffed B. and C. to certain uses and that was with clause of Revocation upon the tender of forty shillings and that after such Revocation he might limit new uses and afterwards the year following Sir Tho. Gresham made the like conveyance of his Lands in the County of Suffolk to the said persons to the like uses upon like clause of Revocation upon the tender of forty shillings Sir Thomas tendered to the said Feoffees one sum of forty shillings to revoke the uses raised upon both the Feoffments afterwards raised divers uses of divers of the said Manors holden in Capite Dyer 372. and afterwards Sir Thomas died And afterwards it was resolved by the opinion of the Iustices that by that tender the uses were not revoked but that the Revocation was utterly void for two several sums of forty shillings ought to have been tendered for they were several Indentures and could not be satisfied by one sum After which by a private Act of Parliament 23 Eliz. the said Revocation was enacted and adjudged to be good and sufficient in Law. And now the Lady Gresham was called by process into the Exchequer for a Fine due to the Queen for the said alienation Fine for Alienation because that now the said uses newly raised were good and the said Manor possessed according to the limitation of them for now the Revocation is good because done by the said Statute which recited the whole special matter and that for want of a sufficient Tender the Revocation was void in Law and also reciting the new uses which were declared for the payment of his debts and many honorable Legacies also for the security of those who had purchased underneath the said new uses For remedy whereof it was enacted quod praedict Revocationes bonae sufficientes in lege habeantur reputentur recognoscantur And it was argued by Coke that upon the matter no Fine is due for all those new uses took their essence and effect by that Act of Parliament to which the Queen her self is a party and the principal Agent and therefore against her own Act she shall not claim a Fine c. And also the alienation without licence is a wrong and trespass and an Act of Parliament cannot do wrong and if partition be made betwixt Parceners by Act of Parliament no Fine is due to the Queen which was in ure 23 Eliz. for by Parliament then a Partition was made betwixt the Co-heirs of the Lord Latimer and I do not know that any Fine hath been demanded for it CXIV Bret and Sheppards Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt BRet brought Debt upon a Bond against Sheppard the Bond was endorced upon condition that where the Defendant was arrested at the sute of one A. if now the Defendant shall appear in the Kings Bench where the process is returnable that then c. And the Defendant said in fact that he had appeared secundum formam effectum conditionis supradict hoc
the custom might be known Also it appeareth here upon the Declaration that Trespass vi armis should lye and be brought for the Declaration is that the Defendant did break and pull down the Herdels which cannot be without express force as 42 E. 3. 24. Trespass upon the case against a Miller and declared that the Plaintiff used to grind at the said Mill without Toll and that he sent his corn to the said Mill to be ground and there the Defendant came and took two Bushels of his said corn And the Writ was upon the prescription to grind sine multura and that the Defendant praedict querent sine multura molire impedivit and by Award of the Court the Plaintiff took nothing by his Writ for he hath declared that the Defendant hath taken Toll and therefore he ought to have a general Writ of Trespass Beaumont to the contrary A Market is as well for the common Wealth as a Fishing Also he is at the costs for providing of Herdels and the erecting of them so as he hath declared he hath taken divers sums of mony for it and as to any sum not certain it is well enough for peradventure sometimes he hath taken a penny sometimes two pence as the parties could agree And as to the exception of vi armis the same is not material for the Plaintiff doth not rely upon the pulling down of the Herdels only but upon the loss of the mony also which he should have had if the Defendant had not broken his Herdels And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXLVIII Beverly and Bawdes Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. BEverly brought a Writ of Error to reverse an Out-lawry pronounced against him at the suit of one Bawdes and shewed Error that he was outlawed by the name John Beverly of Humby in the County of Lincoln Gent. And that within the said County there are two Humbyes scil Magna Humby Parva Humby and none without addition To which it was said of the other side that the truth is that there are two such Towns and that Humby Magna is known as well by the name of Humby only as taken for the name of Humby Magna And upon that they are at Issue And it was moved Tryal by Inquest of what County or place if the Inquest to try this Issue shall come de corpore comitatus or from Humby Magna And by Cooke it shall be tryed by an Inquest of Humby Magna and he confessed that if the Issue had been No such Town then the Inquest ought to be of the body of the County but here is another Issue to be tryed 22 E. 4. 4. In Trespass done in Fulborn and Hinton in the County of C. The Defendant said that there is no such Town nor Hamlet of Hinton within the same County Iudgment of the Writ See there by Briggs the tryal shall be de corpore comitatus See 14 H. 6. 8. Over-dale and Nether-dale and none without addition and so at Issue tryed by them of the body of the County 35 H. 6. 12. And by him wheresoever an Issue may be tryed by an Inquest out of a special Visne there it shall never be tryed by the body of the County As the case before 22 E. 4. Trespass in two Towns A. and B. The Def. as to A. pleads there was no such Town and as to B. pleaded another plea. Now the whole Inquest shall come out of B. for the Inquest in one Town may try any thing within the same County which see Fitz. Visne 27. 22 E. 4. 4. And here in our case the Issue is if Humby Magna be as well known by the name of Humby only as by the name of Humby Magna And therefore the same may well be tryed by Inquest out of the Town of Humby Magna But by Wray Iustice this Issue doth amount to no such Town for the perclose of the plea is and no Humby without addition and the book cited out of 22 E. 4. is not ruled but is only the opinion of Brian and afterwards it was awarded that the tryal was well Another matter was objected because it is not shewed in the Writ of Error betwixt what parties the first Writ did depend for otherwise how can the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error have a Scire facias ad audiendum Errores if none be named in the Writ of Error against whom it shall issue And Godfrey affirmed that upon search of Presidents it was both ways so as it is at the pleasure of the Plaintiff to do it or not And Kemp Secondary shewed divers Presidents to that purpose And afterwards the Out-lawry was reversed CXLIX Cibel and Hills Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt for a Nemine pene A Lease was made of a certain House and Land rendring Rent and another sum Nomine poenae and for the Nominae poenae the Lessor brought an Action of Debt The Lessee pleaded that the Lessor had entred into parcel of the Land demised Roll. Tit. Extinguishment upon which they were at Issue and found for the Plaintiff and now the Lessor brought Debt for the Rent reserved upon the same Lease to which the Defendant pleaded ut supra scil an Entry into parcel of the Land demised And issue was joyned upon it And one of the Iury was challenged and withdrawn because he was one of the former Iury And the Issue now was whether the said Cibel the Lessor expulit amovit adhuc extra tenet the said Hills And to prove the same it was given in Evidence on the Defendants part that upon the Land demised there was a Brick-kill and and thereupon a little small cottage and that the Lessor entred and went to the said cottage and took some of the Bricks and untiled the said cottage Suspension of Rent by entry upon part of the Land. But of the other side it was said that the Lessor had reserved to himself the Bricks and Tiles aforesaid which in truth were there ready made at the time of the Lease made and that he did not untile the Brick-kill house but that it fell by tempest and so the Plaintiff did nothing but came upon the Land to carry away his own goods And also he had used the said Bricks and Tiles upon the reparation of the house And as to the Extra tenet which is parcel of the Issue the Lessor did not continue upon the Land Hob. 326. Rolls ubi supra Post 172. but went off it and relinquished the possession But as to this last point it seemed to the Court that it is not material if the Plaintiff continued his possession there or not for if he once doth any thing which amounts to an Entry although that he depart presently yet the possession is in him sufficient to suspend the Rent and he shall be said extra tanere the Defendant the Lessee until he hath done an Act which doth
in the Case which gives cause of suit in Chancery for they will not order a matter there which is directly against a Rule and Maxim of the common Law. As if a Feme Covert be bound c. and the Obligee bring her into the Chancery and if a man threaten me that if I will not pay to him ten pounds he will sue me in Chancery upon which I promise to pay it him no Action will lye And an Infant is not chargeable upon any contract but for his meat drink and necessary Apparel 19 Z. 4. 2. And in Debt upon such necessary Contract the Plaintiff ought to declare specially so as the whole certainty may appear upon which the Court may judge if the expense were necessary and convenient or not and upon the reasonableness of the price for otherwise if the necessity of the thing and reasonableness of the price doth not appear the Chancellor himself would not give any remedy or recompence to the party Wray Justice conceived that the Action would not lye for the contract was void and the Infant in an Action against him upon it may plead Nihil debet And if an Infant sell goods for money and doth not deliver them but the Vendee takes them he is a Trespassor but if the Infant had been bounden in an Obligation with a surety and afterwards at his full age he in consideration thereof promiseth to keep his surety harmless upon that promise an Action lyeth for the Infant cannot plead non est factum which see Mich. 28 29 Eliz. in the Case of one Edmunds And afterwards it was adjudged against the Plaintiff CLVII Charnock and Worsleys Case Trin. 30 Eliz. Rot 833. In the Kings Bench. Owen 21. 1 Cr. 129. CHarnock and his Wife brought a Writ of Error against Worsley the Case was that the Husband and Wife the Wife being within age levyed a Fine and the Wife upon inspection was adjudged within age it was moved if the Fine should be utterly reversed or as to the Wife only should stand against the Husband by Godfrey the Book of 50 E. 3. 6. was vouched where it is said by Candish that where such a Fine is reversed the Plaintiff shall not have execution till after the death of the Husband and by Coke and Atkinson a Fine acknowledged by the Husband and Wife is not like to a Feoffment made by them for in case of Feoffment something passeth from the Husband but in case of a Fine all passeth out of the Wife and the Conusee is in by her only And Atkinson shewed a Precedent in 2 H. 4. where the Fine was reversed for the whole and also another Precedent P. b. H. 8. Rot. 26. A Fine levyed betwixt Richard Elie Plaintiff and N. Ford. and Jane his Wife Deforceants the Wife being within age and Iudgment was given quod finis praedict adnulletur pro nullo penitus habeatur and that the Husband and Wife should be restored and thereupon a Writ issued to the Custos Brevium to bring into Court the Foot of the Fine and it was presently cancelled in Court. Wray this is a strong Precedent and we will not varse from it if other Precedents are not contrary Gawdy who was the same day made Iustice the Fine cannot be reversed as to one and stand as to the other and resembled it to the Case of Littleton 150. where Land is given to Husband and Wife in tail before coverture and the Husband aliens and takes back an estate to him and his Wife for their lives they both are remitted for the Wife cannot be remitted if the Husband be not remitted And a Precedent was cited to the contrary 7 Eliz. where the Case was that the Husband and Wife levyed a Fine the Husband died the Wife being within age the Wife took another Husband and they brought a Writ of Error and the Wife by inspection adjudged within age Fine reversed as to one to stand good against another and the Fine was reversed as to the Wife and her Heirs And it was argued by Golding that here the Writ of Error ought to abate for the Writ is too general whereas it ought to be special Ex querela A.B. nobis humillime supplicantis accepimus c. See the Book of Entries 278. Also the purclose of the Writ is ad damnum impsorum the Husband and the Wife whereas the Wife only hath loss by it and as to the Fine it self he conceived that it should be reversed but as to the Wife as if a man of full age and a man within age levy a Fine in a Writ of Error brought the Fine shall be reversed as to the Infant only and shall stand against the other and he cited the Case of the Lord Mountjoy 14. Eliz. Where a man seised in the right of his Wife acknowledged a Statute and afterwards he and his Wife levyed a Fine and he said that during the life of the Husband the Conusee of the Fine should hold the Land charged with the Statute Also in the Precedent of 2 H. 4. the Iudgment is that propter hunc alios errores the Fine should be reversed and I conceive that another Error was in the said Writ for which the Fine might be reversed in all viz. the Fine was levyed of two parts of the Manor of D. without saying in tres partes dividend And see that where two parts are demanded in a Writ 3 Co. 58 59. Modern Rep. 182. the Writ shall say so Brief 244 Coke contrary and as to the last matter I confess the Law is so in a Writ but not in a Fine for the same is but a Conveyance for it I be seised of a Manor and I grant to you two parts of the said Manor it is clear it shall be intended in three parts to be divided And as to the principal matter I conceive when the Fine is levyed by the Husband and Wife it shall be intended that the Land whereof c. is the Inheritance of the Wife if the contrary be not shewed and therefore if the party will have an especial Reversal he ought to shew the special matter as in Englishes Case A Fine was levyed by Tenant for life and he in the reversion being within age bringeth a Writ of Error now the Fine shall be reversed as to him in the Reversion but not as to the Tenant for life but here it shall be intended the Inheritance of the Wife and that the Husband hath nothing but in the right of his Wife and therefore she shall be restored to the whole for nothing passeth from the Husband but he is named with his Wife only for conformity 11 H. 7. 19. A. takes to Wife an Inheretrir who is attainted of Felony the King shall not have the Land presently by which it appeareth that all is in the Wife and she shall be restored to the whole and the Iudgment shall be according to the Presidents cited
plead it specially but as our case is here is no Act to be done but a permittance as abovesaid and it is in the Negative not a disturbance in which case permisit is a good plea and then it shall come on the other side on the Plaintiffs part to shew in what Lands the Defendant non permisit Which difference see agreed 17 E. 4. 26. by the whole Court. And such was the opinion of the whole Court in the principal case 1 Co. 127. Another Exception was taken to it that the Defendant had covenanted that his brother Edward should pay to the Plaintiff the said Rent To which the Defendant pleaded that his said brother had payed to the Platntiff before the said Feast of Michaelmas in full satisfaction of the said Rent three shillings and that was holden a good plea and upon the matter the Covenant well performed for there is not any Rent in this Case for here is not any Lease and therefore not any Rent For if A. covenant with B. that C. shall have his Land for so many years rendring such a Rent 1 Roll. 847. 1 Cro. 173. Owen 97. here is not any Lease and therefore neither Rent But if A. had covenanted with C. himself it had been otherwise because it is betwixt the same parties And if the Lessee covenant to pay his Rent to the Lessor and he payeth it before the day the same is not any performance of the Covenant causa patet contrary of a sum in gross Another Covenant was that the said Humphry solveret ex parte dicti Edwardi 20 l. to which the Defendant pleaded that he had paid ex parte dicti Humfridi 20 l. and that defect was holden incureable and therefore the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover CLXXXVII Geslin and Warburtons Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Cro. 128. IN an Ejectione firmae by Joan Geslin against Hen. Warburton and Sebastian Crispe of Lands in Dickilborough in the County of Norf. Mich. 30. 31 Eliz. rot 333. upon the general Issue the Iury found a special verdict that before the Trespass supposed one Martin Frenze was seised of the Lands of which the Action was brought in tail to him and his Heirs males of his body so seised suffered a common Recovery to his own use Devises and afterwards devised the same in this manner I give my said Land to Margaret my Wife until such time as Prudence my Daughter shall accomplish the age of nineteen years the Reversion to the said Prudence my Daughter and to the Heirs of her body Lawfully begotten upon condition that she the said Prudence shall pay unto my said Wife yearly during her life in recompence of her Dower of and in all my Lands 12 pounds and if default of payment be made then I will that my said Wife shall enter and have all my Lands during her life c. the Remainder ut supra the Remainder to John Frenze in tail c. Martin Frenze died Margaret entred the said Prudence being within the age of fourteen years Margaret took to Husband one of the Defendants John Frenze being Heir male to the former tail brought a Writ of Error upon the said Recovery and assigned Error because the Writ of Entry upon which the Recovery was had was Praecipe quod reddat unum Messuag and twenty acras prati in Dickelborough Linford Hamblets without naming any Town And thereupon the Iudgment was reversed And it was further found that in the said Writ of Error and the process upon it Hutt 106. 2 Cro. 574. 3 Cro. 196. no Writ of Scire facias issued to warn dictam Prudentiam ten existentem liberi ten praemissorum ad ostendendam quid haberet vel dicere sciret quare Judicium praedict non reversaretur The Iury further found that the said Margaret depending the said Writ of Error was possessed virtute Testamenti ultimae voluntatis dict Martini reversione inde expectant dictae Prudentiae pro ut lex postulat And they further found Error that six pound of the said tewlve pounds were unpaid to the said Margaret at the Feast c. and they found that the said John Frenze praetextu Judicii sic reversat entred into the premisses as Heir male ut supra And so seised a Fine was levyed betwixt John Frenze Plaintiff and one Edward Tindal Owen 157. Dyer 321. 1 Cro. 471. 739. and the said Prudence his Wife Deforceants and that was to the use of the said John Frenze And that afterwards Humphry Warburton and the said Margaret his Wife brought a Writ of Dower against the said John Frenze Edw. Tindal and Prudence his Wife of the said Lands The said Edward and Prudence made default and the Demandants counted against the said Frenze and demanded against him the moity of the third part of the said Lands To which the said Frenze pleaded that the default of the said Edward and Prudence idem John Frenze nomine non debet quia he said that he the said John was sole seised of the Lands aforesaid at the time of the Writ brought c. and pleaded in Bar and it was found against the said John and Iudgment given for the Demandants of the third part of the whole Land and seisin accordingly And that afterwards 17 Eliz. the said Frenze levyed the Fine to the said Tindal to the use of the said Tindal and his Heirs And they found that after the said Feast the said Henry Warburton and Margaret his Wife came to the Messuage aforesaid half an hour before Sun-set of the said day and there did demand the Debt of the said twelve pounds Dower to the said Margaret by the said Martin Frenze devised to be paid unto them and there remained till after Sun-set of the said day demanding the Rent aforesaid and that neither the said Tindal nor any other was there ready to pay the same And first it was moved if the said yearly sum of twelve pounds appointed to be paid to the said Margaret were a Rent or but a sum in gross And the opinion of the Court was that it was a Rent and so it might be fitly collected out of the whole Will where it is said that Prudence his Daughter should have the Land and that she should pay yearly to Margaret twelve pounds in recompence of her Dower c. But if it be not a Rent but a sum in gross it is not much material to the end of the case For put case it be a Rent the same not being pleaded in Bar the Dower is well recovered and then when default of payment is made if the Wife of the Devisor shall have the whole was the Question And the Court was clear of opinion that by the suit and Iudgment in the Writ of Dower the Wife of the Devisor had lost all the benefit which was to come to her by the devise For the said Rent was devised to her in recompence of
fide non pro usura and that Issue was tryed in the County of Stafford and was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that that Issue ought to be tryed in London where the contract was made Gawdy conceived that the tryal is well As 8 E. 3. 8. In debt upon an Obligation in London the Defendant pleaded that the Obligation was made by duresse at York the same Issue shall be tryed at York At another day the case was put more certain scil that the contract was made at W. in Stafford-shire by which it was agreed that for a Horse and two Tun of Iron the Plaintiff should have for them and the forbearing of the mony for such a small time fifty pounds whereas in truth they were but of the value of forty pounds Tryal and that the said Bond was made for the payment of the said fifty pounds Cook The Issue is well tryed for the ground of the matter is the usurious contract and those of Stafford-shire may better know it than they of London And according to this Tryal it hath been before adjudged H. 28. Eliz. rot 209. Betwixt Sybthorpe and Turner And P. 31. Eliz. rot 303. betwixt Payne and Wilkenson where the Issue was absque hoc that it was a corrupt agreement but the pleading was ut supra And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCVII. The Queen and Buckberds Case Trin. 36 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Queen recovered against Buckberd in a Quare Impedit Quare Impedit 1 Cro. 162. and thereupon a Writ of Error was brought and it was assigned for Error that the Queen post tempus semestre had Iudgment to recover damages for the value of the Church for half a year Cook The same is no Error as it was adjudged 7 Eliz. 236. See also 34 H. 6. 51. And these damages are not as damages but as a penalty inflicted upon the disturbance See Book of Entries 483. The King in a Quare Impedit counted to his damage of forty pounds and 484. 1000 li. and although tempus semestre transierit yet the King shall recover damages but the value of the Church for half a year for the King at all times may present in his own right for nullum tempus occurrit Regi Damages in a Quare Impedit where by King e contra At another day it was moved by Fenner Serjeant and he conceived that here the Queen is not to recover damages for she doth not present in her own right for the Incumbent had two Benefices without Qualifications therefore the first was void and the Lapse encurred and therefore the Queen did present in the right of the Crown and so is not verus Patronus 14 E. 3. Quare Impedit 54. The King shall not recover damages although he count of damages 3 H. 6. Damages 17. And as to the case of 7 Eliz. it doth not appear there that the King did present by reason of his Prerogative he shewed divers Presidents that the King shall not recover damages in such case P. 7. H. 5. rot 402. 2 H. 6. rot 316. For the Statute was intended to give damages to the very Patron and not otherwise Cook Where the King presents by Lapse he is verus Patronus hac vice as Grantee of the next Avoidance Vide T.E. 1. Quare Impedit 181. The King recovered damages in the case of a Prior. Godfrey said he had searched the Roll of 7 Eliz. and there is more reported in the Book than is in the Roll for Iudgment is given for the Presentee but as for the damages the Court would advise of it Gawdy It is clear that the Queen shall not recover double damages Where only single damages for she cannot lose her presentment quia nullum tempus occurrit and because eo quod tempus semestre transierit but she shall have single damages for they are given for the wrong and disturbance and not for the presentment and therefore the damages are well awarded Wray If the King be not within one part of the Statute as it is agreed as to the double damages it is hard that he be within the other branch Popham Attorney general The Queen ought to recover damages but only single damages but not double damages and the words of the Statute are general therefore the Queen shall have the benefit of it and of all Statutes made for the benefit of the Subjects the King shall take advantage The Statute of Gloucester gives damages in a Writ of Cosinage Aiâ— and Besail and the King brings an Action upon the seisin of his Ancestors he shall recover damages and in construction of Statutes the opinions of them which were next to the making of them is to be much respected Vide 19 E. 2. Rot. 90 19 E. 1. Rot. 255 231 136. And always the King counts to his damage c. and that should be in vain if he should not recover damages And as to the Presidents shewed to the contrary that was the default of those Clerks which the King had presented and when in a Quare Impedit the King had prevailed they contented themselves with the Incumbency without regard of the damages But if damages be not to be given yet the Iudgment to recover the presentment is not erronious And the Iudgment only as to the giving of damages shall be reversed and the Defendant in the Quare Impedit here shall not assign the same for Error because no damages are given 5 Co. 58. for it is for his advantage And always where it is found for the Queen in a Quare Impedit they enquire of the value of the Church A man shall not assign for error that which is for his advantage which should be a trivolous thing if the Queen should not recover damages Gawdy Of things transitorie the Queen may be disturbed and if she be wherefore shall she not recover damages but the doubt is if the intent of the Statute be if the party shall have single damages in any case And here in this case the Iudgment is one and entire and if it be reversed in part it shall be reversed in the whole as in Dower the Tenant pleads that he is always ready c. the Demandant shall have Iudgment to recover her Dower and a Writ shall issue forth to enquire of the damages And see also 17 E. 3. In an Assize of Darrein presentment the Plaintiff had Iudgment to have a Writ to the Bishop And the Assize was taken after for the damages And in the mean time the Defendant brought a Writ of Error and it was holden maintainable for they are several Iudgments but it is not so here for the Entry is Quod querens habeat bre Episcopo quia nescitur quae damna c. for it is one Iudgment Wray It is but one Statute and therefore it shall be construed with one construction and it should
case And at another day it was objected That the Deed could not be acknowledged without a Letter of Attorney being a Corporation which consisted upon divers persons as Prioress and Covent and they are alwaies to be intended to be in their Chapter-house and cannot come into Court to acknowledge a Deed To which it was answered by Cook That this acknowledgment being generally pleaded it shall be intended that it was done by a Lawful means and there is no doubt but that such a Corporation may levy a Fine and make a Letter of Attorney to acknowledge it and see 2 Ma. Fulmerstones case 105. It was further objcted 2 Inst 674. That this Deed was enrolled the same day that it beareth date for the pleading is per factum suum gerens Datum 2 Novemb. 29 Hen. 8. et iisdem die anno irrotulat And by the Statute such a Deed ought to be enrolled within six Months next after the date so as the day of the date is excluded and so it is not enrolled within six Months As to that it was answered by Cook That the time of computation doth begin presently after the delivery of the Deed as in the common Cases of Leases If a man makes a Lease for years to begin from the day of the date the same is exclusive but if it be To have and to hold from the date of the Deed it shall begin presently And an Ejectment supposed the same day is good and then here this Enrolment is within the six Months Dyer 220. b. 1 Cro. 717. and yet see 5 Eliz. 128. Dyer Pophams case It was also objected That it is alledged in the conusans That the Manor was sold to the Lord Audley and that the Deed of Bargain and Sale was acknowledged and enrolled in the Chancery the said Lord being then Lord Chancelor and he cannot take an acknowledgment of a Deed or enrolment of it to himself for he is the Sole Iudge in the said Court so as the Deed is acknowledged before himself and enrolled before himself and that is good enough for here we are not upon the common Law but upon the Statute and here the words of the Statute are performed And the enrolment of the Deed is not the substance of the Deed but the Deed it self Also the acknowledgment of the Deed after it is enrolled is not material for he is estopped to say that it is not acknowledged And as to the matter it self a man shall not have averment against the purport of a Record but against the operation of a Record as not put in view not comprised partes ad finem nihil haberunt c. And against Letters Pattens of the King Non concessit is a good plea which see 18 Eliz. for by such plea it is agreed that it is a Record but that nihil operatur CCLVIII. Osborn and Kirtons Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Rot. 258. IN Debt upon an Obligation The Defendant cast a Protection Debt upon which the Plaintiff did demur Tanfield The Protection is not good for the Defendant is let to Bail and so is intended always in prison for so the Record makes mention and then the Protection quia moratur in portubus Zeland is against the Record Protection and the Court ought to give credit to Records especially Secondly The words of the Protection are That Kirton is imployed in Obsequio nostro which is no cause of protection for the usual form and so is the Law that such a person be imployed in negotio Regni for the defence of England c. For if the King will give aid unto another Princes Subjects employed in such service he shall not have Protection And afterwards variance was objected betwixt the Bill and Declaration and the Protection for the Bill is against John Kirton of A. Gentleman the Protection is John Kirton only But the same was holden no such variance being only in the Addition for before the Statute 1 H 5. additions were not necessary in any actions CCLIX Boyton and Andrews Case Mich. 30 Eliz. Rot. 156. In the Kings Bench. IN Debt upon an Obligation the Condition was Debt 1 Cro. 135. to make sufficient assurance of certain Lands to the Obligee before the tenth day of March 17 Eliz. And if it fortune the said Obligee be unwilling to receive or mislike such assurance but shall make Request to have one hundred pounds for satisfaction thereof Then if upon such Request the Obligor pay one hundred pounds within five months That then the Obligation shall be void And at the day the Obligee doth refuse the assurance and afterwards 27 Eliz. request is made to have the hundred pounds It was the clear opinion of the whole Court That the said Request was well enough for the time and he might make it at any time during his life he is not restrained to make it before the day in which the Assurance is to be made and afterwards judgment was given for the Plaintiff CCLX Knight and Savages Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. Rot. 546. In the Kings Bench. A Writ of Error was brought upon a Iudgment given in Leicester in Debt Tanfield assigned Error Error 2 Cro. 206. 2 Cro. 109. 654. Sty 91. Yel 164. 165. Post 302. because in that Suit there was not any plaint and in all inferior Courts the plaint is as the original at the common Law and without that no process can issue forth And here upon the Record nothing is entred but that the Defendant summonitus fuit c. and therefore the first entry ought to be A. B. queritur adversus C c. Clench A Plaint ought to be entred before process issueth the summons which is entred here is not any plaint and for that cause the Iudgment was reversed It was said That after the Defendant appeared a Plaint was entred but it was said by the Court That that shall not mend the matter for there ought to be a plaint out of which the process shall issue as in the Courts above out of the original Writs CCLXI Kirby and Eccles Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 137. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared Quod cum quaedam communicatio fuisset betwixt the Plaintiff and one Cowper That Cowper should mast certain Hogs for the Plaintiff the Defendant did promise That in consideration that the Plaintiff promised give unto the Defendant three shillings and four pence for the fatting of every Hog That the said Hogs should be redelivered to him well fatted to which promise and warranty the Plaintiff giving faith delivered to the said Cowper one hundred and fifty Hogs to be masted and that one hundred of them were delivered back but the residue were not It was moved That here is not any consideration for which the Defendant should be charged with any promise but it was argued on the other side That the Promise was the cause
good as a new devise in Reversion upon the precedent Condition and not as a Remainder quod Windham concessit but Periam was very strong of opinion That it is a Limitation Two Ioyntenants of a Term A. and B. A. grants his part to B. nothing passeth by it for as a Grant it cannot be good Owen 102. 1 Cro. 314. 1 Inst 186. for as one Ioyntenant cannot enfeost his Companion no more can he vest any thing in him by grant for he cannot grant to him a thing which he hath before for Ioyntenants are seised and possessed of the whole all which was granted per Curiam and Anderson said That if Lands be granted to A. and B. and the Heirs of A. B. cannot surrender to A. for a Surrender is as it were a grant And as a Release it cannot enure for a Release of a Right in Chattels cannot be without a Deed. CCCLXXXIV Hollingshed and Kings Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt HOllingshed brought Debt against King and declared That King was bounden to him in a Recognizance of two hundred pounds before the Mayor and Aldermen of London in interiori Camera de Guildhall London upon which Recognizance the said Hollingshed heretofore brought a Scire facias before the said Mayor c. in exteriori Camera and there had Iudgment to recover upon which Recovery he hath brought this Action and upon this Declaration the Defendant did demur in Law because that in setting forth of the Recognizance he hath not alledged That the Mayor of London hath Authority by Prescription or Grant to take Recognizances and if he hath not then is the Recognizance taken Coram non Judice and so void And as to the Statute of West 2. cap. 45. It cannot be taken to extend to Recognizances taken in London which see by the words De his quae recordat sunt coram Cancellario Domini Regis ejus Justiciariis qui Recordum habent in Rotulis eorum Irrotulatur c. And also at the time of the making of that Statute 1 Cro. 186 187. London had not any Sheriffs but Bayliffs and the said Statute ordains that Process shall go to Sheriffs c. But the whole Court was clear of a contrary opinion for they said We will know that those of London have a Court of Record and every Court of Record hath an Authority incident to it to take Recognizances for all things which concern the Iurisdiction of the said Court and which arise by reason of matters there depending Another matter was objected for that the Recognizance was taken in interiori Camera but the Court was holden in exteriori Camera and therefore not pursuant But as to that it was said by the Lord Anderson That admit that the Recognizance was not well taken yet because that in the Scire facias upon it the Defendant did not take advantage then thereof he shall be bounden by his said admittance of it as if one sue forth a Scire facias as upon a Recognizance whereas in truth there is not any Recognizance and the party pleads admitting such Record and thereupon Iudgment is given against him it is nor void but voidable Fleetwood Recorder of London alledged many Cases to prove that the Courts of the King are bounden to take notice Priviledges of London That they of London have a Court of Record for if a Quo warranto issueth to Iustices in Eyre it behoves not them of London to claim their Liberties for all Courts of the King are to take notice of them And at last after many motions the opinion of the Court was for the Plaintiff And it was said by Anderson and in manner agreed by the whole Court That if depending this Demurrer here the Iudgment in London upon the Scire facias be reversed yet the Court here must proceed and not take notice of the said Reversal CCCLXXXV Bedingfeild and Bedingfeilds Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Dower DOwer was brought by Anne Bedingfeild against Thomas Bedingfeild The Tenant out of the Chancery purchased a Writ De circumspecte agatis setting forth this matter That it was found by Office in the County of Norfolk that the Husband oâ— the Demandant was seised of the Manor of N. in the said County and held the same of the Queen by Knights Service in chief and thereof dyed seised the Tenant being his Son and Heir of full age by reason whereof the Queen seised as well the said Manor as other Manors and because the Queen was to restore the Tenements tam integre Primer seisin c. as they came to her hands it was commanded the Iudges to surcease Domina regina inconsulta It was resolved per Curiam That although the Queen be entituled to have Primer seisin of all the Lands whereof the Husband of the Demandant dyed seised yet this Writ did not extend unto any Manors not found in the Office for by the Law the Queen cannot seise more Lands than those which are contained in the Office And therefore as to the Land not found by the Office the Court gave day to the Tenant to plead in chief And it was argued by Serjeant Gawdy for the Tenant That the Demandant ought to sue in the Chancery because that the Queen is entituled to have her Primer Seisin and cited the case of 11 R. 2. and 11 H. 4. 193. And after many motions It was clearly agreed by the Court That the Tenant ought to answer over for the Statute De Bigamis Cap. 3. provides that in such case The Iustices shall proceed notwithstanding such seisin of the King and where the King grants the custody of the Tenant himself 1 H. 7. 18 19. 4 H. 7. 1. A Multo fortiori against the Heir himself where he is of full age notwithstanding the possession of the King for his Primer seisin By the Statute of Bigamis after the Heir was of full age the Wife could not be endowed in the Chancery But now by the Prerogative of the King such wives may be endowed there Si viduae illae voluerint and after many motions The Court awarded That the Tenant should plead in chief at his peril for the Demandant might sue at the common Law if she pleased CCCLXXXVI Hill. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was Exchange The Husband was seised of Lands in the right of his Wif the Husband and his Wife both joyned in exchange of the Lands with a stranger for other Lands which exchange was executed the Husband and the Wife seised of the Lands taken in exchange aliened the same by Fine It was holden by Rhodes and Windham Iustices That the Wife after the death of her Husband might enter into her own Lands notwithstanding that Fine And Rhodes resembled it to the case reported by my Lord Dyer 19 Eliz. 358. The Husband after marriage assured to his Wife a Ioynture they both levy a Fine 1 Inst 36.
it should be lawful for the Defendant to cut down good for Fire-boot and Hedge-boot without making any wast or cutting more than necessary And the Plaintiff assigned the breach in that Covenant which is in truth the Covenant of the Plaintiff that the Defendant had committed wast in felling wood c. And the Condition was to perform all Covenants and Agreements And Exception was taken because that the Condition ought to extend but unto Covenants to be performed on the part of the Lessee but the Exception was not allowed for it is the Agreement of the Lessee although it be the Covenant of the Lessor the Plaintiff CCCCLVIII Foster and Wilson against Mapes Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Covenant Ow. 100. 1 Cro. 212. FOster and Wilson brought an action of Covenant against Mapes and declared That by certain Indentures of Articles it was agreed betwixt the Plaintiffs and the Defendant whereof one part was sealed with the seal of the Defendant and the other with the seals of the Plaintiffs that whereas the Defendant had leased to the Plaintiffs the Parsonage of B he covenanted That he would keep the Plaintiffs harmless concerning the same against one N. B And declared further That the said N.B. had entred upon them And that at the time of the making of the Indentures he was Parson of B. The Defendant had pleaded Non est factum and it was found by special Verdict That the Defendant sealed one part of the Indentures and that one of the Plaintiffs only sealed the other part Exception was taken to the Declaration because there is not set forth in it any sufficient breach for when the Defendant Covenants to save the Plaintiffs harmless against B. the same is to be intended of a lawful Eviction As in Puttenhams Case 13 Eliz. Dyer 306. But if the Covenant had been That the Lessee should peaceably enjoy the Term sine ejectione interruptione alicujus personae upon an unlawful entry of a wrong doer an action lieth See 16 Eliz. Dyer 328. And here the finding of N.B. to be Parson at the time is to no purpose And there is not layed any express title in N.B. but only by implication for it might be that the Parson had leased to the Defendant rendring Rent with clause of re-entry and the Parson had entred for the Condition broken and the Plaintiffs ought to have shewed and not generally that he had entred and that he was Parson Also it is layed That N. B. was Parson at the time of the Entry but it is not shewed what Entry which may be taken that he was Parson at the time the Plaintiffs entred by virtue of their Lease and not when the said N. B. entred upon the Plaintiffs Also the Plaintiffs have not declared That they had entred by force of the Lease aforesaid and if not then they cannot be ejected c. and then no breach of Covenant Pudsey contrary We have declared that the Parsonage was demised to us and that N. B. being Parson hath entred and the Record was read i. That where the Defendant had demised to the Plaintiffs the Parsonage of B. It was agreed That the Defendant always should keep harmless the Plaintiffs and the Premisses against N.B. for and concerning omnibus pertinentiis c. Tanfield The breach is well laid and the words of the Covenants amount to as much as if he had said that he would keep them from all interruption and the difference is when the Covenant is general i. keep harmless c. the same doth not extend but to a lawful interruption but when it is special against such as one there is extends to any interruption whatsoever Gawdy Iustice conceived That the breach of Covenant is well laid i. that N. B. hath entred upon them and removed them 1 Inst 384. and be it by wrong or by right the same is a breach for he hath not kept harmless the Plaintiffs for the premisses and profits of them against N.B. 2. E. 4. 15. A Bond was endorsed upon condition That the Obligor should defend to the Obligee for such a time such Land whereof he had before enfeoffed him It was holden That if a stranger ousteth the Obligee without any Title the Bond is forfeited by reason of the word Defend And although the Plaintiffs have not laid in their Declaration that they have entred the same is not material for it is not the point of the Action Fenner Iustice conceived That the difference put at the Bar betwixt general Covenant and special is good Law and that in case of such a special Covenant interruption without Title gives an Action but he conceived that because it is not alledged that the Plaintiffs had entred that there was no breach of Covenant See 9 Eliz. Dyer 257. Wray The words of the Covenant do amount to peaceable enjoying during the Term and so to an interruption without Title Fenner 18 E. 4. 27. A. is bound to B. to save B. harmless from an Obligation made by the Plaintiff to one R. if R. affirm a plaint of Debt against the said Plaintiff upon the said Bond the Bond of A. is forfeit but here the Plaintiffs cannot be harmed for they have not entred Gawdy The conclusion of the Declaration is That N.B. entred upon the profits and removed them so as they could not take the profits thereof so it is implied that the Plaintiffs had entred and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCLIX Marshes Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. MArsh Executor of one Nicholson Error by Executors to reverse an Attainder of the Testator Owen Rep. 147. 1 Cro. 22. brought a Writ of Error to reverse an Outlawry in Felony had against his Testator the Error assigned was plain but it was moved that this Writ of Error would not lye Gawdy The Action will well lye for by this Suit the Plaintiff intends to reverse and so undo the Outlawry for which cause this matter ought not to be objected against him for the Executor may have this Action as well as the Heir Fenner Iustice Where the principal reverseth the Attainder the same shall extend to the Accessory In Assise against Tenant and disseisor each of them may have a Writ of Error and the reversal by the one shall make void the Record as to both and he needs not any Garnishment for by intendment the King is to have all his goods and the King is always presumed present in this Court quod tota Curia concessit and therefore there needs not any Garnishment by Scire facias but Wray said we use in such cases to call the Attorney General of the King to know if he can say any thing wherefore the Outlawry should not be reversed The Error assigned was That the Exigent issued forth into London and the Sheriff returned that he had proclaimed the party de Com. in Com. quousque c. where he ought say de Hustingo in Hustingum and
licence by recovery c. N. Vaux the surviving Feoffee died having issue W. Lord Vaux the purchasor died seised his Son and Heir 14 Eliz. levied a Fine Sur Conusans de droit c. and that Fine was levied to the use of the Conusee c. and that without licence The Lord Vaux within five years after the Fine levied entred for the condition broken and now issued forth a Scire facias against the Conusee for that alienation without licence who made default whereupon issued process to seize the Lands whereupon came Sir Tho. Tresham Fine for Alienation without Licence and shewed the whole matter aforesaid and prayed to be discharged It was said that this Prerogative to have a Fine for alienation without licence had lately beginning upon the original creation of Seignories so as this prerogative is as it were paramount the Seignory and shall go paramount the Condition as well as the Condition is paramount the Alienation but if the disseisor of the Tenant of the King maketh a Feoffment in Fee now upon the entry of the disseisee the person of the Feoffee shall be charged with a Fine but the Land by the re-entry of the disseisee is discharged and such is the opinion of the Lord Frowick in his Reading upon the Statute of Prerogativa Regis and the reason is because the disseisor is not Tenant to the King and so when he aliens it cannot be said an Alienation by the Kings Tenant See 45 E. 3. 6. If the Tenant of the King in chief seaseth for life with licence and afterwards grants the Reversion over without licence Entry for Condition what acts it shall defeat the Tenant for life is not bound to atturn in a Quid juris clamat wherfore it seems that if such Tenant doth attorn the King shall seize presently This Entry for the Condition broken is not to have so violent a retrospect to the first livery to which the Condition was annexed that it shall defeat all things mean between the Creation and the breach of the Condition but it shall defeat all mean things which rise upon the act of the party as Rent Dower c. But charges which accrue by reason of Tenure do remain notwithstanding the Entry for the Condition broken As if such a Tenant of the King maketh a Feoffment in Fee upon condition which is broken the Feoffee dieth seised his Heir of full age the Feoffor re-entereth this re-entry by force of the condition broken hath not so avoided the descent but the King shall have Relief upon the said descent for the Relief is paramount the Livery and the condition So if a Feoffee upon condition disclaim in Avowry Condition shall not avoid an Interest vested by which the Lord brings a Writ of Right Sur Disclaimer and hath Iudgment the Feoffee entreth for the condition broken the said re-entry shall not avoid the interest of the Lord by the Iudgment on the Writ of Disclaimer but he may enter at his pleasure and it was moved by Plowden who argued for Tresham that if the Tenant of the King being Non Compos mentis makes a Feoffment in Fee and dieth his Heir entring upon the Feoffee shall not pay a Fine for the Alienation of his Father but the person of the Father shall be charged with it And at the end of this Term after many Arguments and Motions Iudgment was given for the Queen that she should seize the Land and hold the same for the Fine and that she should not be driven to sue the person of the Feoffee or Conusee And by Manwood chief Baron at the Commom Law in many Manors Tenant in soccage upon every alienation shall pay a Fine nomine relevii a fortiori in the Kings case and therefore he was of opinion That this Prerogative to have a Fine for alienation without licence is by the common Law and not by any Statute XII Caters Case Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. in the Exchequer Chamber A Bill of Intrusion was in the Exchequer against Cater Intrusion 7 Co. 12. 1 Anders 95. who pleaded the Grant of the Queen the Plaintiff replicando said that before the Queen had any thing c. Sir Francis Englefield was seised of the Manor of which c. and he being beyond the Seas the Queen sent her Letters under the Privy Seal Quod ipse in fide legeantiâ quâ dictae Reginae tenebatur indirecte rediret in Angliam praedict tamen Franciscus spretis mandatis dict Reginae venire recusavit for which a Certificate was by the said Queen into the Chancery Quod dictus Franciscus in portibus transmarinis sine licentia dict Reginae remansit And thereupon a Commission was awarded to seize the Lands of the said Sir Francis which was entred in the Replication in haec verba reciting also the Queens Privy Seal and that the said Sir Francis did stay there spretis mandatis c. for which the Queen seised and granted to the Plaintiff And afterwards the Statutes of 13 and 14. Eliz. were made after which the said grant was made to the Defendant upon which matter there was a Demurrer and Iudgment given for the Plaintiff Error And now Cater brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber and it was first assigned for Error because that the Record is entred Inter Johannem Cater present hic in Curia by I.S. Attornatum suum and that cannot be for it is oppositum in objecto that one can be present in Court and also by Attorney simul semel for the Attorney is to supply the default of the personal presence To which it was said by Wray Anderson and Periam that the matter assigned was no Error for there are many Presidents in the Exchequer of such Entries which were openly shewed in Court. 48 E 3. 10. R 2. 20 H 7. 20 H 8. And by Manwood chief Baron it is not so absurd an Entry as it hath been objected for if one hath an Attorney of Record in the Kings Bench and he himself is in the Marshalsey there is an Action against him he is present as Prisoner and also by Attorney and by them notwithstanding that here appeareth a contrariety for such Entry properly is presentem hic in Curia in propriâ persona sua yet because many proceedings are according it is the more safe course to follow them for if this Iudgment be reversed for this cause many Records should be also reversed which should be very perillous An other Error was assigned because it is not alledged in the Replication of what date the Privy Seal was nor that any notice of the said Privy Seal was given to Sir Francis to which it was said that the Privy Seal need not any date especially in this case for the matters which are under the Privy Seal are not issuable See 2 Eliz. Dyer 177. Privy Seal nor any traverse can be taken to it and this Privy Seal is not
under the Common Seal authorized one A. to enter in the said Waste and in the behalf of the said Mayor and Burgesses to make election of the said moyety Election c. who did so accordingly And upon this matter gives in evidence the parties did demur in Law and the Iury were discharged 12 Co. 86. 87. Dy. 372. b. 281. Noy 29. And it was holden and resolved by the whole Court that the grant to the Mayor c. was utterly void for the incertainty of the thing granted And if a common person do make such a grant it is good enough and there the Grantee may make his choice where c. and by such choice executed the thing shall be reduced into certainty which choice the Grantee cannot have against the Queen which difference was agreed by the whole Court And it was further holden that this grant was not only void against the Queen her self but also against Sir Walter Hungerford her Patentee It was further holden by the Court that if a common person had made such a grant which ought to be reduced to certainty by Election and the Corporation to whom the grant was made ut supra should not make their election by Attorney but after that they were resolved upon the Land they should make a special warrant of Attorney reciting the grant to them in whih part of the said Waste their grant should take effect East West c. or by buttals c. according to which direction the Attorney is to enter c. XXXVII Watts and Jordens Case Trin. 27. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Debt by Watts against Jorden process continued until the Defendant was Out-lawed and upon the Capias utlagatum he appeared and pleaded to issue which was found for the Plaintiff and Iudgment given accordingly And now came Jourden and cast in a Writ of Error Error and assigned for Error that he appeared upon the Capias utlagatum and pleaded to issue the Original being determined and not revived by Scire facias upon his Charter of pardon Anderson Iustice was of opinion that it was not Error for the Statute of 18 Eliz. had dispensed with it being after verdict for the words of the Statute are For want of any Writ Original or Iudicial Windham Iustice contrary for the Statute doth not extend but where the Original is imbeselled but in this Case it is not imbeselled but in Law determined and at last the Writ of Error was allowed XXXVIII Trin. 23 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A. seised of Lands by his Will devised 3 Len 119. that his Excutors should sell his Lands and died the Executors levy a Fine thereof to one F. taking mony for the same of F. If in title made by the Conusee to the Land by the Fine It be a good plea against the Fine to say Quod partes ad finem nihil habuerunt was the question Fines levyed Anderson conceived that it was But by Windham and Periam upon Not-guilty The Conusee might help himself by giving the special matter in evidence in which Case the Conusee shall be adjudged in not by the Fine but by the Devise As by Windham A. deviseth Devise Co. 1 Inst 113. a. that his Executors shall sell a Reversion of certain Lands of which he dieth seised they sell the same without deed and good for the Vendee is in by the Devise and not by the conveyance of the Executors See 19 H. 6. 23. And by Periam the Conusee may help himself by pleading as he who is in by the Feoffment or grant of Cestuy que use by the Statute of 1 R. 3. XXXIX Albany and the Bishop of St. Asaphs Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. ALbany brought a Quare impedit against the Bishop of St. Asaph 1 Cro. 119. who justified for Lapse The Plaintiff by Replication said that before the six months expired he presented to the said Bishop one Bagshaw Quare impedit a Master of Arts and Preacher allowed c. The Defendant by way of Rejoynder said that the Church upon the presentment to which the Action is brought is a Church with Cure of Souls and that the Parishioners there are homines Wallici Wallicam loquentes linguam non aliam And that the said Bagshaw could not speak or understand the Welch Language for which cause he refused him and gave notice to the Plaintiff of such refusal and of the cause of it c. upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law. And first it was agreed and resolved by the whole Court that in the computation of the six months in such Cases the Reckoning ought not to be according to the Kalender January February c. but Secundum numerum singulorum dierum Co. 2 Inst 361. Co. 6. 61. b. Yel 100. 2 Cro. 141. Departure allowing eight and twenty days to every month Walmesley Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff and he took exception to the Rejoynder for in that the Defendant had departed from his Bar for in the Bar the Defendant intitles himself to the presentment by reason of Lapse and in the Rejoynder he confesseth the presentment of the Plaintff and pleads his refusal of his Clark and shewes the cause of it sc the want of the Welsh Language which is a Departure And he cited divers Cases to the same purpose 27 H 8. 3. In forfeiture of Marriage the Defendant pleaded the Feoffment of the Ancestor of the Heir to divers persons absque hoc that he died in the homage of the Plaintiff the Plaintiff by Replication said that the said Feoffment was made to the use of the said Ancestor and his Heirs The Defendant by Rejoynder saith that the said Ancestor did declare his Will of the said Lands the same was holden a Departure for he might have pleaded the same in Bar and 21 H. 7. 17 18. 37 H 6. 5. in Trespass the Defendant pleaded that I. S. was seised of the Land where c. being Land devisable and devised the same to him and his Heirs the Plaintiff by Replication said that I. S. at the time of the devise was within age c. The Defendant by Rejoynder said that the custom there is that every one of the age of fifteen years might devise his Lands c. the same was holden a departure But to this Exception the Court took not much regard But as to the matter in Law it was argued by Walmesley that the defect of the Welsh Language assigned by the Defendant in the presence of the Plaintiff is not a sufficient Cause of refusal for notwithstanding that it be convenient that such a Presentee have the knowledge of such Language yet by the Law of the Land ignorance of such Language where the party hath more excellent Languages is not any disability and therefore we see that many Bishops in Wales who have the principal Cure of Souls are English-men and the Welsh
gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff for it is in his election to demand his debt in which of those Coyns he pleased either in the proper Coyn of the Contract or of Sterling scil in currant mony And afterwards the said Iudgment was affirmed LIII Henly and Broads Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer HEnly brought Trespass against Broad in the Kings Bench 3 Len. 77 Trespass and declared that the said Defendant simul cum quodam I. S. clausum suum fregit c. The Defendant pleaded to Issue and it was found for the Plaintiff and it was objected in stay of Iudgment that the count was not good for it appeareth therein upon the shewing of the Plaintiff himself that the Action ought to be brought against another also not named in the Writ Counts and because the same appears of the Plaintiffs own shewing the Declaration was not good and notwithstanding that said Exception Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Vpon which Broad brought a Writ of Error and assigned the same matter for Error And there the Case of 2 H. 7. 16. 17. was cited Error where a difference is taken where the Plaintiff declares that the Defendant with one B. did the Trespass him naming in certain and where the Declaration is that the Defendant cum quibusdam alijs ignotis c. See 8. H. 5. 5. And at length all the Iustices of the common Pleas and Barons of the Exchequer were clear of opinion that by the common Law the Declaration was not good for the reason and upon the difference aforesaid but if in Trespass against one who pleads that the Trespass was done by himself and one B. to whom the Plaintiff hath released and the Plaintiff traverse the Release in that case for as much as the matter doth not appear upon the Plaintiffs own shewing but comes in on the part of the Defendant and not denied by him the Declaration is good enough And it was further agreed by them all that now this defect after Verdict is helped by the Statute of 18 Eliz. for it doth not concern substance but only form And afterwards the first Iudgment was affirmed LIV. Wood and Fosters Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Replevin Owen Rep. 139. Godbolt 113. WOod brought a Replevin against Humfrey Foster and others and made his plaint of the taking of one thousand Cattle Foster pleaded Non cepit and the others that the property was in another upon which matters they were at issue And as unto the first issue the Case upon the Evidence was that the late Lord Windsore was possessed of certain Sheep and by his Will devised them unto Eliz. his Daughter for her advancement in marriage and of his Will made his Wife his Executrix and died his Wife took to her Husband one Puttenham who being thus possessed leased the said Sheep with a Farm for eleven years by Indenture upon which it was agreed between the said parties that the Lessee should keep so much of the Rent reserved upon the said Lease to buy therewith so many Cattle over so as the whole stock of the said Sheep upon the said Farm should amount to the number of one thousand Cattle and the Lessee also covenanted to yeild and render to the said Puttenham at the end of the said Term one thousand Sheep between two years shorne and four years shorne Afterwards Puttenham by his deed gave unto one A. who had married the said Eliz. the said one thousand Cattle to have them after the said Term the Term expired Puttenham sold and granted them unto Wood who brought them away with him And the said A. pretending that the said Sheep passed to him by the said grant of Puttenham during the said Term seised them and the same was noctanter as they were driven in the high-way unde magna contentio orta suit between the said parties the one charging the other with felony whereupon the Constable of the Town where c. supposing the said matter would grow to an Outrage seised the said Cattle as felons goods and afterwards went to the house of the said Foster which was near unto the high-way and asked his advise upon the matter but he would not meddle therewith Afterwards one Perkins who had bought the said Cattle of the said A. came to Foster and shewed to him that the high-ways there were not sufficient for pasturage of the said Cattle until the said controversy be determined and prayed that the Cattle be delivered to him the said Perkins to keep in the mean time to whom Foster answered that if the said Perkins would find sufficient sureties to deliver back the Cattle to him who had right that he would be content the said Perkins should take them whereupon the said Perkins was bound to Foster to that purpose and took away with him the said Cattle And it was also given in Evidence that the servants of the said Foster had seised the Cattle for the use of their Master And by the clear opinion of the Court upon the whole matter shewed Foster non cepit and according to such direction of the Court the Iury found that Foster non cepit and as to the matter of property the Court was clear of opinion that the grant made by Puttenham of the said Cattle during the Term was utterly void for Puttenham during the same Term had not in the said Cattle either a general or a special property nor also after the Term but if after the Term expired the Lessee will not according to his covenant deliver to Puttenham one thousand Sheep then Puttenham is put to his Action of covenant for here the Lessee was bound to deliver to Puttenham at the end of the Term not the same Cattle which were leased but such a number of Sheep and the same ought to be between two years shorne and four years shorne which could not be the Sheep demised for they did exceed such degree before the end of the said term then the grant of Puttenham during the Term is meerly void And then when after the Term the Lessee according to the covenant delivered to Wood one thousand Sheep he might well sell them to the Plaintiff And such was the opinion of the whole Court and it was said by Iustice Windham that if I let certain Sheep to one for two years Property now upon that Lease somewhat remains in me but that cannot be properly said a Property but rather the possibility of a Property which cannot be granted over See 11 H. 4. 177. 178. 22 E. 4. 10. 11. In the same plea it was also holden that in a Replevin where the plaint is of one thousand Beasts and the Defendant justifies by reason of property upon which the parties are at issue Now upon the Evidence the Defendant may surmise a lesser number of Beasts and drive the Plaintiff to prove a greater number than that which the Defendant hath confessed
of Lond. in Camera Guild-hall Civitatis prâ—ed and demanded 1500 pounds upon such Recognizance acknowledged 20 November 20 Eliz. and upon default of the said Hanmen Owen 25. according to the custom of London used in course of Attachment attached six hundred pounds in the hands of one W. Bolton of Grays-Inn in part of satisfaction of the said debt of one thousand five hundred pounds and now within the year came the said Hanmer ad disonerandum debitum praedicti had a precept of Scire facias against the said Thomas Leigh and after pleaded and demanded Dyer of the said Recognizance and had it quod ipse restitutionem of the said 600 pounds in manibus dict W. Bolton attachiat habere debet And upon the whole Record the Case was thus Rowland Leigh Esquire being seised of certain Manors and other Lands in the County of Glocest had issue Eliz. his Daughter and Heir inheritable to the said Lands and by Indent dated 20 Maii 19 Eliz. granted Custodiam regulam gubernationem educationem maritagium dict Eliz. to the said Thomas Leigh after which the said Thomas Leigh by Indenture 14 Martii 29 Eliz. granted and assignâ—d the said custody Dyer 190 191. rule government education and marriage and all his interest therein and the said Indenture to Sir John Spencer after which the said Sir John Spencer and Thomas Leigh by their Indenture the 26. of August 20 Eliz. granted and assigned to the said John Hanmer the said custody rule government education and marriage oâ— the said Eliz. and all their interest in the same and all the recited Indenturs by which last recited Indenture 29 August the said John Hanmer covenanted with the said Leigh that Thomas Hanmer Son and Heir apparent of the said John Hanmer maritaret in uxorem duceret dictam Elizabetham ad vel antequam dicta Eliz. dictus Tho. Hanmer perimplerint suas separales aetates 14 annorum si dicta Eliz. ad id condestendere agreare vellet and afterwards before the said Tho. Hanmer and the said Elizabeth suas separales aetates 14 annorum perimplevissent sc 8 die Sept. 20 Eliz. the said Tho. Hanmer took to wife the said Eliz. the said Tho. Hanmer then being aetatis 13 annorum and no more and the said Eliz. then being of the age of nine years and no more and Tho. Hanmer aforesaid over-lived c. And pleaded further that the said Tho. Hanmer after he attained his full age of fourteen years and before any agreement or assent by the said Tho. Hanmer to the marriage aforesaid betwixt the said Tho. Hanmer and the said Eliz. had at or after idem Thomas Hanmer came to his age of fourteen years scil 10 die Sept. Anno 22 Eliz. ad dictum matitagium disagreavit maritagium illud renunciavit and all this matter was pleaded in Bar as performance of the Covenant contained in the Indenture of defeazance made upon the Recognizance whereupon the Action is brought And concluded his plea unde petit judicium si dictus Tho. Leigh actionem suam praedâ—ct c. Et quod ipse idem Johannes Hanmer restitutionem dict 600 li sc ut praefert aâ—achiat habere valeat And all the question here was if this marriage had by this manner and afterwards renounced as is aforesaid be such a marriage as is intended in the Covenant so as the said Covenant be satisfied by it And it was argued before the Mayor Recorder and Aldermen of London in their Guild-Hall by Angier of Grays-Inn on the part of Leigh the Plaintiff and he in his Argument did much rely upon the definition of marriage by Justinian in his Institutions Nuptiae maris faeminae conjunctio individua continens viae societatem and the marriage here in question is not according to the said difinition for the persons parties to this contract are not persons able by Law to make such contract because that non attigerunt annos nubiles Ergo nuptiae esse non possunt but only sponsalia a step unto marriage And there is also rendred one reason of the said definition upon the word individua individuam dico quia non nisi morte aut divortio separandum but the marriage now in question might be dissolved without death or divorce as it is in our case by disagreement And see Jurisprudentiae Romanae Lib. 1. Cap. 33. Societas consortium omni vita inter marem faeminam ad concubitum which is societatis hujus consummatio And as every Act doth consist upon three things 1. Inceptio 2. Progressio 3. Continuatio so is it in the Case of marriage but in this case when Thomas Hanmer took the said Eliz. to Wife that is but an inception but the progression and consummation of it is cut off by the disagreement and he much relyed upon the words of the Covenant sâ— dicta Eliz. ad id condescendere agreare vellet so as there is not any liberty left to the Defendant for the agreement or disagreement of the Son but he ought to agree at the peril of his Father but if Eliz. will not agree then the Defendant is not at any mischief for in such case the Covenant doth not extend to him and also here the Father is bound that his Son a stranger to the Obligation should marry the said Elizabeth which he ought to procure at his peril or otherwise he shall forfeit his Bond. Egerton Solicitor of the Queen argued to the contrary This marriage as much as concerns this Covenant is to be considered according to the reason of the common Law and not according to the rules and grounds of the Canon or Civil Law not as a marriage to right but as a marriage in possession and marriage in possession is sufficient always in personal things and causes especially where the possession of the Wife is in question 2 Roll. 585. but where the possession of the Husband is in question there marriage in right ought to be and where marriage in possession fals in averment there it shall not be tried by the Bishop as in the Case of a marriage of right where never accoupled in loyal matrimony is pleaded but by the Country for in case of Wife in possession never accoupled in matrimony is no Plea Postea 181. 12 Len 170. 171. â—3 Len. 129. but not his Wife which see 12 E. 3. br 481. A. brought an Action of Trespass against B. and C. B. pleaded that C. is Wife of the Plaintiff and demanded Iudgment of the Writ the Plaintiff by Replication said never accoupled in Lawful matrimony but it was not allowed but was driven to say not his Wife for if C. was the Wife of the Plaintiff in possession or by Reputation it is sufficient to abate the Writ see also 49 E. 3. 18. by Belknap the right of the Espousal is always to be tried by the Bishop but the possession of the marriage not as in Assize by A. and
did not lie in the said Court. 18 Eliz. Dyer 250. F. B. 22. That upon Erronious Iudgment given in the Kings Bench in Ireland Error shall be brought in the Kings Bench in England 15 E. 3. Error 72. Fenner who was of Council with the Archbishop demanded of the Court how and in what manner the Record shall be remanded to the Iustices of Assize so as the Archbishop might have execution To which the Court said that the surest way is to have a Certiorare out of the Chancery into the Common Pleas directed to the Iudges there and then out of the Chancery by Mittimus to the Iustices of Assize But Fenner made a difficulty of it to take such course for the remanding of it for doubt they would not allow it to be a Record where it is not a Record for upon the matter the Record is not removed but remains with the Iustices of Assize Then Anderson said Sue Excution out of the said Record but because the Record came before us by Writ of Error it shall be also removed and remanded by Writ and so it was LXX Kempe and Carters Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THomas Kempe brought Trespass Copyhold for breaking of his Close against Carter and upon pleading they were at issue if the Lord of the Manor aforesaid granted the said Lands per copiam rotulorum curiae manerii praedict secundum consuetudinem manerii praedict and it was given in Evidence that within the said Manor were divers customary Lands and that the Lord now of late at his Court of the said Manor granted the Land c. per copiam rotulorum curiae where it was never granted by copy before It was now holden by the whole Court that the Iury are bound to find Dominus non concessit for notwithstanding that de facto Dominus concessit per copiam rotulorum curiae yet non concessit secundum consuetudinem manerii praedict for the said Land was not customary nor was it demisable for the custom had not taken hold of it In the same Case it was also shewed that within the said Manor some customary Lands are demiseable for life only Evidence of customs and some in Fee and it was said by the Lord Anderson that he who will give in Evidence these several customs ought to shew the several limits in which the several customs are severally running as that the Manor extends into two Towns and that the Lands in one of the said Towns are grantable for lives only and the Lands in the other in Fee and he ought not to shew the several customs promiscuè valere through the whole Manor And he remembred a Case of his own experience scil The Manor of Wadhurst in the County of Sussex consisted of two sorts of Copy-hold scil Sook-land and Bond-land and by several customs disseverable in several manners As if a man be first admitted to Sook-land and afterwards to Bond-land and dieth seised of both his Heir shall inherit both but if he be first admitted to Bond-land and afterward to Sook-land and of them dieth seised his youngest Son shall inherit and if of both simul semel his eldest Son shall inherit But if he dieth seised of Bond-land only it shall descend to the youngest and if customary Land hath been of ancient time grantable in Fee and now of late time for the space of forty years hath granted the same for life only yet the Lord may if he please resort to his ancient custom and grant it in Fee. It was also moved in this case If customary Land within a Manor hath been grantable in Fee if now the same Escheat to the Lord and he grant the same to another for life the same was holden a good grant and warrantable by the custom and should bind the Lord for the custom which enables him to grant in Fee shall enable him to grant for life and after the death of the Tenant for life the Lord may grant the same again in Fee for the grant for life was not any interruption of the custom c. which was granted by the whole Court. LXXI Walker and Nevils Case Pasch 29. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Dower WAlker and his Wife brought a Writ of Dower against Jervice Nevil and judgment was given upon Nihil dicit and because the first Husband of the Wife died seised a Writ of Enquiry of Damages was awarded by which it was found that the Land which she ought to have in Dower the third part was of the value of eight pound per annum and that eight years elapserunt a die mortis viri sui proximè ante inquisitionem assident damna to eight pounds and it appeared upon the Record that after Iudgment in the Writ of Dower aforesaid the Demandants had execution upon habere facias seisinam Damages so as it appeareth upon the whole Record put together that damages are assessed for eight years where the Demandants have been seised for part of the said eight years upon which the Tenant brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error because damages are assessed untill the time of the Inquisition where they ought to be but to to the time of the Iudgment but the Exception was not allowed Another Error was assigned because that where it is found that the Land was of the value of eight pounds per annum they have assessed damages for eight years to eighty pounds beyond the Revenue for according to the rate and value found by verdict it did amount but to sixty four pounds but that Error was not also allowed for it may be that by the long detaining of the Dower the Demandants have sustained more damages than the bare Revenue c. Another Error was assigned because Damages are assessed for the whole eight years after the death of the Husband where it appeareth that for part of the said years the Demandants were seised of the Lands by force of the Iudgment and execution in the Writ of Dower and upon that matter the writ of Error was allowed LXXII Archpool against the Inhabitants of Everingham Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Statute of Winchester of Huy and Cry by Archoopl against the Inhabitants of the Hundred of Everingham the Iury found that the Plaintiff was robbed 2 Januarii post occasum solis sed per lucem diurnam and that after the Robbery committed the Plaintiff went to the Town of Andover and advertised the Baylies of the said Town of the said Robbery and further found that the said Town of Andover is not within the said Hundred of Everingham and that there is another Town nearer to the place where c. the Robbery was done than the said Town of Andover within the said Hundred but the said Town of Andover was the nearest place where c. by the Kings high-way It was moved that upon this matter the Plaintiff should not have judgment
hands after the Iudgment and prayed execution thereof upon which the Defendant did demur in Law. Vide 2â— H. 6. 40. 41. In debt against Executors of forty marks the Defendant pleaded that he had fully administred and it was sound that the Defendant at the day of the Writ brought had of the goods of the dead twenty marks and no more and gave damges five marks There the Plaintiff had Iudgment for the twenty marks of the goods of the dead and the five marks of their own goods And as to the other twenty marks that the Plaintiff should be amerced 33 H. 6. 24. Where Executors plead that they have nothing in their hands which is found accordingly Afterwards goods of the Testator came to the hands of the Executors Now the Plaintiff upon a surmise shall have out of the same Record a Scire facias to have execution of the said goods Scire facias to have Execution of Assets come to Executors hands after â—iens enter maynes pleaded But see 4 H. 6. 4. contrary for there it is said that upon the matter the original is determined and so no Record upon which a Scire facias can be grounded And see Fitzh abridging the Case Scire facias 25. by the verdict and the Iudgment the Original is abated Vide 7 E. 4. 9. by Moile according to 33 H. 6. and so 46 E. 3. 9. by Belknap And the Lord Anderson demanded of the Prothonotaries the manner of the entry of the Iudgments given in such Cases who said that their Entry is in this manner i. e. Quod querens recuperet that which is expresly found by the verdict but nothing of the residue for of that no mention is made at all And the Court seemed to be of opinion that where upon nothing remaining in their hands pleaded It is found that some part of the sum in demand is in the hands of the Executors there the Plaintiff upon a surmise of goods come to the hands of the Executors shall have a Scire facias 3 Cro. 272. Hob 199. 1 Cro. 318. 319 592. 8 Co. 134. contrary where upon such issue it is found fully for the Defendants that they have nothing in their hands LXXXVIII Fordleys Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco Tender pleaded 9 Co. 79. Dy. 25. a. 1 Inst 207. Post 69. 70. a. FOrdley brought debt upon an Obligation the Condition was that if the Defendant viz. the Obligor deliver unto the Plaintiff the Obligee at a such a day and place twenty pounds or ten Kine at the then choice of the Obligee c. that then c. The Court was clear of opinion that the Defendant in pleading the performance thereof ought to tender to the Plaintiff as well the twenty pounds as the ten Kine and for default thereof Iudgment was given against the Defendant See the Number Roll T. 29 Eliz. 1. part 324. vide 14 E. 4 4. b. LXXXIX Barker and Pigots Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco EDward Barker brought Debt against Rich. Pigot Executor of the Will of E. Executrix of the Will of R. The Defendant pleaded that he had fully administred the goods of his Testator E. upon which they were at issue Debt which was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that here is not any issue joyned which answers to the Action for the Action is brought against the Defendant in the quality of the Executor of an Executor and the verdict extends to the Defendant but is Executor of the said E. for it is found by it that the Defendant hath fully administred the goods of his Testatrix without any enquiry of the Administration of the goods of the first Testator R. in which capacity the Defendant is charged So as here the Writ charges the Defendant in the quality of an Executor of an Executor and in respect of the first Testator and the issue and verdict doth concern the last Testator Execution must follow the nature of the Action And the whole Court was clear of opinion that although that now after verdict Fee-tail be saved and no Iudgment shall be given upon it yet here the Court shall give Iudgment as upon a Nihil dicit in which case the Execution of the Iudgment shall not fall upon the goods of the last Testator according to the verdict but shall follow the nature of the Action which was brought against the Defendant as Executor of an Executor XC Thacker and Elmers Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco THacker recovered in an Assize of Novel disseisin against Elmer certain Lands in Hackney and had execution Re-disseisin and the Judgment in it 1 Cro. 323. Elmer entred upon Thacker and ousted him and Redisseised him Thacker re-entred and afterwards brought a Redisseisin And it was moved whether Thacker against his Entry might have a Redisseisin And the opinion of the whole Court was that he might well maintain the Writ for he is not thereby to recover any Land but the Defendant of that Redisseisin being convicted shall be fined and imprisoned and render double damages Vide Book of Entries 502. the Iudgment in a Redisseisin is Quod recuperet seisinam suam of the Land. XCI Blaunchflower and Fryes Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco BLaunchflower brought debt upon a Bond against Elinor Frye as Executrix of one Andrew Frye her late Husband who pleaded Debt that this Writ was brought 9 July 27 Eliz. whereof she had notice the first of October after within which time one Lawrence had brought an Original Writ against the said Elinor as Administratrix of the said Andrew And after the bringing of the Writ the Bishop of Bath and Wels committed Administration of the goods of the said Andrew to the said Elinor which Elinor confessed the Action upon which Iudgment was given for the said Lawrence beyond which she had not goods upon which the now Plaintiff did demur in Law. And by Anderson the Recovery pleaded in bar shall not bind the Plaintiff because it appeareth unpon the plea of the Defendant that the Administration was committed after the Writ purchased which matter if the Defendant had pleaded Administration granted pendant the Writ Lawrence could not have had Iudgment to recover As where there are three Executors and debt is brought against two of them if they do not plead that matter in abatment of the Writ but plead c. or confess the Action so that the Plaintiff hath Iudgment to Recover that Recovery shall not bind a stranger who hath cause of Action against them but that he may well falsify it and yet it was said that in such Case the Defendant by the obtaining of the Letters of Administration had made the Writ good against her vid. 13 H. 4. Fitz. Executors 118. Administration committed before the Writ purchased shall abate the Writ brought against the Defendant as Executor but such Administration obtained
the Obligation which was made for the further assurance of the duty And here the Defendant ought to have pleaded the tender and see 14. E. 4. 4. A. is bound unto B. that where he hath granted to the said B. a Rent-charge out of such Land now if the said B. shall enjoy the said Rent according to the form and effect of the said Grant that then c. there he needs not to plead any tender for the Rent is not payable in other manner than it was before contrary if the Condition had been for the payment of the Annuity And of that opinion was the whole Court that he ought to have pleaded a tender Another matter of the Award was that the said Audar should yield up surrender relinquish to the Plaintiff all such Houses and Tenements which he had in his possession by reason of the custody of the said Plaintiff As to that the Defendant pleaded that he had yielded up c. All such Houses c. generally without shewing which in certain And for that cause the Court was clear of opinion that the Plea was not good which see 9 E. 4. 16. If I be bounden upon condition to enfeoff the Obligee of all Lands Tenements which were to I.S. in pleading the performance of that Condition I ought to shew what Lands and Tenements in certain for they pass out of me by the Feoffment See also 12 H. 8. 7. 13 H. 8. Non damnificatus generally where no Plea. 19. Another point of the Award was That the said Audar should acquit and discharge and save harmless the Plaintiff of such an Obligation to which the Defendant pleaded that Querens non fuit damnificatus and that Plea was holden insufficient for he ought to have shewed how he had discharged him and it is not sufficient to answer only to the damnification as if I be bounden to convey unto you the Manor of B. in pleading the performance of the condition it is not sufficient to shew that I have conveyed the said Manor but to shew by what manner of conveyance viz. by Fine or Feoffment c. 22 E. 4. 43. If the condition be to discharge the Plaintiff c. then the manner of the discharge ought to be shewed but if it be to save harmless only then non damnificatus generally is good enough 40 E. 3. 20. 38 H. 6. 39. The condition of an Obligation was that the Obligor should keep without damage the Obligee of such a sum of mony against B. to whom he was bounden for the payment of it and the said Obligor pleaded that at such a day c. the said B. at his request delivered the Obligation to the Plaintiff in liew of an acquittance without that that the Plaintiff was damnified by the said Obligation before the delivery of it and it was holden by the Court that if the Defendant had pleaded that he had kept the Plaintiff without damage and had not shewed how that the Plea had not been good See 22 E. 4. 40. The Lord Lisles Case And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff XCVI Heydons Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. RAlph Heydon pretending title to certain Land entred into it and made a Lease of it to try the title Vpon which his Lessee brought an Ejectione firmae in which the parties were at Issue And now at the day of the Enquest the Iurors were called and but five of them appeared whereupon the Defendant came and shewed to the Court that the said Heydon by his Friends and Servants had laboured the Iury not to appear and that for the further vexation of the Defendant who had four Verdicts in affirmance of his title that the said Heydon to procure the Iury not to appear had surmised to them that he and the Defendant were in course of an agreement whereas in truth no such communication of agreement had any time passed betwixt them And all this was openly deposed in Court as well upon the oath of the Defendant himself as upon the oath of one of the Iurors upon which the Court awarded an Attachment against the said Heydon to answer the contempt And also granted to the Defendant that he might sue a Decem tales with proviso for his own expedition XCVII Smith and Kirfoots Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco Debt upon Arbitrament SMith brought Debt upon an Arbitrament against Kirfoot and declared that the Defendant and he imposuerunt se in arbitrium ordinationem judicium Johannis Popham ar arbitratoris indifferenter electi de jure titulo inturesse in quibusdam Messuagijs c. Who taking upon him the burthen of the Arbitration ordinavit that the said Defendant should pay unto the Plaintiff ten pounds in plenam satisfactionem c. and thereupon he brought his Action It was moved by Walmesley Serjeant that the Declaration is not sufficient for it appeareth that the Arbitrament set forth in the Declaration is utterly void because whereas ten pounds is awarded to the Plaintiff nothing is awarded to the Defendant and so the Award unequal and so void But the Court was clear of opinion that notwithstanding that such an Arbitrament be void in Law yet it may be for any thing that appeareth that the award is good enough 1 Cro. 904. â— Cro. 354. 355. For the Plaintiff is not to shew in his Declaration all the Award but such part only of it which doth entitle him to the thing c. and if the Defendant will impeach the Award for any thing that is to come in on his part vide ac Book of Entries 152. 123. vide For the Arbitrament 39 H. 6. 12. by Moile 7 H. 6. 41. XCVIII Arundel against Morris Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco RIchard Arundel sued an Audita Querela against Morris and it was comprehended in the Writ That Morris had recovered against him a certain Debt and that he was taken by a Capias ad satisfaciendum Audita Querela at the suit of the said Morris by Hickford Sheriff of the County of Gloucester who let him go at large c. And they were at issue upon the voluntary escape it was found for the Plaintiff It was objected in arrest of Iudgment that the Writ of Audita Querela is not good for the words are that the Plaintiff captus fuit virtute brevis nostri judicialis whereas this word judicialis is not in the Register but only brevis nostri de capiendo But by the whole Court the Writ is good for the word judicialis is but a word of surplusage and shall not make void the Writ And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff XCIX Brook against King. Mich. 29 30. Eliz. IN Debt upon an Obligation by Brook against King the Defendant pleaded that the Bond was endorced with such condition viz. Debt That it the said Defendant King shall procure one I.S. to make reasonable recompence to the
their amendment makes alteration of the substance of the pleading or of the Verdict as 20 H. 6. 15. In Trespass the Plaintiff declared of a continuando usque diem impetrationis brevis viz. 18. die Martii where the Teste of the Writ was 2 die Januarij the Defendant pleaded to Issue which was found for the Plaintiff and that Misprision of the Teste or date of the Writ could not be amended And no amendment upon this Stat. of 27 Eliz. two things are to be considered First that the Iudges in such amendment medle not with matter nor alter the substance Secondly that they do not amend but according to their judicial knowledge Anderson to the same intent for as it hath been said before the truth of the Case doth not appear unto us according to which we can judge and I conceive that upon any amendment upon this Statute we cannot take out one Roll and put in another and as our case is we cannot amend this defect without taking out the whole Roll and therefore in the Case of Leonard which was late Custos brevium here where in a Replevin he avowed for a Rent-service and upon especial Verdict the Case was that Sir Henry Isley held of the said Leonard by Fealty and the Rent mentioned in the Avowry and was attainted of high Treason and the King seised and granted the Land to the Plaintiff upon whom Leonard avowed for the Rent-service and I and my companions were agreed that the rent notwithstanding the seisure and grant of the King remained distrainable of common right but Leonard could not have return of the Cattel because he had avowed for a Rent-service now it appeareth to us upon the Verdict that he had right to so much rent but not to such a Rent but a Rent-seck distrainable of common right so a Rent in another degree and we also agreed that the Avowry was not amendable for then upon such amendment we ought to take out a whole Roll which was not intended by this Statute And he conceived also that in debt against Executors in the Debet detinet such a Writ shall not be amended by this Statute and he conceived that his exception to the Bar quod ad medietatem 60. Messuag c. parcel medietatis c. is relieved by this Statute for the meaning appeareth And also the exception that it is not expresly shewed that the Fine was engrossed in the same Term in which it was levied And Periam moved another matter Co. 1 Inst 71. b. 72. a. if now the parties demurring in Law as to part of the Land in demand and being at Issue upon the residue if the Court shall adjudge the matter in Law before the Issue be tried or not 32 H. 6. 5 6. In Trespass for taking of his Cattel the Defendant as to parcel pleaded not guilty and as to the remnant pleaded another Plea upon which the parties did demur and there they proceeded to trial before the matter in Law determined and found for the Plaintiff and he had Iudgment thereupon for the damages but the costs were suspended until c. And the Defendant brought his Writ of Error 48 E. 3. 15. In an Action of Wast as to parcel the Defendant pleads no Wast and as to the rest pleaded matter in Law upon which there was a demurer joyned It was holden that the Issue should not be tried until the matter in Law be determined But it was said by Fulthorpe in Trespass if the Defendant to parcel plead the Enquest and to other parcel matter in Law in such case he should proceed to trial presently and damages should be taxed of the whole as well of that upon which there was a demurrer in Law as of that of which the Issue was joyned ad quod non fuit responsum See also 11 H. 4. 228. In Trespass the Defendant pleaded to Issue for part and for the residue did demur in Law Process for the trial issued before the matter in Law determined And Periam conceived that the Court might proceed in such Case the one way or the other As to the matter in Law whether the issue in tail upon this Fine should have the Averment he conceived that he should not have the said Averment for that it should be very perilous to the Inheritances of the subjects And he argued much upon the dignity of Fines out of Bracton and Glanvil whom he called Actores non Authores Legis that Fines at the common Law were of great authority until the Statute of West 2. And afterwards by the Statute of 34 E. 3. of non-claim from whence they became to be of so little value in Law that they were accounted no other than Feoffments upon Record so as thereby no assurance was of Inheritances but a general incertainty until the Statute of 4. H. 7. by which Statute they were restored to their ancient power and virtue After which Statute many shifts were devised to creep out of it So as the Statute of 32 H. 8. was made to take away all questions and ambiguities which were conceived upon the said Statute of 4 H. 7. And therefore we who are Iudges ought to frame our Iudgments for the maintaining of the authority of Fines for so the possessions and inheritances of the Subjects shall be preserved And that is the reason that if a stranger levy a Fine of my Land in my name that I have not any remedy but a Writ of Deceit against him who levyes the Fine so if a Feme-covert levyeth a Fine of her Land as a Feme-sole the same shall bind her after the coverture if the Husband do not enter upon the Conusee during the coverture and interrupt the possession gained by the Fine And 17 E. 3. and our Books are very plentiful to this purpose that the Law doth aerge admit of such allegations against such Fines A Fine was pleaded in Bar of Land in A. B. and C. he against whom it was pleaded was not received to aver against the supposal of the Fine that there was no such Town or Hamlet as A. 46 E. 3. 5. A woman Tenant in tail had Issue a Daughter who was inheritable to the tail the Daughter took a Husband they both living the Mother and during her seisin levied a Fine of the Land entailed to a stranger sur conusans de droit come ceo c. who rendred the Land to the Husband and Wife in specil tail the Husband died having Issue the Wife took another Husband had Issue and died the Husband to entitie himself to the Land as Tenant by the curtesy would in pleading have averred the seisin of the Mother at the time of the Fine levyed and he could not and yet he was a stranger to the Fine but he was privy to the estate and his claim was by her who levyed the Fine 6 E. 3. 46. Fitz. Averment 40. In a Writ of Entry sur dissei sin the Fine of the
as in case where the Husband died seised Dy. 370. the which dying seised is not found by the Verdict In which Case it was said by the Court the Demandant might pray Iudgment of the Lands and release damages or the Demandant may aver that the Husband died seised and have a Writ to enquire of the damages quod omnes Pregnotarii concesserunt CXIX Michel and Hydes Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Dower DOwer by Michel and his Wife against Lawrence Hyde who appeared upon the grand Cape And it was because that the said Hyde in truth was but Lessee for years of the Land of which c. in which case he might plead non-tenure if now he might wage his Law of non-summons so as the Writ be abated for by the wager of Law he hath taken upon him the Tenancy and affirmed himself to be Tenant 33 H. 6. 2. by Prisoit to which it was said by Rhodes and Windham Iustices that here the Tenant being but Lessee for years is not at any mischief for if Iudgment and Execution be had against him he notwithstanding might afterwards enter upon the Demandant Another matter was moved That where the Writ of Dower was de tertia parte Rectoriae de D. and upon that the grand Cape issued Cape in manum nostram tertiam partem Rectoriae and the Sheriff by colour of this Writ took the Tythes severed from the nine parts and carried them away with him And it was agreed by the said Iustices that the same is not such a seisure as is intended by the said Writ but the Sheriff by virtue of such Writ ought generally to seize but leave them there where he found them And the Court was of opinion to commit the Sheriff to Prison for such his misdemeanor CXX Hamington and Ryders Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. RIchard Haming Executor of Isabel Haming brought Debt upon an Obligation against Ryder Debt Savil Rep. 74. Owen Rep. 6. 1 Co. 52. 1 Andâ— 162. the Case was that Kidwelly was seised leased for years to John Hamington Husband of Isabel and afterwards John Hamington being so possessed by his will devised that the said Isabel should have the use and occupation of the said Land for all the years of the said Term as she should live and remain sole and if she died or married that then his Son should have the residue of the said Term not expired John died Isabel entred Devises to whom the said Lawr. coveyed by Feoffment the said Land in Fee and in the Indenture of the said Conveyance Lawr. covenanted that the said Land from thence should be clearly exouerated de omnibus prioribus barganijs titulis juribus omnibus alijs oneribus quibuscunque Isabel took to Husband the Son entreth If now the Covenant be broken was the question It seemed to Anderson at the first motion that this possibility which was in the Son at the time of the Feoffment was not any of the things mentioned in the Covenant scil former bargain title right or charge But yet it was conceived by him that the word bargain did extend to it for every Lease for years is a contract and although that the Land at the time of the Feoffment was not charged yet it was not discharged of the former contract And by Windham if I be bounden in a Statute-staple and afterwards I bargain and sell my Lands and covenant ut supra here the Land is not charged but if after the condition contained in the defeazance be broken so as the Conusee extends now the Covenant is broken And by him the word charge doth extend to a possibility and this possibility might be extinct by Livery as all agreed but not translated by grant Ante 33. 3 Len. 43. Covenant or extinguished by release as it was lately adjudged in the Case of one Carter At another day it was argued by Walmesley and he much relied upon the words clearly exonerated utterly discharged or altogether exonerated and without doubt it is a charge which may happen and if it may happen then the Land is not clare exonerated And also former bargains do extend to it and the Term is not extinct by the acceptance of the Feoffment aforesaid of Kidwelly and although that at the time of the Feoffment it was but a possibility and no certain interest yet now upon the marriage of Isabel it is become an actual burthen and charge upon the Land and he cited a Case adjudged 8 Eliz. A man seised of Lands grants a Rent-charge to begin at a day to come before which day he bargains and sells the Lands and covenants that the said Lands are discharged of all charges in that case when the day when the Rent ought to begin is incurred the Covenant is clearly broken for the Lands were not clearly exonerated c. At another day the Case was moved at the Bar. And Anderson openly in Court declared that he and all his companions were agreed that the Land at the time of the Feoffment was not discharged of all former Rights Titles and charges and therefore commanded that Iudgment should be entred for the Plaintiff CXXI Howel and Trivanians Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. HOwel brought an Action upon the Case against Trivanian in the Common Pleas and declared Assumpsit that he delivered certain goods to the brother of the Defendant who made the Defendant his Executor and died after which the Plaintiff came to the Defendant and spake with him concerning the said goods upon which communication and speech the Defendant promised the Plaintiff that if the Plaintiff could prove that the said goods were delivered to the Testator 2 Roll. 594. that he would pay the value of them to the Plaintiff And the Declaration was in consideration that the said goods came to the hands of the Testator and also afterwards the goods came to the Defendants hands and upon non Assumpsit pleaded It was found for the Plaintiff and Iudgment given And afterwards Error was brought in the Kings Bench and Error assigned because that the Plaintiff had not averred in his Declaration that he had proved the delivery of the said goods to the said Testator 1 Cro. 105. for the words of the promise are si probare potuisset And also it was assigned for Error that here is not any consideration upon which this promise could receive any strength for the Defendant hath not any profit or advantage thereby scil by the bailment of the said goods to the Brother of the Defendant And also it is a thing before executed and not depending upon the promise nor the promise upon it As the Case reported by the Lord Dyer 10 Eliz. 272. The Servant is arrested in London and two men to whom the Master is well known bail the said Servant and after the Master promiseth to them for their friend-ship to save them harmless from all costs
bargain for cloth as it is in this Case the same doth not maintain the Information So if the Information be granted upon usurious contract by way of mortgage and giveth in Evidence an usurious loan ut supra But if the Information had been conceived generally upon an usurious agreement and giveth in Evidence a loan the same is good enough for every loan is an agreement Manwood There cannot be any loan without bargain nor any forbearing without bargain for he contracts or bargains to do it viz. to lend or forbear Bargain of forbearing is where the first day of payment is not kept and the parties have agreed for a further day for payment c. And it appeareth in this Case that it was a bargain to forbear a sum of mony which should have been paid before And the Information here is upon a bargain by way of loan where was a bargain for forbearing Fuller this word Bargain in the Statute cannot be intended a bargain for wares or such things and so distinct from the other two things c. If in Information upon loan an usurious contract had been given in Evidence that would not maintain the Information And it was moved in this Case if the time of the loan or forbearance of the money shall be accounted according to eight twenty days to every month or by the months in the Kalender viz. January February c. And it seemed to some according to the days as in case of the Statute of 23 Eliz. of Recusants and others conceived contrary in both Cases And Fuller said That in the Case of policy of Assurance made to warrant a Ship one was bound to warrant a Ship for twelve months the truth was she did not perish within the time of the twelve months being accounted according to eight and twenty days but being accounted by the Kalender as January Feb. c. it perished c. and it was said and holden that he had not forfeited his Bond. Gent Baron If I lend one a hundred pounds without any contract for Interest and afterwards at the end of year he gives me twenty pounds for the loan thereof the same is within the Statute for my acceptance makes the offence without any bargain or contract And by Clarke Baron the place where the Defendant accepted excessive Interest ought to be shewed in the Information but not the place where the contract for the loan or forbearance was made for the same is not needful See the Case betwixt Stradling and Morgan Plowd 200. for the setting down of the place in the Declaration where the Extortion was committed The Information here is by way of corrupt bargain and loan The Defendant took at Dertford such a sum where the taking is layed apud Dertford but no place of the corrupt bargain or of the loan And by Gent. If I lend to Beesie for a year and afterwards he takes further forbearance of another year beyond the rate the same is within the Statute but in all Cases the place where the corrupt bargain was made ought to be certainly alledged Manwood Baron the Information is not good for the incertainty of the place where the corrupt bargain was made and although there are many Presidents on the Informes part it is not to purpose for they were admitted without exception and then they passed sub silentio and so of no force There are three things or rather degrees of offences within the Statute In usury within the Statute there ought to be corrupt loan cheivisance or shift 1. corruption 2. he ought to take more than eight pound for one hundred pounds 3. it ought to be for lending or forbearing There was a Case in this Court in the time of this Queen that the Defendant had taken more than ten pounds in the hundred pounds but in the Information no corruption in the bargain was alledged and therefore Iudgment was given against the Informer But in the Case at Bar corruption is set forth in facto and therefore as to that the Information is good enough As unto the forbearing giving of days of payment the same is alledged in the Information but not according to the Statute for the Statute is in the disjunctive but the Information is in the copulative here in our Case the issue is Not guilty under which general issue all the points of the Statute are included and ought to be tried as unto the corruption the same is not sufficiently laid for no place is assigned where the corrupt bargain was made ergo no visne for it to be tried ergo no trial can be ergo no issue for it ergo this point of the Statute doth not come in issue nor can it be tried upon the general issue Not guilty Also he held that all the Offence ought to be within the year for if one make a corrupt bargain for this year and ten years after he takes excessive usury the same is not within the Statute to inform upon it And in truth there is no such offence without corrupt bargain so as he conceived that the word Lending is a strange word but where the Statute is forbearing or giving day of payment in the Information it is giving and forbearing in the copulative that is good enough for the one word enforceth the other and is not double Also the Information hath not shewed whose money it is and therefore it is not good And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Informer and a Writ of Error thereupon brought in the Erchequer Chamber And it was argued by Popham Attorney General that Iudgment ought to have been given for the Queen and the Informer for the shewing of the place where the corrupt bargain was made needs not to be alledged in the Information for the offence punishable by the Statute is the receipt of excessive usury and not the contract And it was the Case of one Bird 20 Eliz. where the Plaintiff shewed the place of the Receipt and not of the contract and yet had Iudgment for the Queen without any exception to it before Iudgment or Error after for the contract is but inducement to the receipt and it shall be tried where the taking was therefore it is not necessary to shew the place of the bargain And it was adjorned CXXVI Saliard and Everats Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer THomas Saliard and Hen. Everat being Recusants convicted Recusants Owen Rep. 37. and not having paid twenty pounds for every month a Commission issued forth to enquire of their Goods and Lands in the County of Suffolk to levy thereon the Debt and penalty due to the Queen And now the Commission being returned the parties appeared and by their Council shewed that some of their Lands returned in the Commission are Copy-hold and prayed as to those Manus Dominae Reginae amoveantur and that upon the Statute of 29 Eliz. cap 5. concerning Recusants viz. that upon default of payment of penalties c.
not set down any place or time of the notification of his contentment for the same is traversable Gawdy The Issue here is non Assumpsit Assumpsit and therefore that matter is out of the Book Cook If one assume to pay twenty pounds to another upon request although the Defendant plead non Assumpsit yet if the place and time of request be not shewed Iudgment many times hath been stayed for no Action without a Request so here without notification of his contentment no Action therefore he ought to shew it Gawdy The ground of this Action is the Assumpsit but that cannot be certain without Declaration and thereof notice ought to be given to make certainty of the duty but not to enforce the promise but in our case without a Request Assumpsit will not lye But here it being but conveyance the certainty of the time and place is not necessary to be shewed but the general form shall serve for it is but inducement As if a man will plead a devise of goods to him and assent of the Executors to take them he need not to shew the time and place of the assent Gawdy at another day said that Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff the Assumpsit is the ground and cause of the Action and the shewing of the contentment is only to reduce the Action to certainty And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXVIII Musket and Coles Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. WIlliam Musket brought an Action upon the Case against Cole 1 Cro. 13. and declared that in consideration that the Plaintiff had payed unto the Defendant forty shillings for the Debt of Symon his Son the Defendant promised to deliver to him omnes tales billas Obligationes in which his Son was bounden to him which thing he would not do and it was found by Verdict for the Plaintiff And it was moved for stay of Iudgment because the Plaintiff had not averred in his Declaration that the said Defendant had Bills or Obligations in which Simon his Son was bounden to the Defendant Averment for if there were none then no damage And see Onlies Case 19 Eliz. Dyer 356. D. in consideration that the Plaintiff had expended divers sums of money circa the businesses of the Defendant promised c. Exception was taken to that Declaration by Manwood and Mounson Iustices because it was not shewed in what businesses certain and betwixt what persons Gawdy The Plaintiff here is not to recover the Bills or Obligations but damages only and therefore needeth not to alledge any Bills in certain And 47 E. 3. 3. A. covenants with B. to assure unto B. and his Heirs omnia terras tenementa quas habet in such Counties and for not assurance an Action of Covenant was brought and the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant had broken the said Covenant and that he had required the Defendant to make a Feoffment unto him of all his Lands and Tenements in the said Counties and the plea was not allowed for the Land is not in demand but only damages to be recovered See also 46 E. 3. 4. and 20 E. 3. And in the principal case the Plaintiff had time enough for the shewing to the Iury what Bills or Obligations for the instructing of the Iury of the damages CLXIX English and Pellitary and Smiths Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Assault and Battery 1 Cro. 139 140. IN an Action of Trespass of Assault and Battery and wounding The Defendants say that they were Lessees of certain Lands and the Plaintiff came to the said Lands and took certain Posts which were upon the Lands and they gently took them from him S. pleaded that he found the Plaintiff and P. contending for the said Posts and he to part them mollite put his hands upon the Plaintiff which is the same c. The Plaintiff replyed De injuriis suis propriis absque tali causa per ipsos P. S. allegat upon which issue was joyned which was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgment that here was not any issue for the Plaintiff ought severally to reply to both pleas aforesaid for here are several Causes of Iustification and his Replication absque tali causa Nomen Collectivum Post 139. Dy. 182. doth not answer to both Cook This word Causa is nomen Collectivum which may be referred to every Cause by the Defendants alledged reddendo singula singulis and their Iustifications are but one matter and the Defendants might have all joyned in one plea. Wray Both pleas depend upon one matter but are several causes for two justifie by reason of their Interest and the third for the preservation of the Peace And by him and the whole Court although it be not a good form of pleading yet by reasonable construction this word Cause shall be referred to every cause and so the pleading shall be maintained And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff CLXX Cater and Boothes Case Trin. 30. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Intrat Hill. 30 Rot. 58. or 581. IF a Writ of Covenant the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant by his deed bearing date the first of October 28 Eliz. did covenant that he would do every act and acts at his best endeavour to prove the Will of I. S. or otherwise Covenant that he would procure Letters of Administration by which he might convey such a Term lawfully to the Plaintiff which he had not done licet saepius requisitus c. The Defendant pleaded that he came to Doctor Drury into the Court of the Arches and there offered to prove the Will of the said I. S. but because the Wife of the said I.S. would not swear that it was the Will of her Husband they could not be received to prove it Vpon which it was demurred in Law. It was moved by Williams that the Action doth not lie for there is no time limited by the Covenant when the thing should be done by the Defendant for which he hath time during his life for as much as it is a collateral thing See 15 E. 4. 31. if there be not a Request before but admit that the Covenant had been to perform upon request Request then the Plaintiff in his Declaration ought to have shewed an express request with the place and time of it for that is traversable See 33 H. 6. 47 48. 9 E. 4. 22. Gawdy If the Covenant had been eypresly to do it upon request there the request ought to be shewed specially But when a thing upon the exposition of the Law only is to be done upon Request such Request alledged generally is good enough And by Wray the Covenantor hath not time during his life to perform this Covenant but he ought to do it upon request within convenient time but in some case a man shall have time during his life as where no benefit shall be to any of the
be a strange construction that the King should be within one part of the Statute and out of the other And 34 H. 6. 3. The Kings Attorney could not have damages which is a great proof and authority that the Iudgment for damages in such case is Error The experience and usage of Law is sufficient to interpret the same to us and from the time of E. 3. until now no damages have been given in such case Thrice this matter hath been in question 1. 3 H. 9. and the Iustices there would not give damages 34 H. 6. there the Councel learned of the King could not have damages for the King. And 7 Eliz. there was no damages And whereas it hath been said that a man shall not have a Writ of Error where Iudgment is given for his benefit that if Iudgment be entred that the Defendant be in Misericordia where it ought to be Capiatur yet the Defendant shall have a Writ of Error And he conceived also that here is but one Iudgment Clench The first President after the making of that Statute was that damages were given for the King in such case but afterwards the practice was always otherwise that the said Statute could not be construed to give in such case damages the reason was because the Iustices took the Law to be otherwise And the King is not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. of buying of Tythes nor any Subjects who buy any title of him And here in our case the Queen is not verus Patronus but hath this presentment by Prerogative And if title do accrue to the Bishop to present for Lapse yet the Patron is verus Patronus At another day the case was moved and it was said by VVray that he had conferred with Anderson Manwood and Periam who held that the Queen could not have damages in this case but Periam somewhat doubted of it Gawdy In 22 E. 4. 46. In Dower the Demandant recovered her Dower and damages by verdict and afterwards for the damages the Iudgment was reversed and stood for the Lands Clench It shall be reversed for all for there is but one Iudgment And afterwards Iudgment was given and that the Queen should have a Writ to the Bishop and damages Popham The Court ought not to proceed to the examination of the Errors without a Petition to the Queen and that was the case of one Mordant where an Infant levyed a Fine to the Queen and thereupon brought a Writ of Error and afterwards by the Resolution of all the Iudges the proceedings thereupon were stayed See 10 H. 4. 148. a good case CCVIII Chapman and Hursts Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. BEtwixt Chapman and Hurst Tythes the Defendant did libel in the spiritual Court for Tythes against the Plaintiff who came and surmised that whereas he held certain Lands by the Lease of Sir Ralph Sadler for term of years within such a Parish that the now Defendant being Farmor of the Rectory there The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff promised and agreed to pay to the Defendant ten pounds per annum during the Term for his Tythes he promised that the Plaintiff should hold his said Land without Tythes and without any sute for the same and thereupon prayed a Prohibition And by Gawdy the same is a good discharge of the Tythes for the time and a good Composition to have a Prohibition upon and it is not like unto a Covenant See 8 E. 4. 14. by Danby CCIX. Kirdler and Leversages Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Avowry the case was Avowry 1 Cro. 241. that A. seised of Lands leased the same at Will rendring rent ten pounds per annum and afterwards granted eundem redditum by another deed to a stranger for life and afterwards the lease at will is determined Periam was of opinion that the Rent did continue and although that the words be eundem redditum yet it is not to be intended eundem numero sed eundem specie so as he shall have such a Rent scil ten pounds per annum As where the King grants to such a Town easdem libertates quas Civitas Chester habet it shall be intended such Liberties and not the same Liberties so in the principal case Also he held that a Rent at will cannot be granted for life and therefore it shall not be meant the same Rent But it was afterwards adjudged that the Rent was well granted for the life of the Grantee CCX Heayes and Alleyns Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Cui in vita 1 Cro. 234. Poph. 13. HEayes brought a sur cui in vita against Alleyn And the case was this The Discontinuee of a Messuage had other Lands of good and indefesible title adjoining to it and demolisht and abated the said house and built another which was larger so as part of it extended upon his own Land to which he had good title And afterwards the heir brought a sur cui in vita and demanded the house by the Name of a Messuage whereas part of the house did extend into the Land to which he had no right And by Periam The Writ ought to be of a Messuage with an Exception of so much of the house which was erected upon the soil of the Tenant Demand and the manner of it in a writ as demand of a Messuage except a Chamber And it was argued by Yelverton That the Writ ought to abate for if the Demandant shall have Iudgment according to his Writ then it shall be entred quod petens recuperet Messuagium which should be Erronious for it appeareth by the verdict it self that the demandant hath not title to part of it and therefore he ought to have demanded it specially 5 H. 7. 9. parcel of Land containing 10 Feet 16 E. 3. Br. Mortdanc of a piece of Land containing so much in breadth and so much in length And the moyetie of two parts of a Messuage and 33 E. 3. br Entrie 8. a Disseisor of a Marsh ground made Meadow of it Now in a Writ of Entry it shall be demanded for Meadow Drue Serjeant contrary and he confessed the Cases put before and that every thing shall be demanded by Writ in such sort as it is at the time of the action brought as a Writ of Dower is brought of two Mills whereas during the Coverture they were but 2 Tofts but at the day of the Writ brought Mills and therefore shall be demanded by the name of Mills 14 H. 4. 33. Dower 21. 13 H. 4. 33. 175. 1 H. 5. 11. Walmesly part of a Msseuage may be demanded by the Name of a Messuage and if a House descend to two Coparceners if they make partition that one of them shall have the upper Chamber and the other the lower here if they be disseised they shall have several Assisses and each of them shall make his plaint of a Messuage and by him a Chamber may be
their no cause of Action CCXXXVI Salway and Lusons Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. MAtthew Salway brought a Writ of Right against Luson Writ of Right 2 Len. 36. and the Writ was Messuag 200. acr jampnor bruerae And exception was taken to the Writ because jampnor bruerae are counted together where they ought to be distinguished severally As so many acr jampnor and so many acr bruer although it were objected on the part of the demandant in the maintenance of the Writ that in the Register the Writ of Right is reditu unius librae of Cloves and Mace together Abatement of a Writ without distinction or severance And it was said that in a Writ of Right we ought to follow the Register and therefore a Writ of Right was abated because this word Pomarium was put in the Writ for in the Register there is no such Writ because the word Gardinum comprehends it But in other Writs as Writs of Entry c. it is otherwise See the Case of the Lord Zouch 11 Eliz. 353 In a Writ of Entre sur disseisin mille acr jampnor bruer But this exception was not allowed for it may be that jampnor bruer are so promiscuous that they cannot be distinguished Vide 16 H. 7. 8. 9. The respect the Iustices had to the Register was such as they changed their opinions and conformed the same to the Register Another exception was taken to the Writ because thereby the Demandant doth demand Duas partes Custodiae del Hay in the Forrest of C. And the Court was of opinion that the Writ ought to be Officium Custodiae duarum partium de Hay c. and not Duas partes Custodiae As Advocationem duarum partium Ecclesiae And not Duas partes Ecclesiae Another Exception because the Writ was duas partes c. in tribus dividend where it should be Divis for Dividend is not in any Writ but only in a Writ of Partition And by Windham the parts of this Office are divided in Right which the Court granted Another Exception was taken because that in the Writ it is not set down in what Town the Forrest of C. is so as the Court doth not know from whence the Visne should come For no Venire shall be de vicineto Forestae as de vicineto Hundredi 1 Cro. 200. Manerii And the same was holden to be a material Exception Another Exception was taken Visne because a Writ of Right doth not lye of an Office for at the Common Law an Assise did not lye of it but now it doth by the Statute of West 2. Cap. 25. for it was not Liberum ten but the party grieved was put to his Quod permittat And of this opinion was the whole Court. CCXXXVII Smith and Lanes Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Queen was seised of a Manor whereof Bl. acr was holden by Copy in Fee the Queen leased Bl. acr to B. for one and twenty years who assigned the same to the Copyholder who accepted of it The Queen granted Bl. acr to C. in Fee Copyholder determined by acceptance of a Lease 2 Co. 16 17. the term expired C. entred and his entry was holden to be congeable for by acceptance of the sam Term the Customary Estate was determined as if the Copy-holder had accepted it immediatly from the Queen It was also holden by the Court that a Lease for years under the Seal of the Exchequer may be pleaded and that without making mention of the Commission by which the Court of Exchequer is authorized to make such Leases And so are all the Presidents as well in this Court as in the Court of Exchequer And whereas the Court was upon the point of giving their Iudgment It was objected by Shuttleworth Serjeant That here is pleaded a Bargain and Sale of Land without saying pro quadam pecuniae summa And he stood much upon the Exception and the Court also doubted of it and demanded of the Prothonotaries what is their form of pleading Bargain and Sale and consideration of it And by Nelson cheif Prothonotary these words Pro quadam pecuniae summa ought to be in the pleading Scot Prothonotary contrary Anderson conceived it was either way good but Pro quadam pecuniae summa is the best And so Leonard Custos Brevium conceived And the opinion of the Iustices was that a Bargain and Sale for dives Causes and Considerations is not good without a sum of money 1 Co. Mildmays Case And by Windham Bargain and Sale Pro quadam pecuniae summa although no money be paid is good enough for the payment or not payment is not traversable And by Periam If Pro quadam pecuniae summa be not in the Indenture of Bargain and Sale yet the payment thereof is averrable And for this Exception the Iudgment was stayed CCXXXVIII Bedel and Moores Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber Action upon the Case for not performing an Award BEdel brought an Action upon the Case against Moore in the Kings-Bench and declared That the Defendant did assume to perform the Award of J.S. and assumed also that he would not sue Execution upon a Iudgment which he had obtained against the Plaintiff in an Action of Account c. And shewed further that the Award was made c. which Award in Law was utterly void and that the Defendant had not performed the said Award and also that he had sued Execution against the Plaintiff 10 Co. 131. 5 Co. 108. The Defendant pleaded Non-assumpsit and it was found for the Plaintiff and Iudgment given accordingly Vpon which Moore brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer-chamber upon the Statute of 27 Eliz. And assigned Error Error because the Plaintiff had declared upon two Breaches whereas for one of them there was not any cause of Action for the Award is void in Law then no breach could be assigned in that and then when the Iury hath assessed Damages intirement for both breaches whereas for one there was not any cause of Action by the Law the Verdict was void then the Iudgment given upon it reversable for it is not reason that the Plaintiff have Damages for such matter for which the Law doth not give an Action And if the Iury had assessed damages severally viz. For the not performance of the Award so much Damages and for the suing forth Execution so much then the Iudgment had been good and the damages assessed for the not performance c. void Manwood Chief Baron The verdict is well enough for here the whole Assumpsit is put in issue and there is but one issue upon the whole Assumpsit but if several issues had been joined upon these several points of the Assumpsit and both had been found for the Plaintiff and damages assessed entirely for both breaches then was the Iudgment reversable for being several
as a Will but as an Executory Devise Wray It is not a conditional Estate in Fee but an Estate tail Coke They who would prove the Custom to entail Copyhold Land within a Manor it is not sufficient to shew Copies of Grants to persons and the Heirs of their bodies Copyhold Estate but they ought to shew that surrenders made by such persons have been enjoyed by reason of such matter VVray That is not so for Customary Lands may be granted in tail and yet no surrenders have been made within time of memory CCXLV Matthew and Hassals Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Ejectione firmae betwixt Matthew and Hassal the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover and the Defendant brought a Writ of Error Error 1 Cro. 144. and assigned Error in this that the Iudgment was entred Quod querens recuperet possessionem c. where it should be Terminum vent in ten praedict See 9 Eliz. Dyer 258. Coke contrary That the Iudgment is good enough for the Writ of Execution upon it is Habere facias possessionem and in a real Action the Writ is Quod perens recuperet sesinam and not terram And afterwards Iudgment was affirmed CCXLVI Tempest and Mallets Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass by Tempest against Mallet Iudgment was given and Eror brought and assigned for Error 1 Cro. 153 145. that whereas the Action was brought against four one of them died Mesne betwixt the Award of the Nisi prius and the Inquest taken And it was said on the part of the Defendant in the Writ of Error which was entred upon the Record that the Plaintiff shewed unto the Court the death of one of the Defendants and prayed Iudgment against the others See 4 H. 7. 2 Eliz. 175. And there is a difference where in an Action of Trespass there is but one Defendant and where many Another Error was assigned the Defendant Obtulit se per Higgins Attornat suum without shewing his Christian Name as John or VVilliam for Higgins only without the Christian Name is not any Name for it is but an addition to shew which John or VVilliam Coke The same is helped by the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 30. Where it is enacted that after Verdict Iudgment shall be given notwithstanding the lack of Warrant of Attorney of the party against whom the Issue shall be tried or any default or negligence of any the parties their Counsellors or Attorneys and of necessity this default here in the Christian Name ought to be the fault of one of them See also 18 Eliz. Cap. 14. for want of any Warrant of Attorney c. Glanvil The Statute provides for default of Warrant of Attorney c. Then Coke To what end was the Statute of 18 Eliz. made for the Statute of 32 H. 8. provides for defects of Warrants of Attorney Glanvil The first Statutes for Warrants of Attorneys of such persons against whom the Issue was tryed but the later Stat. is general Another Error was assigned Quod defendens Capiatur where the Offence so the Fine is pardoned by Parliament and therefore the entry of the Iudgment ought to be Et de fine nihil quia perdonatur Coke The Iudgment is well enough for in every general Pardon some persons are excepted it doth not appear if the Defendant here were one of them and then the Fine is not pardoned 1 Cro. 768. 778. 3 Cro. 22. for the Court cannot take notice of that as it was holden in Serjeant Harris Case but if the Defendant be charged with the Fine then he ought to plead the pardon and to shew that he was not any of the persons excepted And afterwards at another day the Defendant did alledge that there was a Warrant of Attorney in the Common Pleas. And also it appeareth upon Record that the Defendant did appear upon the Supersedeas by Attorney who had his full Name and therefore prayed a Certiorari de novo to certifie the same matter vide 9 E. 4. 32. VVray A Case here greatly debated betwixt the Lord Norris and Braybrook In nullo est erratum and upon Advice such a Writ of Certiorari was granted after the Plaintiff had pleaded In nullo est erratum for this Plea in nullo est erratum goes but to that which is contained within the body of the Record and not unto collateral matter scil Warrant of Attorneys And afterwards the Writ of Error was allowed and upon the day of return thereof it appeared upon the Record of Supersedeas that the Defendant did appear by such a one his Attorney But it was said by the Court that there ought to be two appearances the one upon the Supersedeas and the other when the Plaintiff declares See as to the name of the Attorney Tirrells Case 1 Mar. Dyer 93. CCXLVII. Palmer and Knowllis Case Hill. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 160. PAlmer recovered Debt against Knowllis and sued Execution by Elegit upon which the Sheriff returned that he had made Execution of the lands of the Defendant by the Oath of twelve men but he could not deliver it to the party Execution for it is extended to another upon a Statute upon which the Plaintiff sued a Capias ad satisfaciendum And now came the Defendant by his Counsel and moved that after Elegit returned the Plaintiff could not resort to the Execution by Capias and therefore prayed a Supersedeas Caplas after Elegit because the Capias erronice emanavit But the whole Court was clear to the contrary for upon Nihil returned upon Elegit the Plaintiff shall have a Capias 17 E. 4. 5. See 21 H. 7. 19. A man shall have a Capias after a Fieri facias or Elegit 34 H. 6. 20. and here the special return doth amount to as much as if the Sheriff had returned Nihil Also the Statute of West 2. which giveth the Elegit is not in the Negative and therefore it shall not take away the Execution which was at the Common Law. And here is no Execution returned for after the former extent ended he ought to have a new Elegit which Wray granted And afterwards the said Knowllis was taken by force of the Capias ad satisfaciend and came into Court in the Custody of the Sheriff and the Case was opened and in the whole appeared to be worthy of favour but by the Law he could not be helped and although he instantly prayed a Supersedeas yet the same was denied unto him CCXLVIII The Church-wardens of Fetherstones Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Action of Trespass was brought by the Church-wardens of Fetherstone in the County of Norfolk and declared Church-wardens 1 Cro. 145. 179. That the Defendant took out of the said Church a Bell and declared that the Trespass was done 20 Eliz. And it was found for the Plaintiffs And now it was moved by
appendant to it and conveyed the said capital Messuage and Advowson to the King by the dissolution and from the King to the said Thomas Long who so seised without any Deed did enfeoff the Plaintiff of the said Manor and made Livery and Seisin upon the Demesnes And that the said Thomas Long by his Deed made a grant of the said Advowson to the said Strengham and afterwards the Free-holder attorned to the Plaintiff And by the clear opinion of the whole Court here is a sufficient Manor to which an Advowson may be well appendant and that in Law the Advowson is appendant to all the Manor but most properly to the Demesnes out of which at the commencement it was derived and therefore by the attornment afterwards within construction of the Law shall have relation to the Livery the Advowson did pass included in the Livery And the grant of the advowson made mesne between the Livery and the attornment was void and afterwards Iudgment was given and a Writ to the Bishop granted for the Plaintiff CCXC. Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In Communi Banâ—o Debt A Made a Bill of Debt to B. for the payment of twenty pounds at four days scil five pounds at every of the said four days and in the end of the Deed covenanted and granted with B. his Executors and Administrators that if he make default in the payment of any of the said payments that then he will pay the residue that then shall be un-paid and afterwards A. fails in the first payment and before the second day B. brought an action of Debt for the whole twenty pounds It was moved by Puckering Serjeant Sâ—y 31. 32. 1 Cro. 797. That the Action of Debt did not lye before the last day encurred And also if B. will sue A. before the last day that it ought to be by way of covenant not by Debt But by the whole Court the action doth well lye for the manner for if one covenant to pay me one hundred pounds at such a day an action of Debt lyeth a fortiori Owen 42. 1. 2 Rol. 523. when the words of the Deed are covenant and grant for the word covenant sometimes sounds in covenant sometimes in contract secundum subjectum materiae CCXCI. Lancasters Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In Communi Banco Roll. Tit. Covenant pl. 72. AN Information was against Lancaster for buying of pretended Rights Titles upon the Statute of 32 H 8. And upon not guilty pleaded It was found for the Plaintiff it was moved in arrest of Iudgment because the Informer had not pursued the Statute in this that it is not set forth that the Defendant nor any of his Ancestors or any by whom he claimed have taken the profits c. and the same was holden a good and material Exception by the Court although it be layed in the Information that the Plaint himself hath been in possession of the Land by twenty years before the buying of the pretended Title for that is but matter of argument not any express allegation for in all penal Stat. the Plaintiff ought to pursue the very words of the Stat. and therefore by Anderson It hath been adjudged by the Iudges of both Benches that if an Information be exhibited upon the Stat. of Vsury by which the Defendant is charged for the taking of twenty pounds for the Loan and forbearing of one hundred pounds for a year there the Information is not good if it be not alledged in it that the said twenty pounds was received by any corrupt or deceitful way or means And in the principal Case for the Cause aforesaid Iudgment was arrested CCXCII Bagshaw and the Earl of Shrewsburies Case Mich. 32 33. Eliz. In the Common Bench. BAgshaw brought a Writ of Annuity against the Earl of Shrewsbury for the arrerages of an Annuity of twenty Marks per annum Annuity granted by the Defendant to the Plaintiff Pro Consilio impenso impendendo The Defendant pleaded that before any arrerages incurred he required the Plaintiff to do him Service and he refused The Plaintiff by replication said that before the refusal such a day and place the Defendant discharged the Plaintiff of his Service c. And the opinion of the Court was that the Plea in Bar was not good for he ought to have shewed for what manner of Service to do the Plaintiff was so retained and for what kind of Service the Annuity was granted and then to have shewed specially what Service he required of the Plaintiff and what Service the Plaintiff refused Another matter was moved If the discharge shall be peremptory and an absolute discharge of the Service of the Plaintiff and of his attendance so that as afterwards the Defendant cannot require Service of the Plaintiff And by Walmesly Iustice it is a peremptory discharge of the Sevice for otherwise how can he be retained with another Master and so he should be out of every Service VVindham contrary For here the Plaintiff hath an Annuity for his life and therefore it is reason that he continue his Service for his life as long as the Annuity doth continue if he requirreth But where one is retained but for one or two years then once discharged is peremptory and absolute CCXCIII Matheson and Trots Case Mich. 31 32. Eliz. In the Common Bench. BEtwixt Matheson and Trot the Case was Sir Anthony Denny seised of certain Lands in and about the Town of Hertford 2 Len. 190. holden in Socage and of divers Mannors Lands and Tenements in other places holden in chief by Knights-service and having Issue two Sons Henry and Edward by his last Will in writing devised the Lands holden in Hertford to Edward Denny his younger Son in Fee Devises and died seised of all the Premisses Henry being then within age After Office was found without any mention of the said Devise the Queen seised the Body of the Heir and the possession of all the Lands whereof the said Sir Anothony died seised and leased the same to a stranger during the Minority of the Heir by force and colour of which Lease the Lessee entred into all the Premisses and did enjoy them according to the Demise And the Heir at his full age sued Livery of the whole and before any entry of the said Edward in the Land to him devised or any entry made by the said Henry the said Henry at London leased the said Lands by Deed indented to I.S. for years rendring Rent by colour of which the said I.S. entred and paid the Rent divers years to the said Henry And afterwards by casualty the said Henry walked over the Grounds demised by him in the company of the said I. S. without any special entry or claim there made I.S. assigned his Interest to I.D. who entred in the Premisses and paid the Rent to the said Henry who died and afterwards the Rent was paid to the Son and Heir of Henry
Plaintiffs At another day the Case was moved again And then it was the clear opinion of the whole Court that the Action was maintainable although that the Plaintiff in the first Action had acknowledged satisfaction And it hath been adjudged here in this Court in the Case betwixt Hill and Hill that notwithstanding such satisfaction that the Action lieth See F.N.B. 130. b. for the payment after doth not take away the Action but mitigate the damages only for the Act of a third person shall not take away an Action once vested CCCXVII Greenliff and Bakers Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Assumpsit 1 Cro. 193. THe Plaintiff declared that whereas he was bound to the Defendant in an obligation of forty pounds for the payment of twenty pounds the Defendant the second of No. after in consideration that the Plaintiff at the Request of the Defendant had paid the said twenty pounds without suit at Law promised to deliver to the Plaintiff before such a day an Obligation by which one A. was bounden to the Defendant in forty pounds with a Letter of Attorney to demand the same of the said A. and to sue for it in the name of the Defendant which he had not done and in that matter the Plaintiff had Iudgment and thereupon the Defendant brought a Writ of Error First here is not any consideration for the payment of the mony is no more than he ought to do and which he was compeliable to do c. Secondly the same is no benefit to the Plaintiff but only a matter of charge to sue the said Bond against A. Thirdly upon the Venire facias the Sheriff returned but twenty three Iurors As to the first Error it was the opinion of Gawdy and Fenner Iustices that here is not any consideration for the Defendant hath not any benefit by it and the Plaintiff doth no more than he ought to do and the payment was in respect of the Debt and not of the Defendants Request And by Gawdy upon this promise an action doth not lye for the Plaintiff is not to have any benefit by it but travel Fenner contrary and that the Action lieth for that as to the third Error the same is helped by the Statute of 32 H. 8. and the Statute of 18 Eliz. of imperfect and insufficient return of any Sheriff Fenner Not only the return is naught but also the Pannel is insufficient And it was moved by Tanfield that it was adjudged in this Court Pasch 25 Eliz. betwixt Cook and Huet that where A. was bounden to B. in forty pounds B. promised to A. that if A. would pay the mony without suit he would deliver him the said Bond by which he is bound to the said B. and it was holden a good consideration Quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam but that is not like to the case at Bar and it was holden in the same Plea That if the Obligor pay the duty at the day and place that if the Obligee will not deliver the Bond yet the Obligor shall not have the Detinue for it CCCXII Guildfords Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Indictment upon the Statute of 23 Eliz. GUilford was Indicted upon the Statute of 23 Eliz. cap. 1. for withdrawing divers persons her Majesties Subjects from the Religion established in England to the Roman Religion and to promise obedience to the Church of Rome and for that he himself was with-drawn from the obedience of the Queen Coke took Exception to the Indictment because that the Indictment was not found within the year after the offence committed In the said Act there is a Proviso That all offences against the Act shall and may be enquired of within the year and day after the offence committed Popham Attorney General This case is not within that Proviso but doth depend upon other Statutes before viz. 1 5 13 Eliz. touching the acknowledging of her Majesties supream Government in causes Ecclesiastical or other matters touching the service of God or coming to Church or establishing of true Religion within this Realm shall and may be enquired as well before the Iustices of the Peace as other Iustices named in the said Statute within one year and a day after such offence committed And he said these words in the Proviso refer only to such offences contained in the said Act which toucheth the Supremacy and causes Ecclesiastical c. and such offences ought to be enquired within the year and day But this Indictment here doth consist upon other matter for withdrawing himself from the obedience of the Queen which is an offence out of the compass of the said Proviso and therefore the enquiry of it not restrained unto any time and the Statute of 13 Eliz. extends to Bills Writings Instruments c. and not to the words with-drawing by words which is supplied by 13 Eliz. with-drawing by other means and the restraint of the Enquiry at the time goes to the hearing of Mass and saying of Mass and not repairing to the Church but as to with-drawing the same is at large not restrained by that Statute And he said that this Indictment doth consist upon many offences some to offences within the Proviso and as to those the Indictment is void Some to other offences as Treason the offence of with-drawing the Enquiry of which is not restrained and therefore this Indictment shall stand Also it was the intent of this Statute not to restrain this Court but only the Iustices of Peace for they are specially named Coke conceived that this word Touching c. did not extend to any thing contained in the Statute of 23 Eliz. but only to offences within the Acts of 1 5 13 Eliz. which were incertain before also this Proviso is in the Disjunctive against this or against the Acts of 1 5 or 13 Eliz. so as that which follows is to be applied to the last Disjunctive and not to the whole sentence and always when a thing is named certain and after general things the words subsequent shall be referred to the general words and not to that which is certain Also if Touching c. doth refer to this Statute the sentence would have begun with it but here it begins with the Supremacy of which nothing is spoken in this Statute and therefore it ought to be referred to the Statute which begins it and that is 1 Eliz. and then it shall be preposterous to come after 23 Eliz. and these words shall and may ought to be so construed shall is restrictive of it self and may shall be referred to that which was restrained before as the proceedings upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 2. were restrained to the next Sheriffs And he conceived that this Court is as well restrained to Time as any other Court for the words are as well before Iustices of the Peace as before other Iustices named in the said Statutes and in the Statute of 5 Eliz.
the Right of the Complainants come ceo c. with warranty of the said Husband and Wife for which the Complainants did render a Rent of fifty pounds per annum with clause of distress in dictis Manerijs to the said John Amy the Heirs of Amy and also rendred the Tenements aforesaid with the Appurtenances to the said John and Amy for their lives the Remainder to the said Francis their Son in tail the Remainder to the said Amy and her Heirs and that John and Amy dyed by force whereof the said Rent descendeth to the said Plaintiff as Son and Heir of the said Amy and that the said Francis entred into the said Mannors as in his Remainder and was seised in tail and was seised of the said Rent by the Hands of the said Francis and afterwards thereof did enfeoff the said Garmons the Defendant c. The Tenant pleaded That the Plaintiff was never seised so as he could be disseised and if c. Nul tor nul disseisin which was found for the Plaintiff who had Iudgment and Execution upon which the Tenant brought a Writ of Error Stephens assigned Error First the Fine is levyed of two Manors inter alia so as no other Lands passed by the Fine besides the Manors and so the Rent is granted out of the said Lands and Manors and no other Lands which passed by the Fine and then upon the Plaintiffs own shewing it appears that all the Tenants of the Lands charged with the Rent in demand are not named in the Assize Second Error This Rent is granted only out of the Estate tail for Amy hath Fee in both as well the Rent as the Land and then when the Estate tail is determined the Rent is also determined and he hath not averred the life of the Tenant in tail or any of his Issue wherefore it shall be intended that he is dead without issue and then the Rent is gone and then he hath not any cause to have Assise Bourchier As to the first conceived and argued that it is not Error for although these words inter alia c. yet it shall not be intended that the Conusor had any other Lands or that the Rent is issuing out of other Lands than those two Manors which are expressed not inter alia As to the second the continuance of the tail needs not to be averred for the Tenant in tail hath enfeoffed the Tenant of the Land by which the estate tail is discontinued And although the Tenant in tail be dead without issue yet the Rent doth remain until Recovery of the Land by Formedon in the Remainder Fenner Iustice was of opinion Vaugh. Reâ— 175. That the Per nomen should go unto the Mannors only and should not extend to the inter alia For if a man in pleading saith that J.S. was seised of twenty acres of Land and thereof inter alia did enfeoff him per nomen of Green-wead the same shall not have reference to the inter alia but only to the twenty acres And the averment of the continuance of the Tail needs not for the Estate-tail is discontinued Gawdy Iustice was of opinion That the per nomen should go as well to the inter alia as to the two Manors and then all the Ter-tenants are not named in the Assise and the same not to be pleaded for it appears of the Plaintiffs own shewing and there needs no averment of the continuance of the Tail for the cause aforesaid Clench Iustice The per nomen doth refer to all which see by the Fine which shews that other Lands passed by the Fine than the said two Manors And as to the second point he said There needed no averment Gawdy As to the first Error the same cannot be saved by any way but to say That the Conusor was not seised of any other Lands than the said two Manors and then the Fine doth not extend unto it and then no Rent is granted out of it Fenner In the Common Pleas in the great case of Fines it was holden that in pleading of a Fine it needs not to say That the Conusor was seised for if the Conusor or Conusee were seised it is sufficient for such pleading is contrary in it self for a Fine sur conusance de droit come ceo c. doth suppose a precedent Gift It was also objected That here is a confusion in this Fine for the Rent is rendred to the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the Wife and the Land is rendred to the Husband and Wife for their lives the Remainder to Francis in Tail the remainder to the Wife and her Heirs And these matters cannot stand together in a Fine but the one will confound the other But as to that it was said that the Law shall Marshall these two renders so as they both shall stand And it is not like unto a Rent-service for a Rent-service issueth out of the whole Estate And therefore if a Remainder upon an Estate for life Eschears the Seigniory is gone even during the life of the Tenant for life which see 3 H. 6. 1. contrary of a Rent-charge For if the Grantee of a Rent in Fee purchaseth the remainder of the Land out of which it is depending out of an Estate for life he shall have the Rent during the life of the Tenant for life And of that opinion were all the three Iustices for the Conusors took by several Acts and the Estate is charged for it cometh under the Grant. Fenner Iustice There is a difference betwixt a Rent service and a Rent-charge or Common for that shall charge only the Possession but a Rent-charge shall charge the whole Estate And therefore if he who hath a Rent-service releaseth to him in the Remainder upon an Estate-tail or for life the Rent is extinct which Gawdy denied And this Case was put The Disseisee doth release to the Lessee for years of his Disseisor nihil operatur But if the Disseisor and Disseisee joyn in a Release to such Lessee the same is good for first it shall enure as the Release of the Disseisor and then of the Disseisee c. CCCXLIV Tedcastle and Hallywels Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Debt 2 Roll. 594. 1 Cro. 234 235. IN Debt upon a Bond the Defendant pleaded That the Condition was That whereas John Hallywel had put himself to be an Apprentice to the Plaintiff if the Defendant John Hallywel during his Apprenticeship or any other for him by his consent or agreement take or riotously spend any of the Goods of his said Master the Plaintiff If then the Defendant within one month after notice thereof given to him do pay and satisfie the Plaintiff for all such sums of Monies Wares c. so taken or riotously spent by the Defendant or by any other by his procurement or consent the same being sufficiently proved that then c. The Defendant by protestation Quod nec
Litis contestationem the right of the Suit is so vested in the Proctor Swinburn 212. that he is a person suable until the end of the Suit and also he reported their Law to be * Bro. Devise 27. 45. Office of Exce 347. Shâ—p Touchstone c. 454. Plowd 345. Orphans Legacy 281. Note It was adjudged contrary to this Mich. An. Dom. 1653. in the Kings Bench. in Doâ—mlowes Case Poph. 11. That if a Legacy be bequeathed to an Infant to be paid when he shall come to the Age of twenty one years if such a Legatory dieth before such age yet the Executor or Administrator of such Legator shall sue for the said Legacy presently and shall not expect until the time in which if the Infant had continued in life he had attained his full age And as to the Prohibition it was argued by Egerton Solicitor General That the Grant aforesaid is not triable in the Spiritual Court As if the said Lady Lodge had suffered a Recovery to be had against her as Executor by Covin c. the same is not examinable in the Spiritual Court but belongs to the temporal Conusans and therefore he prayed a Prohibition But on the other side it was said That if the Prohibition be allowed the Legatory hath no remedy but that was denied for the party might sue in the Chancery And after the Prohibition granted the Court awarded a special Consultation quatenus non extendat ultra manus Executoris quatenus non agitur de validitate facti i. the Grant aforesaid CCCLXXVII Huddy and Fishers Case Hill. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Debt DEbt was brought upon a Bond the Condition of which was for the performance of Covenants Grants and Agreements in an Indenture And in the Indenture it was recited That in consideration that the said Huddy should build a Mill upon the Land demised by the Defendant to the Plaintiff by the same Indenture Attaint and a Water-course by the Land demised the Defendant leased the said Land to the Plaintiff and the Lease was by the words Dedi concessi And the Plaintiff assigned the breach of the said Covenant in Law in that the Defendant had stopped the said Water-course so made by the Plaintiff upon which they were at Issue and it was found for the Plaintiff upon which the Defendant brought Attaint and the false oath was found and it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That here is no Issue and then by consequence no Verdict and then no false Oath and then no cause of Attaint for here the Issue is taken upon the stopping of the Water-course which upon the shewing of the party is not any cause of Action for in the Indenture there is not any express Covenant Clause or Agreement that the Lessee should enjoy the Water-course so to be made only there is a Covenant in Law rising upon these words Dedi concessi which cannot extend to a thing not in esse at the time of the making the Indenture Coke who argued for the Defendants in the Attaint resembled this case to the case in 23 E. 3. Garr 77. Where it is holden that the warranty knit to the Manor shall not extend to the Tenancy escheated And 30 E. 3. 14. The Recovery in value shall not be in larger proportion than the Land warranted was at the time of the warranty made So in our case this Covenant shall not extend to any thing which was not in esse at the time of the Covenant made And see 25 Ass 2. where the Court shall reject a Verdict or part of a Verdict c. And because the now Plaintiff might after the Verdict have alledged the same in arrest of Iudgment which he did not he shall not be helped by Attaint but it shall be accounted his folly that he would not for his own ease and to avoid circuity of Action shew the matter in stay of Iudgment As 9 E. 4. 12. by Littleton If a man be Indicted of Felony if the Iudgment be insufficient but he takes not advantage of it but pleads the general Issue and is acquitted he shall never after have a Writ of Conspiracy c. And for another cause Iudgment ought not to be given in this Case because it doth not appear that Execution hath been sued and then here is no party grieved And then this Action being conceived upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. Cap. 3. which gives it to the party grieved doth not lye for a party grieved cannot be intended without Execution sued See 21 H. 6. 55. by Paston False oath Iudgment and Execution do entitle the party grieved to Attaint And see the Stat. of 23 H. 8. which enacts That the party shall be restored to as much as he hath lost therefore he ought to lose by Execution before he be a person able 〈◊〉 bring this Action But as to that matter see the Statute of 1 E. 3. 6. by which it is Enacted That the Iustices shall not leave to take Attaint for the damages not paid so as before the said Statute no Attaint lay before Execution 33 H. 6. 21. by Prisoit 5 H. 7. 22. t. E. 1. Attaint 70. 8 E. 2. Assize 396. And it was moved That for another cause the Attaint doth not lye as it is pursued in Process upon it for the Plaintiff hath not pursued the Statute upon which the Attaint is grounded for the said Statute gives special Process in this case against the Petit Iury Grand Iury and the party viz. Summons Re-summons and Distress infinite but in this Case the Plaintiff hath sued otherwise which is against the direction of the Statute And that was taken to be a material Exception by Clench and Gawdy Iustices for the Verdict doth not save the matter of Process in this case by the Statute of 18 Eliz. which doth not extend to proceedings in penal Causes wâ—â—ch see by the words of the Statute by an express Proviso But Quaere If it be a penal Statute because a lesser punishment is enacted by it than that which was before inflicted upon such offenders And as to the matter of Execution Quaere If the Plaintiff be not pars gravata in hoc only that he is subject to the said Iudgment and so liable to Execution CCCLXXVIII Penruddock and Newmans Case Hill. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Ejectione firmae Execution 2 Len. 49. the Plaintiff declared upon a Lease made by the Lord Morley and upon Not guilty pleaded this special matter was found that William Lord Mountegle seised of the Manor of D. whereof c. became bounden in a Statute in such a sum to A. who died the Executors of A. sued Execution against the said Lord i. upon the Extendi facias a Libertate issued forth upon which the said Manor was delivered to the said Executors but was not returned It was further found That the said Executors being so possessed of the said Manor the said Lord
Williams and Powell for that the said Williams had before brought a Quare Impedit against the said Blower and the Bishop Dyer 353. b. 354. and had recovered against them by default whereupon Williams had a Writ to the Metropolitan to admit his Clerk and in the Writ of Disceit Iudgment was given for the Plaintiffs For it was found That the Summons was the Friday to appear the Tuesday after and so an insufficient Summons and in that Writ of Disceit the Defendants Williams and Powell pleaded That Blower the Incumbent was deprived of his Benefice in the Court of Audience which sentence was affirmed upon Appeal before the Delegates and notwithstanding that Plea Iudgment was given against Williams and Powell Defendants in the said Writ of Disceit And upon that Iudgment this Writ of Error is brought Beaumont assigned four Errors First 1 Cro. 65. because the Bishop and Blower joyned in the Writ of Disceit for their Rights are several 12 E. 4. 6. Two cannot joyn in an Action of Trespass upon a Battery done at one time to them So if one distrain at one and the same time the several Goods of divers persons they according to their several properties shall have several Replevins 12 H. 7. 7. By Wood. So if Lands be given to two and to the Heirs of one and they lose by default in a Praecipe brought against them they shall have several Writs the one Quod ei deforceat Joynder in Action the other a Writ of Right 46 E. 3. 21. A Fine levied to one for life the Remainder to two Husbands and their Wives in tail they have Issue and die Tenant for life dieth the Issues of the Husbands and Wives shall have several Scire facias's to execute the Fine by reason of their several Rights Lands in ancient Demesn holden severally of several Lords are conveyed by Fine the Lords cannot joyn in a Writ of Disceit but they ought to have several Writs so here the Plaintiffs in this Writ of Disceit and the Bishop claims nothing but as ordinary and he loseth nothing in the Quare Impedit and therefore by the Writ of Disceit he shall be restored to nothing The second Error was Because the Bar of the Defendants in the Writ of Disceit was good i. the deprivation c. and the Court adjudged it not good for the Clerk being deprived he could not enjoy the Benefice if the Iudgment in the Qu. Impedit had been reversed Regulâ— Post 330. and where a man cannot have the effect of his suit it is in vain to bring any Action Lessee for the life of another loseth by erronious Iudgment Cestuy que use dieth his Writ of Error is gone for if the Iudgment be reversed he cannot be restored to the Land for the estate is determined 31 E. 3. Incumbent 6. The King brought a Quare Impedit against the Incumbent and the Bishop the Bishop claimed nothing but as Ordinary The Incumbent traversed the title of the King against which it was replyed for the King That the Incumbent had resigned pendant the Writ so as now he could not plead any thing against the title of the King for he had not possession and so could not counterplead the possession of the King. And here in our Case by this deprivation the Incumbent is disabled to maintain this Action of Disceit 15 Ass 8. If the Guardian of a Chappel be impleaded in a Praecipe for the Lands of his Chappel and pendant the Writ he resign the Successor shall have a Writ of Error and not he who resigns for he is not to be restored to the Lands having resigned his Chappel So in our Case A deprivation is as strong as a Resignation The third Error because in the Writ of Disceit it is not set forth that Blower was Incumbent for the Writ of Disceit ought to contain all the special matter of the Case as an Action upon the Case 4 E. 3. Disceit 45. The fourth Error That upon suggestion made after Verdict that Blower was Incumbent and in of the presentment of the Lord Stafford Deprivation and that he was removed and Griffin in by the Recovery in the Quare Impedit by default a Writ to the Bishop was awarded without any Scire facias against Griffin for he is possessor and so the Statute of 25 E. 3. calls him and gives him authority to plead against the King 6 Co. 52. and every Release or Confirmation made to him is good 18 E. 3. Confirmation made by the King after Recovery against the Incumbent is good And 9 H. 7. If a Recovery be had in a Contra formam collationis the possessor shall not be ousted without a Scire facias so in Audita Querela upon a Statute Staple Scire facias Scire facias shall go against the Assignee of the Conusee 15 E. 3. Respon 1. See also 16 E. 3. Disceit 35. 21 Ass 13. A Fine levied of Lands in Ancient Demesn shall not be reversed without a Scire facias against the Ter-tenant Walmesley contrary The case at the Bar differs from the case put of the other side for they are cases put upon original Writs but our case is upon a judicial Writ and here nothing is demanded but the Defendant is only to answer to the disceit and falshood And in this Case the Issue is contained in the Writ which is not in any original Writ and the Iudges shall examine the issue without any plea or appearance of the Tenant and here the Defendant is not to plead any thing to excuse himself of the wrong And here the Iudgment is not to recover any thing in demand but only to restore the party to his former estate and possession and if he hath nothing he shall be restored to nothing And he put many cases where persons who have several Rights may joyn in one Action as a Recovery in an Assize against several Tenants they may joyn in one Writ of Error 18 Ass Recovery in Assize against Disseisor and Tenant they shall both joyn in Error why not also in Disceit 19 E. 3. Recovery against two Coparceners the Survivor and the heir of the other shall joyn in Error As to the second Error Williams and the Sheriff ought not to joyn in the Plea and also the Plea it self is not good for the Writ of Disceit is That Williams answer to the Disceit and the Sheriff shall certifie the proceedings and therefore he shall not plead and also the Plea it self is not good for although the interest of the Incumbent be determined in the Church yet his Action is not gone as if in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant alieneth pendant the Writ and afterwards the Demandant recovereth yet the Tenant although his Interest be gone by the Feoffment yet he shall have a Writ of Error and so here and as to the Scire facias there needs none here against the new Incumbent for he comes in pendant the Writ
yet afterwards he seemed to be of other opinion And as to that which hath been objected That the Lease is void to all intents and purposes according to the words of the Statute for by some it cannot be resembled to the case cited before of the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfeild that such a Grant should bind him and not his Successors for if this Grant in our Case shall not be void presently it shall never be void for the Colledge never dieth no more than Dean and Chapter Mayor and Commonalty To that it was answered by Drew That although there be some difference betwixt such Corporations and that the words of the Statute are general void to all intents constructions and purposes yet they shall construed according to the meaning of the makers of the Act whose scope was to provide for the Successors and not for the present Incumbent and to the utter impoverishing of all Successors without any respect to the party himself as it appeareth by the preamble of the said Statute where it is observed That by long and unreasonable Leases the decay of Spiritual Livings is procured for the remedying and preventing of which long Leases this Act was made and that the Successors should not be bound thereby And these Leases are not void simpliciter sed secundum quid i. e. as to the Successors As upon the Statute of 11 H. 7. cap. 20. Discontinuances made by Women c. shall be void and of none effect yet such a Discontinuance made is good against the Woman her self So upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. concerning Bishops See now Coke Lincoln Colledge Case 37 Eliz. in the third Reports 60. A Lease made by Dean and Chapter not warranted by the said Statute shall not be void untill after the death of the Dean who was party to the Lease So upon the Statute of 13 Eliz. of fraudulent Conveyances such fraudulent Conveyance is not void against the Grantor but against those who are provided for by the said Statute and that the Lease in the principal case is not void but voidable all the Iustices agreed to be avoided by the Colledge or any other who claim by it and by Anderson If such a Lease should be void then great mischief would fall to the Colledge for whose benefit this Statute was made for if such Lease be made rendring a small Rent then if before the defect be found or espied the Rent was arrear the Colledge could not have remedy for the said Rent Also by Periam Such a Lessee might have an Action of Trespass against a stranger who entreth upon the Land which proves that the Lease is not void but voidable and afterwards notwithstanding all the Objections Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and the chief Authority which moved Periam Iustice to be of such opinion was Lemans case cited before 28 H. 8. Dyer 27. where a Lease was made to a Spiritual person against the Statute of 21 H. 8. and a Bond or Obligation for performance of covenants and thereupon an Action was brought and the Plaintiff therein had Iudgment and recovered which could not have been if the Lease were utterly void against the Lessor and Lessee as the very words of the Statute are and although it is not alledged in the Book that that was any cause of the Iudgment yet in his opinion it was the greatest cause of the Iudgment in that case CCCCXXVIII Bighton and Sawles Case Pasch 35 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the case it ws agreed by the whole Court 1 Cro. 235. That where Iudgment is given that the Plaintiff shall recover and because it is not known what damages therefore a Writ issueth to enquire of the damages That the same is not a perfect Iudgment before the damages returned and adjudged and therefore they also agreed that after such award and before the damages adjudged that any matter might be shewed in Court in arrest of the Iudgment and by Periam Iustice the difference is where damages are the principal thing to be recovered and where not for if damages be the principal then the full Iudgment is not given until they be returned but in Debt where a certain sum is demanded it is otherwise CCCCXXIX Maidwell and Andrews Case Pasch 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. MAidwell brought an Action of Covenant against Andrews Covenant and the Case was this That R. was seised of Lands and leased the same for life rendring Rent and afterwards devised the Reversion to his wife for life and died Andrews the Defendant took to wife the wife of the Devisor the Devisee of the Reversion afterwards Andrews bargained and sold the said Reversion to one Marland and his heirs during his own life and afterwards granted the Rent to the Plaintiff and covenanted that the Plaintiff should enjoy the said Rent during his Term absque aliquo legitimo impedimento of the said Andrews his Heirs or Assigns or any other person claiming from the said Marland Marland died seised and the same descended to B. his heir and the breach of the Covenant was assigned in this i. in the heir of Marland who hath the Rent by reason of the Grant of the Reversion to Marland ut supra the Defendant pleaded the Grant of the Reversion to Marland per scriptum without saying Sigillo suo sigillat hic in Curia prolat absque hoc that the said Reversion and Rent descended to B. and thereupon the Plaintiff did demur in Law and the causes of the Demurrer was assigned by Yelverton Serjeant 1. The Grant of the Reversion is pleaded per sciptum and he doth not say sigillat for a Reversion cannot pass without Deed although it be granted but for years and a bare writing is not a Deed without sealing of it and therefore the pleading ought to be per scriptum suum sigillat or per factum suum for factum suum implies the ensealing and delivery 2. It ought to be pleaded hic in Cur. prolat for the Court is to see such Deed to the end they may know if it be a lawful Deed Traverse 1 Cro. 278. without razure interlining or other defects 3. The Defendant hath traversed the descent where he ought to have traversed the dying seised for of every thing descendable the dying seised is the substance and the descent is but the effect And although the Grant of the Reversion was but for the life of the Grantor yet the estate granted is descendable as 27 E. 3. 31. Tenant by the Courtesie leaseth his estate to one and his heirs the Grantor dieth his Heir entreth and a good Bar against him in the Reversion and see 14 E. 3. Action 56. Annuity granted to one and his Heirs for the term of another mans life the Grantor dieth living Cestuy que vie the Heir of the Grantor brings a writ of Annuity and it was holden maintainable and he said that were the dying seised is confessed and avoided by
Action against the Executor of I.D. And it was agreed by the Court that if a man makes his Debtor and a stranger his Executors and the Debtor dieth the surviving Executor may have an Action of debt against the Executor of the Debtor and so it was adjudged in the principal case CCCCXLIX Wollman and Fies Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Assumpsit 1 Cro. 179. IN an Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit that the Plaintiff should enjoy such Lands for so many years The Defendant pleaded the Statute of 13 14 Eliz. because the Land is the Glebe Land of such a Parsonage and in truth the Defendant did mis-recite the Statute For the Statute is No Lease after the fifteenth day of May And the pleading is hereafter to be made Secondly the Statute is of any Benefice with cure the pleading is of any Benefice Thirdly The Statute is without absence above eighty and the pleading is without absence by the space of eighty days And for these Causes the Plaintiff had Iudgment CCCCL Frond and Batts Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Debt Payment to the wife not good IN debt upon a Bond upon condition to stand to the Award of I.S. The Defendant pleaded That the said I.S. had Arbitrated that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff ten pounds and he said he had paid it to the Plaintiffs wife who received it upon which the Plaintiff did demur And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCCLI Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Grants of the King of the Office of Marshal of the Kings Bench. THe Queen granted to George Earl of Shrewsbury An. 15. of her reign the Office of Earl Marshal of England and now came the said Earl and prayed that I. S. one of his Servants to whom he had granted the Office of Marshal of the Kings Bench might be to it because the same is an Office incident to his Office and in his power to grant and that Knowles to whom the Queen had granted the said Office of Marshal of the Kings Bench by the Attainder of North. be removed And a President was shewed 14 15 Eliz. Betwixt Gawdy and Verney where it was agreed That the said office was a several office from the said great office and not incident to it And as to the Case of 39 H. 6. 33 34. the truth is the said office of Marshal of the Kings Bench was granted expresly by the Duke by express words and so he had it not as incident to his office of Marshal of England On the other side there were three Presidents shewed first in the time of E. 2. That the office of the Marshal of the Kings Bench was appendant to the said office of Marshal of England Secondly 8 R. 2. When the said great office was in the King he granted the said office of Marshal of the Kings Bench But 20 R. 2. both offices were rejoyned as they were before in ancient time and there were also shewed Latters Patents of 4 E. 4. and 19 H. 8. by which it appeared That the said inferiour office had time out of mind been part of the great office And it was moved That when the said great office is in the Kings hands and the King grants the said under office if now this office be not severed from the great office for ever Wray It is no severance for the chief office is an office of Dignity which may remain in the King but this under office is an office of necessity and the King himself cannot execute it by which of necessity he ought to grant it Another matter was moved If the Grant of the King unto the Earl of Shrewsbury were good because in it the Grant to Verney of the said under office is not recited according to the Statute of 6 H. 8. 9. As 26 E. 3. 60. The King seised of the Honor of Pickring to which a Forrest was appendant the Bayliwick of which Forrest he granted in fee rendring rent and afterwards he granted the Honor with Appurtenances and afterwards the Bailiff committed a Forfeiture and that was found in Eyre the Grantee of the Honor shall seise it yet the King shall have the Rent And here the Earl of Shrewsbury shall have this office in his power to grant And so much the rather because it was granted but for life CCCCLII Michill and Hores Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. MIchil did affirm a Plaint in the Court of the City of Exeter against Hore for twenty pounds and upon Nihil returned Attachment of goods by custom of Exeter it was surmised That Trosse had certain monies in his hands due to Hore and according to the custom of Exeter the said monies were attached in the hands of Trosse who appeared upon the Attachment and pleaded That he owed nothing to Hore upon which there was a Demurrer Error and Iudgment given against Trosse because that Trosse ought to have pleaded not only that he owed him nothing but further that he had not any goods of Hores in his hands And thereupon Trosse brought a Writ of Error and assigned the Error in the principal matter upon which it was demurred and Iudgment given against the Plaintiff because that the Plea of Trosse that he owed him nothing is good enough for if there be not a Debt it is not attachable upon such Attachment And it is a good Plea to a common intent and altogether in use in London were such custom is Another Error was assingned for that Michill had recovered Costs against Trosse where it ought not to be And also Iudgment is not given that Trosse should be discharged against Hore And afterwards the Iudgment given in Exeter was reversed CCCCLIII Dennis and Saint Johns Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt 1 Cro. 494. IN Debt upon an Obligation against Oliver Saint John and Alice his wife as heir of her Father The Defendants pleaded Non est factum of the Father And it was found by special Verdict That the Obligation was made by the Father of the Wife to the Plaintiff and another whereas in truth The Plaintiff hath declared upon an Obligation made to himself only without speaking of any other joynt Obligee Non est factum and that the Plaintiff as Survivor hath brought the Action and if upon the matter it shall be said the Deed of the Defendant in manner as the Plaintiff hath declared the Iury refer unto the Court And the case 14 E. 4. 1. b. If three enfeoff me and I plead That two did enfeoff me and the same be traversed it shall be found against me for the Feoffment is a joynt act by them all But if a man enfeoffeth me and two others and they dye so as I have all by Survivor in pleading I may shew the Feoffment was made to me alone So 46 E. 3. 17. a. Three Joynt-tenants in Fee make a
Iustice It was a great offence in the Plaintiff but the same ought to be punished according to Law but the Constable cannot imprison a Subject at his pleasure but according to Law i. to stay him and bring him before a Iustice of the Peace to be there examined Wray If the Defendant had pleaded that he stayed the Plaintiff upon that matter to have brought him before a Iustice of Peace it had been a good Plea. Fennor The justification had been good if the Defendant had pleaded that the Plaintiff refused to carry away the Child so all the Iustices were of opinion against the Plea but they would not give Iudgment by reason of the ill Example but they left the parties to compound the matter CCCCLXIII Cole and Walles Case Pasch 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Ejectione Custodiae lieth not upon a Copy-hold Estate 1 Cro. 224. IN an Ejectione Custodiae the Plaintiff declared that A. was seised of the Manor of D. within which Manor are diverse Copyholds of Inheritance and that the Custom of the Manor is that if any Copy-holder of Inheritance of the said Manor dieth his heir within the age of 14 years that then the Lord of the Manor might grant the custody of his Body and Lands to whom he pleased and shewed that one Clevertie a Copyholder of Inheritance of the said Manor died his son and heir within the age of 14 years Hob. 215. Dyer 302 303. upon which the Lord of the Manor committed the custody of his Body and Lands to the Plaintiff and the Defendant did eject him and upon Not guilty it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgment That this Action would not lye upon a Copyhold estate Quod tota Curia concessit and yet it was said that an Ejectione firmae lieth upon a demise of Copy-hold Land by Lease of a Copyholder himself but not upon a demise by the Lord of the Copyhold Quod fuit concessum and afterwards the Case was moved on the Plaintiffs side and it was said That this was but an Action upon the Case in the nature of an Ejectione firmae and this interest is not granted by Copy but entred only into the Court Roll so it is not an interest by Copy but by the Common Law for the words are Quod Dominus commisit custodiam c. and doth not say in Curia and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCCLXIV Bond and Bailes Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Judgment upon a Bond where satisfied before a Statute â— Len. 37â— Roll. 926. BOnd brought a Scire facias against Bailes Administrator of one T. B. upon a Recovery had against the Intestate in Action of Debt The Defendant pleaded That before the said Iudgment given the Testator did acknowledge a Statute Staple to one C. and that the Son was not paid in the life of the Testator nor after and that they have not in their hands any goods of the Intestate beyond what will satisfie the said Statute upon which there was a demurrer in Law. And Coke argued That the Bar is not good for here is not pleaded any Execution upon the Statute and then the Iudgment the Statute being of things of as high nature that of which Execution is sued shall be first served and if this Action had been brought upon a Bond the Plea had not been good for although that Brian saith 21 E. 4. That Recognizances shall be paid by Executors before Bonds yet that it is to be intended when a Scire facias is to be sued upon it otherwise not And 4 H. 6. 8. in a Scire facias upon a Iudgment fully administred at the day of the Writ brought is a good Plea by which it appeareth That if the Executors had paid the Debt upon the Obligation before the Writ brought it had been good See 12 E. 3. Executors 73. in a Scire facias upon a Iudgment in Debt given against the Testator Enquiry shall be what goods the Executors had the day of the Scire facias and he said it was moved by Anderson 20 Eliz. in this Court. In Debt upon a Bond against Executors the Defendant pleaded that the Testator was indebted by Iudgment to A. and that they had not more than to satisfie the same and it was holden no plea if not that he pleaded further that a Scire facias was sued upon it Wray said The same is not Law and there is a difference when the Iudgment is given against the Testator himself and where against the Executors for where Iudgments are given against Executors the Iudgment which was given before shall be first executed but if two Iudgments be given against the Testator he who first sues Execution against the Executors shall be first satisfied because they are things of equal nature and before Suit it is in the election of the Executor which of them he will pay See 9 E. 4. 12. As if two men have Tallies out of the Exchequer he which first offers his Tally to the Officer shall be first paid but before that it is in the choice of the Officer which of them shall be first satisfied and therefore 19 H. 6. If the Lease enrolled be lost the Enrolment is not of any effect and Pasch 20 Eliz. our very case was moved in the Common Pleas in a Scire facias upon a Iudgment given against the Testator the Executor pleaded That the Testator had acknowledged a Statute before not satisfied Ultra quae c. and it was holden no Plea for a Statute is but a private and pocket Record as they called it and 32 Eliz. betwixt Conny and Barham the same Plea was pleaded and holden no Plea. Also if this Plea should be allowed Conny and Barhams Case great mischiefs would follow for then no Debts should be satisfied by the Executors for it might be that the Statute was made for performance of Covenants which Covenants perhaps shall never be broken and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCCLXV Crew and Bails Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Writ of Error was brought upon a Iudgment given in the Common Pleas Error 1 Cro. 216. in a Bill of priviledge brought by an Attorney of the said Court upon an Obligation and upon the said Iudgment issued forth process of Execution upon which the Defendant was Outlawed and the Error was assigned in this That upon that Iudgment process of Outlawry doth not lie for Capias is not in the original Action Priviledge and so was the opinion of the whole Court being upon a Bill of priviledge and the Outlawry was reversed and the Error was assigned in the first Iudgment because there were not fifteen days betwixt the Teste of the Venire facias and the return of it but that was not allowed for it is helped by the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 14. CCCCLXVI Wade and Presthalls Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings
shall not supply the defect of the words in the grant V. Gilbert and Sir George Harts Case Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. GIlbert brought Debt upon Escape against Sir George Hart Sheriff of Kent and declared Escape 1. Cro. 188. 271. That he recovered a certain debt against A. who was taken in Execution c. And the Case was That the said A. was taken in Execution in the time of the old Sheriff and escaped also then and afterwards the Defendant being Sheriff the Plaintiff again sued a Scire facias against the said A. upon the Iudgment aforesaid upon which Execution was awarded by default and thereupon issued a Capias ad satisfaciendum by which A. was taken and escaped And by the opinion of all the Iustices the Defendant in this Case shall be charged for notwithstanding that A. was once in Execution which was determined by escape in the time of the old Sheriff yet when Execution was now awarded against him upon his default in the Scire facias the same shall bind the Sheriff out of whose custody he escaped VI. Moor and Farrands Case Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. MOore leased Lands to Farrand upon condition that he 1. Cro. 26. Condition where shall not bind Administrators 1. Anders 123. Dy. 6. 1 Cro. 26. 757 3. Len. 67. his Executors or Assigns should not alien without the leave of the lessor Farrand died intestate his Wife took Letters of Administration and aliened without leave and by Periam Iustice she is not within the penalty of the Condition for the Administrator is not meerly in by the party but by the Ordinary And by Meade and Periam If a Lease for years upon such a Condition be extended upon a Recognisance the same is not an alienation against the Condition But if feme lessee for years upon such Condition taketh a Husband and dieth the Husband is within the danger of the Condition for he is Assignee If the King grant to a Subject bona catalla felonum and the lessor for years upon such a Condition be out-lawed upon which the Patentee enters Now by Periam the Patentee is not bound by the Condition Meade contrary for the Condition shall go with the Land. VII Maynyes Case Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. in the Exechequer MAyney seised of Lands in Fee took a Wife Co. 1. Inst 41. â— made a Feoffment to a stranger committeth Treason and thereof is attainted and hath a Charter of Pardon and dieth It was moved by Plowden in the Exchequer if the Wife of Mayney shall have Dower against the Feoffee Dower Manwood Chief Baron by reason of this Attainder Dower cannot accrue to the Wife for her title begins by the Enter-marriage and ought to continue and be consummated by the death of the Husband which cannot be in this Case for the Attainder of the Husband hath interrupted it as in the Case of Elopement Attainder where an Estoppel And this Attainder is an universal Estoppel and doth not run in privity only betwixt the Wife and him to whom the Escheat belongs but every stranger may bar her of her Dower by reason thereof for by the Attainder of her Husband the Wife is disabled to demand Dower as well as to demand his Inheritance and he cited the Resolution of all the Iustices of England in the Case of the Lady Gates 4. Ma. Dyer 140. and the Pardon doth not help the matter for the same extends but to the life of the Offender but doth not take away the Attainder by which she is barred to demand Dower during the said Attainder in force See the Statute of 5. E 6. cap. 11. Vid. Fitz. Dower 82. 13. E 3. 8 E 3. Dower 106 Fitz. Utlag 49. 8 Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. in the Exchequer 4. Len. 117. Leases for three lives of Copy-hold estate are not within Stat. 41. Eliz. IN the Exchequer it was found by special verdict That the Guardians and Chanons Regular of Otlery were seised of the Mannor of O c. and that 22 H 7. at a Court holden there granted the Lands in question to W. and W. his Son for their lives by Copy according to the Custom of the said Mannor and that afterwards 30 H 8. They leased the Lands by Indenture to H. rendering the ancient and accustomed Rent and afterward surrendred their Colledge c. and afterward W. and W. dyed And if that Lease so made during the customary estate for life notwithstanding the Statute of 31 H 8. be good or not was the Question being within a year before the surrender c. It was argued by Egerton Sollicitor that the said Lease is void by the Statute the words of which are whereof or in the which any estate or interest for term of life year or years at the time of the making of any such Lease had his being or continuance and was not then determined finished or expired and therefore we are to see if that right or possession which W. had at the time of the making of the Lease were an interest or an estate for life And as to this word estate it is nothing else than measure of time for an estate in Fee-simple is as much as to say an interest in the Lands for ever and the like of other estates and therefore here W. and W. had at the time of the making of this Lease an estate for life in the thing demised And although such customary Tenants are termed in Law Tenants at will yet they are not simply so nor meerly Tenants at will but only Tenants at will secundum Consuetudinem Manerii Copy-holdeâ—â— Interest which Custom warrants his possession here for his life and therefore it is a more certain estate than an estate at will for the Copyholder may justifie against his Lord so cannot a Tenant at will whose estate is determined at the will and pleasure of his Lessor And although this estate is but by Custom and by no Conveyance the estate is raised it is as material so as it be an estate and this estate being supported by Custom is known in Law an estate and so accounted in Law and the Law hath notably distinguished Copy-hold Tenancies by Custom and Tenancies at will by the Common Law for a Copy-holder shall do Fealty shall have aid of his Lord in an Action of Trespass shall have and maintain an Action of Trespass against his Lord his Wife shall be indowed the Husband shall be Tenant by the Curtesie without new admittance and it was adjudged in the Common Pleas 8. Eliz. That if a Copy-holder surrender to the use of another for years the Lessee dieth his Executors shall have the residue of the Term without any admittance M 14. and 15. Eliz. a Copy-holder made a Lease for years by Indenture warranted by the Custom it was adjudged that the Lessees should maintain Ejectione firm although it was objected that if it were so then if
formally expressed in the usual Terms As to the second payment Where a man bargains and sells his Lands by Deed indented to be enroled and before enrolment he makes Livery to the Bargainee and afterwards the Indentur is enroled the Court discharged Beamount from the arguing of that Point Liveâ—y where it prevents operation of an Enrolment for by Wray the Livery doth prevent the operation of the Enrolment and Sir George shall be accounted in by the Livery and not by the bargain and sale for Livery is of more worth and more worthy ceremony to pass estates and therefore shall be preferred and then the Livery being made in such part of the Mannor which was in the possession of the Feoffor in the name of the whole Mannor no more of the Mannor passeth but that which was then in the possession of the Feoffor And the Reversion of such part of the Mannor which was in Lease shall not pass without Attornment but when the Enrolment cometh now the whole passeth and then the Reversion being setled by the Enrolment the Attornment coming afterwards hath no relation See 48 E. 3. 15 16. The Iury here have found the default of payment whereby the conditional use which passed by the bargain and sale upon the condition broken shall be reduced to the Bargainor without any Entry 1. Cro. 382. and then the uses limited after are void for an use limited upon an use cannot rise quod fuit concessum per totam curiam Then Bracebridge the Father having the Inheritance of the said Mannor in his own right and the interest de futuro for years in the right of his Wife joyntly with the said A. when he sells the said Mannor by Deed indented and enroled now thereby the interest for years which he hath in the Right of his Wife doth not pass for a bargain and sale is not so strong a conveyance as a Livery As if I have a Rent-charge in the right of my Wife out of the Manor of D. which Manor afterwards I purchase and afterwards by Deed indented and enroled I bargain and sell the said Manor c. the Rent shall not pass Then the said Thomas Bracebridge the Father having the said Right of an entail to him and to the Heirs Males of his body and being Tenant for life by his own conveyance the Remainder in tail to his Son and Heir apparent the now Defendant when he levyeth a Fine and the Son enters for forfeiture before Proclamations pass and his Father dyeth in that case the Defendant is not remitted unto the first entail although after Proclamations pass in the life of the Father and so he shall not avoid the Leases for notwithstanding that the Issue in tail by that Entry hath defeated the possession which passed by the Fine yet as to the right of the old entail the Fine doth retain its force and so he entred quodam modo in assurance of the Fine As if Tenant in tail doth discontinue and disseiseth the Discontinuee and levieth a Fine with Proclamations and the Discontinuee enters within the five years now although the Fine as to the Discontinuee be avoided so as the possession which passed by the Fine is defeated yet the right of the entail doth continue bound Egerton Solicitor contrary and he conceived that all the Mannor doth pass by the Livery to Sir George and nothing of it by the Enrolment and that the meaning of the parties was that all should pass by the Livery for if the assurance should enure by the bargain and sale then the second uses limited upon default of payment should never rise for an use upon an use cannot rise and then the said uses limited for the payment of the debts of the Feoffor c. should be defeated and also where at the begining of the assurance the condition was entire the warranty entire c. and if such construction should be allowed here shall be a divided condition a divided warranty And also the meaning of the parties that the whole Mannor should pass by such construction should be dismembred and part pass by the Livery and part by the bargain and sale and we ought to make such constructions of Deeds that things may pass by them according to the meanings of the parties as if I be seised of a Mannor to which and Advowson is appendant and I make a Deed of Feoffment of the same Mannor cum pertinencijs and deliver the Deed to the party but no Livery of seisin is had the Advowson shall not pass for then it should be in gross whereas the meaning of the parties was that it should pass as appendant and that in such case cannot be for there is no Livery therefore it shall not pass at all and so it hath been adjudged So if I bargain and sell my Mannor of D. and all the Trees in the same and I deliver the Deed but it is not enrolled the Trees shall not pass for the intent of the parties was that the Trees should pass as parcel of the Free-hold and not as Chattels And as to the remitter I conceive that the Heir entring as Heir by the Law is remitted but where the Entry is given by a special Statute there the Entry shall not enure further than the words of the Statute As Land is given to the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the body of the Husband the Husband levieth a Fine and dieth the wife entreth this Entry shall not avail to the issue in tail for the Entry is given to the Wife by a special Law And he cited Sir Richard Haddons Case the Husband aliened the Lands of his Wife they are divorced the Husband dieth the Wife shall not enter by 32. H. 8. but is put to her Writ of Cui in vita ante divor And afterwards the same Term the Iustices having considered of the Case delivered their opinions upon the matters by Wray chief Iustice viz. That the one moyety of the Lease was extinct by the Livery viz. the moyety of Ioyce the Wife of the Lessor and as to the other moyety it is in being for here is no remitter for if any remitter had been in the Case it should be after the use raised which is not as yet raised for the Land ought to remain in Sir George until the said five hundred pounds be levyed and that is not found by the Verdict and therefore for the said moyety the Plaintiff had Iudgment XI Treshams Case Mich 25 26 Eliz. in the Exchequer SIR John Tresham seised of the Manor of D. holden of the King in Capite by Knights service 4 H. 7. enfeoffed Edmund Earl of Wilts and N. Vaux Knight who gave the said Manor to the said Sir John in tail upon condition that he should not alien c. quo minus c. John Tresham dyed seised by whose decease the Manor descended to Tho. Tresham who entred 2 Len. 55 56. and 18 H. 8. aliened with
Lands within the said Town every second year left their Lands to lye fresh and untilled and prescribed further that the Tenants of the Lands within the said Town might erect Herdals in in their Lands with the Licence of the Lord of the said Manor and not otherwise and further declared that the said Bedingfield had let to him the said Manor and that the Defendant had erected Herdals upon his Lands without Licence so as the profit of his Foldage is impaired by it And all this matter was found by Verdict And it was objected in stay of Iudgment that the prescription is not good for it is against Law and common right to abridge the Subject of the profits of his Lands But the whole Court was clear of opinion that the prescription is good enough as 15 E 2. Prescription 51. Prescription to have common appendant in other Land afte that the Hay is cut and v E. 1. Prescription 55. A. seised of Lands may Plow it and Sow it and cut and carry away the Corn and afterwards when the Corn is carried B. by prescription may have the said Land as his several and the other who sowed it cannot meddle with that land but to plow and sow it in season c. And the Cattel cannot eat and pasture in the Land when they come to plow or sow it or to carry it away nor have any profit but the Corn and yet the Free-hold of the Land is in such person c. and that was holden a good Prescription and a difference was taken by the Court where one doth prescribe to take away the whole interest of the Owner of the Land and where a particular profit is restrained And here this prescription doth not extend but to restrain the Ter-tenant to erect Herdals which is a reasonable prescription See 1 H 7 24. The Lord of the Town doth prescribe to have free Foldage of the Beasts of his Tenants in D. and see there that libera Falda is not any other but to hav the Beasts of the Tenants to manure the lands of the Lord c. And afterwards Punsany the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover XVI Mich. 25 26 Eliz. at Serjeants Inn. IN the Dutchy Chamber the case was that King E 6. leased for years certain lands parcel of his Dutchy of Lancaster rendring rent with clause of re-entry and that a lease was made to one Bunny It was found by Office that the Rent was arrear and by another Office that the Servant of the said Lessee had tendred the rent in his absence and by the commandment of his Master and that afterwards one I. S. Receiver General of the Dutchy received the said Rent and had accounted for it and upon his account it was allowed And this matter was opened at Serjeants Inn in Fleet-street before Wray Anderson Manwood Clench Rhodes Plowden and Stanhop and it was argued by Shuttleworth that in this case of rent reserved upon a Lease for years made by the King of Dutchy-Land The King not bound to demand Rent the King is not bound to demand it but he may for default of payment of it re-enter without demand and that the Lessee is tied to tender it at his peril as well as if the Queen had been seised of the said land in the right of her Crown and as to that payment the Statute of 1 H 4. is to be considered by which it is enacted that the possessions of the said Dutchy Taliter tali modo per tales officiarios ministros in omnibus remaneant deducantur gubernentur sicut remanere deduci gubernari debuissent si ad culmen Regis Dignitatis assumpti non fuissemus and these words ought to be intended of things which concern the Lands themselves but this Act of demand is a personal thing and concerns the person of the King and toucheth the Majesty and dignity of the King and in all cases of the Dutchy the person of the King shall hold his priviledge notwithstanding that the possession of the Land be carried in the course of a private person And therefore if the Queen will alien Lands parcel of her Dutchy she ought to make Livery for now she meddles with the possession it self but if the Queen will sue for parcel of her Dutchy non omittas shall be in the Writ for she cannot sue but as Queen and the Queen hath such Prerogative that none shall execute her Writs at her own sute but the Officer of the Crown 21 E 4. 60. for Livery if it be not Land within the County Palatine and for the residue See 10 H. 4. 7. 3. Eliz. 216 217. Plowden Lessee for years of Lands of the Dutchy shall have aid of the King before Issue joyned c. And if the King make a Feoffment of Lands of his Dutchy out of the County Palatine to hold of him in Capite the Feoffee shall hold it so and a Feoffment of such Lands upon condition that the Feoffee shall not alien is a good condition and Lapses shall not bind the Queen in case of an Advowson which the Queen hath in the right of the Dutchy and if the Villain of the Queen in the right of the Dutchy purchaseth Lands in Fee and aliens yet the Queen shall seise and that hath been adjudged in the Exchequer Chamber and if the Queen make a Lease of such Land and afterwards makes another Lease of the same Land without recital of the first Lease it hath been adjudged that the second Lease is void It was argued contrary by Beamount the younger that this condition which goeth to the realty to reduce the Land again ought to be ordered and governed by the Queen as it ought to be by a Subject and therefore if the Queen will take advantage of this condition she ought to make a Letter of Attorney under the Dutchy Seal to her own Officer authorizing him thereby to make demand of the said Rent c. And by Shuttleworth here be two Offices the one contrary to the other the best shall be taken for the Queen 14 E 4. 5. in Skreens Case in the end of it And if the Rent of the Kings Farmor be behind now although that after the Receivor of the Dutchy doth receive it yet the same doth not purge the forfeiture as if the Bayliffs of a Manor receive rent of a new Feoffee the same will not change the Avowry of the Lord without notice given to him 41 E 3. 26. And if a Copy-hold escheat the Steward without a special Warrant cannot grant it over de novo XVI Rearsbie and Rearsbies Case Intrat Trinit 25 Eliz. rot 746. Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. REplevin by W. Rearsbie against A. Rearsbie and L. Rearsbie who avow the distress because that one W. Vavasour was seised of the Manor of Deniby whereof the place where c. is parcel in his Demesne as of Fee and so seised gave the said Manor to
one L. Rearsbie Father of the Plaintiff and of the Avowants and Jane his Wife and to the Heirs of Lyonel who by his Will devised unto A. Rearsbie a Rent of four pounds out of the said Manor with clause of distress for his childs part to be yearly paid Lyonel the Father died 3 Eliz. and afterwards 22 Eliz. Jane died and for the arrearages of the said Rent encurred mean between the death of Loynel and Jane his Wife c. upon which Avowry the Plaintiff did demurr in Law for the Rent doth not begin in effect but after the death of the Wife of the Devisor Construction of Devise for such construction ought be made of the Devise as not to charge the Inheritance with the whole arrearages c. and it was argued to the contrary that the Defendant might well avow the distress for these arrearages for if he in the Reversion upon a Lease for life grant a Rent charge after the death of the Grantor the Grantee shall distrein for all the arrearages encurred after the grant etiam during the life of the Grantor Distress quod Curia concessit and it was said by the Council of the Avowant that the Case at Bar is a stronger Case for this Rent as it appeareth by the words of the Devise was devised to the Avowant for his livelihood and for his childs part which words imply a present advancement and these words yearly to be paid are strong pregnant to that intent It was adjourned XVII Hill. 25 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. THe Earl of Northumberland brought debt upon arrearages of Accompt the Defendant shewed that before the Accompt Account the Plaintiff of his own wrong did imprison the Defendant and assigned Auditors to him being in prison and so the Accompt was made by duress of imprisonment And the same was holden a good Plea by all the Iustices of both the Benches And Iudgment was given accordingly XVIII Pasch 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. Pasch 26. Eliz. Forman and Bohans Case REplevin by Forman against Bohan Replevin the Defendant avowed for a Rent charge and shewed that one Wingfield was seised of the Manor of Wesham whereof the place where was parcel And 33 H 6. made a Feoffment in Fee of the place where c. to one Orlow rendring Rent and Sute at the Court of the said Manor and that the said Wingfield was seised of the said Rent and Sute accordingly and died thereof seised and that the same descended to Anthony Wingfield as Son and Heir 1 Cro. 39. c. who was seised of the said Rent as parcel of the said Manor and that the said Anthony so seised of the said Manor and Rent bargained and sold the said Manor and Rent 26 H 8. to Nicholas Bohan Father of the Avowant by these words Manerium de Wesham omnes omnimodos redditus reputed deemed or adjudged part or parcel of the said Manor who entred and died seised and the same descended to the now Avowant as Son and Heir c. and averred that the said Rent at the time of the bargain and sale aforesaid diu ante was reputed parcel of the Manor aforesaid Vpon which Avowry the Plaintiff did demur in Law and it was argued by Gawdy Serjeant for the Plaintiff and he took an Exception to the Avowry because the Avowant sheweth that Anthony Wingfield 26. H 8. bargained and sold the said Manor to Bohan Virtute Quar. bargaine venditionis vigor cujusdam Actus Parliamenti 27 H 8. de usibus c. the said Bohan was seised c. where he ought to have said by force of which bargain and sale the said Anthony Wingfield was seised of the said Manor aforesaid to the use of the said Bohan and that afterwards by reason of the said Statute of 27 H 8. the said Anthony then seised to the use aforesaid the said Bohan was seised in his Demesne as of Fee For it might be for any thing appearing in the Avowry that before the said Statute of 27 H 8. Anthony Wingfield had made a conveyance upon consideration to him who had not notice of the use so as the use being suspended when the Statute came it could not be executed for there was not any seisin to the use and to that purpose he cited the Case of 7 H 7. 3. where a gift of Trees by Cestuy que use is pleaded without alledging that the Feoffors were seised to the use of the Donor at the time of the gift To that Exception it was answered by Popham Attorney General Averment That there is a difference betwixt the Case at Bar and the Case of 7 H 7. for where a man entitles himself by Cestuy que use he ought to maintain such title by every necessary Circumstance which the Law without expressing will not intend but where a man alledgeth a matter which is but a conveyance there needs no especial recital as if a man will pretend the grant of a Reversion and that the lessee for years did attorn he needs not to shew that at the time of the Attornment the Grantor was seised 1 Cro. 746. â—4â— c. and he cited the Case of 10 E. 4. 18. In Trespass the Plaintiff by way of Replication made to him a title that A. was seised and leased to him at Will by force of which the Plaintiff was possessed until the Defendant did the Trespass and Exception was taken to it that the Plaintiff in his Replication had not averred that A. was alive at the time of Trespass and it was not allowed for the subsequent words by force of which the Plaintiff was possessed until the Defendant did the Trespass do amount unto so much for the Plaintiff could not be possessed by force of the said Lease at Will if A. were not alive So here Bohan could not be here seised by force of the said Statute if the seisin of the use which was raised by the bargain and sale had not continued until the coming of the said Statute As to the matter in Law Gawdy conceived that the averment in the perclose of the Avowry is contrary to the matter of the Avowry for the creation of the Rent set forth in the Avowry proves that the Rent is not parcel of the Manor but a Rent in gross and then the general averment that the Rent is parcel of the Manor without shewing how against the special matter of the Avowry is not receivable Reputation And also nothing can be by reputation parcel of a Manor which in rei veritate cannot be parcel of a Mannor but a Rent charge cannot be in rei veritate parcel of a Manor ergo nor by reputation Popham contrary That the averment is not contrary to the matter of the Avowry for the matter disclosed in the Avowry proves that it is not rei veriate parcel of the Manor but it doth not exclude Reputation and the Averment doth not
extend ad veritatem facti which is set forth in the Avowry but only to reputation and so both stand together well enough Rent charge parcel of a Mannoâ— And that a Rent charge may be parcel of a Manor see 22 E 3. 13. 31. E 3. 23. in the Lord Tiptofts Case where it is ruled that title made to a Rent charge as parcel of a Manor is a good title and the Assize awarded upon it and in our Case the Reputation is enforced by the sute at the Court which was also reserved upon the said Feoffment together with the said Rent so as the intent of the parties to the Feoffment was that this Rent so reserved and accompanyed with the said sute shall be esteemed a Rent service and so parcel of the Manor and as to the continuance of Reputation it sufficeth if at the time of the bargain and sale aforesaid which was 26 H 8. it was by many reputed parcel of the Manor and he cited the Case of the Marquess of Winchester The King gave to his Ancestor the Manor of Dale and all lands then antea reputed parcel of the said Manor and in a Bill of Intrusion against the said Marquess he pleaded the grant with averment that the Land then antea reputed parcel Manerii praedict And because he did not shew certainly at what time the Land was reputed parcel of the Manor Iudgment was given for the Queen for it might be for any thing in his Plea that the said Land was reputed parcel of the said Manor before time of memory which Reputation would not serve but such Reputation ought to be within time of memory and understanding He cited also the Case of the Earl of Leicester King Edward the sixth seised of the Manor of Clibery of which a Wood was parcel granted the said Wood in Fee which afterwards escheated to the King for Treason Queen Mary granted the said Wood to another in Fee who granted it to the now Queen who granted the said Manor omnes boscos modo vel ante hac cognit vel reputat ut pars membr vel parcel Maner praedict to the Earl of Leicester and it was resolved in the Exchequer that by that grant the said Wood did pass to the Earl and Iudgment was given against the Queen Dy. 362 â— for it was part of the Manor in the time of E 6. at which time an t ' hac without the word unquam shall be extended ad quoddamcunque tempus praeteritum And Reputation needs not so ancient a Pedigree for to establish it for general acceptance will produce reputation As the house of the Lord Treasurer now called Tibould was of late a private Manor but now hath a new name by which it is known and that within these twenty years which is not so long a time as we have alleged for our Reputation and would pass in a conveyance by such name so None-such But as to Reputation I conceive that Reputation is not what this or what that man thinketh Reputation quid but that which many men have said or thought who have more reason to know it quaenam est inter illos reputatio There was a Case ruled in the Exchequer 13 Eliz. in a Bill of intrusion the Case was that King Hen. 6. was seised of a Manor to which a Neif was regardant who purchased Lands which the King seised and let by Copy as parcel of the said Manor and so continued until the time of E 6. who granted the same to Allice Hardwick and all Lands Tenements reputed parcel of the said Manor And it was adjudged that the said Land so purchased by the said Neif and demised by Copy did pass by the said grant to Hardwick And afterwards the same Term the Iustices without any solemn Argument shewed their opinions in the principal Case viz. That this Rent did not pass by the bargain and sale made as above by Anthony Wingfield to Bohan father of the Avowant for here in the premisses of the Avowry is not any matter set forth importing Reputation or by which it may appear that the Rent in question was ever reputed parcel of the said Manor but rather to the contrary and the bare averment of Reputation in the conclusion of the Avowry is not sufficient to induce Reputation But if the Avowant had set forth in his Avowry any special matter to induce the Court to conceive a Reputation upon the matter of the Avowry as to shew that the Bayliffs of the said Manor had always received the said Rent as parcel of said Manor and as Bayliffs of the said Manor had accounted for it as parcel of the Manor and that the Lessees of the said Manor had enjoyed the said Rent as parcel of the said Manor the same had been good matter to induce a Reputation to have incorporated the said Rent with the said Manor and so judgment was given against the Avowant and of such opinion as was affirmed by Wray was Anderson chief Iustice of the Common Pleas and Manwood chief Baron of the Exchequer XIX Cham and Dovers Case Pasch 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. Ejectione firmae IN an Ejectione firmae the Case was that one Michel was seised of the Manor of D. within which diverse parcels of Land part of the said Manor where customary Tenements demised and demisable by copy c. according to the Custom of the said Manor for one two or three lives within which Manor there was a Custom scil that the Lord of the Manor for the time being might grant Copy-hold estates for life in Reversion The Lord granted such Lands for life by copy in possession took a wife and granted the same Copy-hold to a stranger in Reversion for life and died the Copy-holder in possession died the Land demised by copy is inter alia assigned to the Wife for her Dower who had Iudgment to recover in a Writ of Dower who entred and made a Lease thereof to the Defendant who entred against whom the Lessee of the Copy-holder brought Ejectione firmae Custom ad pasturandum non ad colendum and all this matter was found by Verdict and further found that every Copy-holder of the said Manor might Lease his Copy-hold for a year ad pasturandum sed non ad colendum and that the Lease made to the Plaintiff was for a year ad pasturandum 1. Cro. 469. Wells versus Partridge Post 100. Popham Attorny General of Council with the Defendant took exception to the Declaration because the Plaintiff had declared a Lease at the common Law and the Iury have found a Lease by the custom which cannot stand together And such a Verdict doth not maintain the Declaration as if the Plaintiff had declared upon a Lease for years of Lands and the Iury found a devise for years c. but the exception was disallowed by the Court. As to the matter in Law he argued that the Tenant in Dower should
hold the Land discharged of the Copy-hold for her life and he put this case If the Lord of such a Manor taketh a Wife a Copy-holder for life dieth the Lord grants a Rent-charge out of the customary land and afterwards grants the said land by copy for life dieth the wife shall hold the land discharged of the Rent but the Copy-holder shall be charged and he put a difference where the Lord grants such Copy-hold in possession and where in Reversion for in the first case the Wife shall hold charged but contrary in the last And he cited the Case of one Slowman who being Lord of a Manor ut supra by his Will devised that his Executors should grant estates by Copy 2. Len 109. and died having a Wife the Executors make estates accordingly Dower discharged of a grant of Copy-hold the Wife in case of Dower shall avoid them Plowden contr the Lord of such a Mannor is bound by recognisance and afterwards a Copy-holder for life of the said Mannor dieth the Lord grants his Copy-hold de novo the said new Grantee shall hold his Copy-hold discharged of the Recognisance which Gawdy Iustice granted and by Wray if the Lord of such a Manor grants a Copy-hold for three lives takes a Wife the three lives end the Lord enters and keeps the lands for a time and afterwards grants them over again by copy and dieth the copy-holder shall hold the Land discharged of the Dower and this is a clear case for the copy-holder is in by the custom which is paramount the title of Dower and the Seisin of the Husband and by him in the case of the Earl of Northumberland 17 Eliz. Dyer 344. That the grant of a copy-hold in Reversion by the Earl of Northumberland doth not make such an impediment as was intended in the condition there for it is by the custom and not by the act of the party And afterwards the same Term Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff that he and his Lessor should hold the lands discharged of the Dower XX. Fringe and Lewes Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. DEbt by Fringe against Lewes upon a Bond who pleaded Debt that the condition was that whereas the Defendant was Executor to one Morris Degle that if the Defendant should perform observe fulfil and keep the Will of the said Morris Degle in all points and Articles according to the true intent and meaning thereof that then c. and pleaded further that the said Morris by the said Will bequeathed to the Poor of such a Town ten pounds to be distributed amongst them and also to the Church-wardens of the Parish ten pounds and to I S. three pounds and that he had distributed the said ten pounds to the Poor and that he had paid the ten pounds to the Church-wardens and as to three pounds Uncore priâ—â— a good Plea. he said that he is and always was ready to pay the same to the said I. S. if he had demanded it upon which there was a demurrer And as to the ten pounds to be distributed amongst the Poor the same was holden good enough without shewing the names of the Poor amongst whom the mony was distributed so the pleading of the first payment to the Church-wardens was sufficient without nameing of them See 42 E 3. brief 539. Scire facias out of a Recovery against Executors and the Writ was challenged because it was Scire facias Executors not naming their proper names It was holden to be no exception for Executors are as a corporation known in that they are Executors and as to the third part of the Plea scil always ready and yet is the plea is well enough for this Obligation the Condition of which being general to perform the Will c. Poph. 10â— hath not altered the nature of the payment of the Legacy but the same remains payable in such manner as before upon request and not at the peril of the Defendant See 22 H 6. 57 58. 11 E 4 10. 6 E 6. Br. Tender 60. And afterwards the same Term the Court was clear of opinion and so delivered the Law to the Counsel on both sides that in this case the Legacies are to be paid upon request and not at the peril of the Executors in such manner as they were before the Obligation and afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff XXI Sir John Smith and Peazes Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. SIr John Smith brought Debt upon an Obligation against Peaze who pleaded that the Bond was upon condition to perform covenants contained in an Indenture and shewed what and that he had performed them the Plantiff assigned the breach of one covenant that where the Plaintiff had leased to the Defendant for years certain messuages by the same Indenture the Defendant by the same Indenture did covenant to repair all the said Messuages Covenant alia quam quae appunctuatae forent divelli per script dicti Johannis Smith and shewed further that the Defendant had not repaired the said Messuages to him demised as aforesaid and averred that the said house in which the breach of the covenant is assigned non fuit durante termino praedicto appunctuata divelli and upon that matter of reparation they were at Issue and found for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Averment in the Replication was not sufficient for the Lease was made in November to begin the Michael after Averment and it might be that the Messuage in the not repairing of which the breach of the covenant is assigned was appointed to be pulled down scil divelli before the Term for years began and then the Defendant is not bound to repair it and then the breach of the covenant is not well assigned and so the Averment doth not answer the exception and because this clause alia quam is in the body of the Covenant it ought to be satisfied by him who pleads it scil by him who assigns the breach in the Covenant in which the exception is contained As by the Lord Dyer in his argument in the argument of Stowels Case reported by Plowden 376. Where a man pleaded the Feoffment of Cestuy que use he ought to plead that Cestuy que use at the time of the Feoffment was of full age sanae memoriae c. for that is within the purview contr upon the Statute of 4 H. 7. in pleading of a Fine for that is in a clause by it self which conceit of Plowden the Lord Wray denyed to be Law for he said he that pleads the Feoffment of Cestuy que use or a Fine according to the Statute of 4 H. 7. shall not be driven to shew that the Feoffor or Conusor at the time of the Feoffment or Fine levyed was of full age c. but he who comes in by such Fine 〈◊〉 21 or Feoffment shall shew the same for his own advantage And
such Tithes which are of such nature as Tithe-corn and Tith-hay And Manwood chief Baron held clearly that the Lease of these Tithes is good enough notwithstanding the defect by the special Reservation which is limited and appointed by the Statute and so by him a Lease of a House Rent Mill Ferry c. are out of the said Statute And as to the Tithes notwithstanding the words of the Statute are general any Tithes yet he conceived the Statute ought to be intended of Tithes of common Right and not of such customary Tithes as those of London are and therefore if all the Parishoners prescribe in modo Decimandi scil to pay a certain sum of mony for all manner of Tithes upon demise of such a Rectory such special Reservation is not necessary for these are Tithes against common Right and no Tithes are within the purview of the said Statute but those which are annual and therefore a Lease of Tithe-wood is out of the meaning of this Statute for non renovantur in annum and he said that upon a Lease of the Tithes of Chery Trees a rent ought to be reserved according to the Statute and the Farmer may bring his Cheries to the Market and buy Corn. Shute Iustice contrary for the words of the Statute are general And note that this Lease was of the Rectory of Saint Lawrence in the City of London There was another matter moved in this case because the lease whereof the Action is brought was made by the name of Master or Guardian and the Fellows whereas the true name of their Colledge is Master and Fellows Misnosmer And it was argued by Atkinson that the same is not such a Misnosmer which makes the Lease void for sive custos are words of surplusage v. 7 H. 6. 13. And also the case of the Cooks 20 Eliz. Plow 531. The Corporation was by the name of Masters or Governors and Comonalty mysterii coquorum c. And they made a conveyance by the name of Masters or Governors and Comunalty artis sive Mysterii c. the same is no such Misnosmer as shall make void the conveyance for Art and Mistery are both of one sense XXVI Harvey and Harveys Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Consultation CLare Harvey one of the Daughters of Sir James Harvy Alderman of London Libelled in the Spiritual Court against Sebastin Harvy Son and Executor of the said Sir James for a Legacy bequeathed to her by her Father Sebastian did not appear for which he was excommunicated and taken by a Writ of excommunicat capiendo and imprisoned and afterwards he came into this Court and surmised to the Court That the said Sir James in his life had given to the said Sebastian all his Goods and Chattells and was also bound unto the said Sebastian in a Statute-staple of two thousand pounds whereupon he had prohibition and now the Plaintiffs counsel prayed a Consultation quatenus non agitur ad validitatem facti aut Statuti And Egerton Solicitor of Counsel with the Plaintiff cited a Iudgment given in the like Case betwixt Lodge and Luddington where such a special Consultation was granted But Wray put a difference betwixt the said Case and the Case at Bar for here in this Case is a gift by the Testator himself but in the Case cited the gift was by the Executor and also here is a Statute of two thousand pounds in which Case the Obligations which could not pass by the deed shalll be subject to the said Statute XXVII The Duke of Northumberlands Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Exchequer THe late Duke of Northumberland seised of five Messuages in the Parish of St. Sepulchres London in the Tenure of W. Gardiner Bargain and sale 3 Co. 9. by deed intented and enrolled for money bargained and sold to I. L. all his Tenements situate in the Parish of St. Andrews in Holborn in the Tenure of W. Gardiner to have to the said I. L. for life the remainder to K. his Daughter in Fee. Atkinson The bargain and sale is void by reason of the Misnosmer of the Parish notwithstanding the truth of the Tenure for by the grant and bargain and sale of all his Tenements in the Parish of St. Andrews nothing passeth and the truth of the Tenure subsequent shall not help it And by Manwood chief Baron the sale is utterly void for the falsity doth preceed the truth and certainty And it was argued that I. L. entring by colour of the same bargain and sale is a disseisor as the Case is betwixt Croft and Howel 20. Eliz. Com. 537. Yet if he was but Tenant at Will when he made the Lease for years the same was a Disseisin to the said Duke and then the Duke being disseised he is attainted of treason 10. Mariae And now we are to see what things accrue to the Queen by the said Attainder and as to that it was said that at the Common Law a Right of Entry should Escheat but not without office found thereof no more than Lands in possession And by the Statute of 26 H. 8. it is enacted that every person attainted of high treason shall forfeit all his Lands and Tenements which he had of any estate of Inheritance by which Statute a Bishop Abbot or Tenant in tayl in such Case shall forfeit even without Office But in the Statute of 33 H. 8. there is a saving to every other person all such right possession so as in that Case by that Statute the King shall not be in possession without Office but shall have a right but cannot enter before Office or after And he is to have Sci. facias against him who hath the possession and he shall make his defence as well as he can and the words of the said Statute That the King shall be in actual possession shall not be construed to extend to an actual and absolute possession but such a possession only which he had at the Common Law after Office found so as the Statute doth not give to the King a larger possession but an easier without the circumstance of an Office And of that opinion was Manwood chief Baron and Shute second Baron And then it was moved further by Cook because that the Quen by the Attainder hath but a Right and the Queen makes the grant of the Messuages themselves the same grant is void And he granted that the Queen might grant a real Action and a Right of Entry but such a grant ought to be conceived in special words as to say That the Duke of Northumberland was seised of five Messuages and by such a one disseised and after the Duke was attainted and so granted for the Queen may grant such a Right by reason of her Prerogative and therefore the same ought to be granted by special words as in the Case of Mynes in the Commentaries and according to that was the opinion of the Iustices in Cromers Case 8 Eliz. which Case see
prohibition And the Court upon the first Motion conceived a prohibition should pass for if the grant be without deed nothing passed and then hath not Withy cause to claim these Tithes against the said Saunders And notwithstanding that Tithes are quodam modo spiritual things and so demandable in a Court of that nature yet now in divers respects they are become a Lay-fee and lay-things for a Writ of Assise of Mortdauncester and an Assise of novel disseisin lyes of them and a Fine may be levyed of them But it hath been doubted whether Tithes be devisable by Will But at another day the matter was moved and the Court was clear of opinion that a Consultation should be awarded for whether Withy hath right or not right to these Tithes Saunders of common right ought to pay his Tithes and he ought to sever them from the nine parts and whosoever takes them whether he hath right to them or no right Saunders is discharged But Saunders may prescribe in modo decimandi without making mention of any severance and may surmise that the Tithes do belong to I. S. with whom he hath compounded to pay such a sum for all Tithes and afterwards a Consultation was awarded XXX Stacy and Carters Case Trin. 26 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. STacy brought an Action of Trespass for breaking his Close against Walter Carter And declared of a Trespass in Somers-Land in Tunbridge The Defendant pleaded that heretofore he himself brought an Assise of Novel disseisin against the now Plaintiff and supposed himself to be disseised of his Free-hold in Lee juxta Tunbridge and the Land where the Trespass supposed to be done was put in view to the Recognitors of the said Assise and further averred that the Land where c. and the Land then put in view is one and the same c. upon which there was a Demurrer Exception was taken to the form of the Demurrer because in the perclose and conclusion of the Demurrer these words are omitted Averment Et hoc paratus est verificare But as to that it was said by the Court that the Demurrer was well enough with or without such Averment in the conclusion of it which see oftentimes in the Commentaries c. and in the Book of Entries 146. the greater part of the Demurrers have not any such conclusion Another Exception was taken to the bar because the Defendant pleads that heretofore Walter Carter had brought an Assise against the now Plaintiff c. and that the Land put in view to the Recognitors of the Assise per praefatum Warrhamum Carter c. and the Land where c. is all one c. here is Warrhamum for Walterum and notwithstanding that it was after demurrer and not after verdict it was adjudged amendable and as to the matter of the bar it was said by the Defendants Council that recovery of Lands in one Town by Praecipe quod reddat is not a bar for Lands in another Town but where the recovery is by Assise it is otherwise for there the Plaint is general De lib. ten̄to and the Plaintiff shall recover per visum Juratorum and the view is the warrant of the Iudgment and Execution And therefore if a recovery in an Assise be pleaded in bar Not comprised is not any Plea against it as in the Case of recoveries upon a Praecipe quod reddat but not put in view and so not comprised c. which proves that the Record doth not guid the recovery but the view of the Iurors See 26 E 3. 2. Assise brought of Lands in D. the Tenant saith that he holdeth the said Lands put in view joyntly with A. not named in the Writ c. and sheweth the deed of Ioynt-tenancy which speaks of Tenements in B. and the plea holdeth good because he alledgeth the Ioynt-tenancy and the Lands put in view See 24 E 3. It was said on the Plaintiffs side that recovery in Lee juxta Tunbridge could not extend to Lands in Tunbridge no more than a recovery of Lands in one County can extend to Lands in another County See 23 E 3. 16. Assise of Novel disseisin brought of Lands in N. the Defendant pleads recovery in Assise c. brought before by him against the now Plaintiff of Lands in H. and the same Lands put then and now in view and adjudged no bar See also 16 E 3. 16. in an Assise of Tenements in W. the Tenant pleads a Recovery of the same Lands agaist one A. by Assise brought of Tenements in C. which was found by the Assise and that C. is a Hamlet of W. and the Plaintiff notwithstanding that recovery so pleaded had Iudgment for a recovery of Lands in one Town shall not be a bar in an Assise of Lands in another Town See Br. Tit. Iudgment 66. 10 E 3. And the whole Court was clear of opinion that the plea in bar was not good for in the Assise which is pleaded in bar in the principal Case the Tenant there who is now Plaintiff in this Action of Trespass pleaded Nul tort nul disseisin which is no plea as to the Free-hold in Lee juxta Tunbridge and therefore it cannot be like to the Case which hath been put of 26 E 3. for there the Tenant pleaded that he held the said Lands put in view joyntly for there he agreeth with the Plaintiff in the Lands demanded the which Lands are put in view but if in the Case at bar the Defendant being Plaintiff in the Assise the now Plaintiff being then Tenant had pleaded to the Land put in view in bar and the Plaintiff in the Assise had recovered now in this Action of Trespass the Plantiff in the Assise being Defendant in the Action of Trespass might well plead this Recovery in bar for by his plea in the Assise he hath tyed himself to the view and to the Land put in view but it is not so in the Case at Bar where the Tenant in the Assise pleads nul tort nul disseisin for there he doth not plead expresly to the Land put in view but to the supposal of the Plaintiff sc de libero tenemento in Lee juxta Tunbridge afterwards Wray with the assent of the other Iustices awarded that the Plaintiff should recover his damages See by Wray 44 E 3. 45. in Assise of Tenements in B. the Plaintiff pleads that he himself brought an Assise of the same Tenements and his plaint was of Tenements in E. and the same Tenements put in view and recovered and holden a good Plea because the Tenant hath said that the same Tenements were put in view and that took by Assise upon which the Plaintiff said not put in view and so not comprised XXXI Benicombe and Parkers Case Trin. 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass the Iury found this special matter that the Grandfather of the Plaintiff was seised and made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life
the remainder to the use of John Father of the Plaintiff in tail the Grandfather died the Father entred Feoffments and by Indenture by words of bargain and sale without any words of Dedi concessi conveyed the Lands to the use of A. in Fee and in the same Indenture was a Letter of Attorney to make Livery which was made accordingly and the said A. by the said Indenture covenanted that if the said John should pay before such a day to the said A. forty shillings that then the said A. and his Heirs would stand seised c. to the use of the said John and his Heirs and if the said John did not pay c. then if the said A. did not pay to the said John within four days after ten pounds that then the said A. and his Heirs from thenceforth shall be seised to the use of the said John and his Heirs c. and the said John covenanted further by the said Indenture to make such further assurance as the Council of the said John should advise Each party failed of payment John levied a Fine to A. without any consideration it was adjudged upon this matter a good Feoffment well executed by the Livery Hob. 151. Dyer 361. a More 194. Post 195 196 197. More 35. b. notwithstanding that the words of the conveyance are only by bargain and sale and that the Covenant to be seised to the new uses upon payment and not payment being in one and the same deed should raise the use upon the contingency according to the limitation of it and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff accordingly XXXII Bedows Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Debt upon a Bill sealed against one Bedow he demanded Dyer of the Bill which was Memorandum that I John Bedow have agreed to pay to R. S. the Plaintiff twenty pounds and thereupon there was a Demurrer first that the Deed wanted the words In cujus rei testimonium c. but notwithstanding that the Court held the Deed good and said so it was lately adjudged Another matter was because the words of the contract are in the preter Tense I have agreed but notwithstanding that exception the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover as by Wray these words dedi concessi according to the Grammatical sence imply a gift precedent but yet they are used as words of a present conveyance Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff XXXIII Marsh and Smiths Case Pasch 27. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Cro. 38. 39. GEorge Marsh brought a Replevin against Smith and Paget who make Conusans as Baylies to Ralph Bard and upon the pleading the Case was That Sir Francis Askew was seised of the Mannor of Castord in his Demesne as of Fee which Mannor did extend unto Daston North-kelsey Grants Mannor 2 Len. 41 42. South-kelsey D. and C. and had demesnes and services parcel of the said Mannor in each of the said Towns and so seised granted totum manerium suum de North-kelsey in North-kelsey to the said Bard and his Heirs and granted further all his Lands Tenements and Hereditaments in North-kelsey and to that grant the Tenants in North-kelsey did attorn And the Land in which the said Distress was taken is in North-kelsey the only question in the case was if by this grant to Ralph Bard a Mannor passed or not And the case was argued by the Iustices And Periam Iustice argued That upon this grant no Mannor passed for before the grant there was no Mannor of North-kelsey or in North-kelsey therefore no Mannor can pass but the Lands and services in North-kelsey shall pass as in gross for they were not known by a Mannor but for parcel of a Mannor And a Mannor is a thing which cannot be so easily created Mannor what it is for it is an Hereditament which doth consist of many real things and incorporated together before time of memory common reputation cannot be intended of an opinion conceived within three or four years but of long time And appendancy cannot be made presently but by a long tract of time As an Advowson in gross cannot be made by an Act appendant and the Queen her self by her Letters Patents cannot make a Mannor at this day à multo fortiori a subject cannot and the Queen cannot by her Letters Patents without an Act of Parliament annex a Mannor to the Dutchy of Lancaster which see 1 Ma. Dyer 95. And where it is usual that the Queen doth grant Lands Reputation tenendum de manerio suo de East Greenwich in communi soccagio if upon the death of such a Grantee without heir the said Land doth revert unto the Queen in point of Escheat the said Land shall not be parcel of the said Mannor for the Land was not parcel of the Mannor in truth but in reputation And he cited a case that the Lord Sturton was seised of the Mannor of Quincamore and was also seised of the Mannor of Charleton which was holden of the said Mannor of Quincamore The Lord Sturton was attainted of Felony and afterwards Queen Mary gave the said Mannor of Quincamore to Sir Walter Mildmay cum omnibus suis juribus parcellis it was adjudged that the Mannor of Charleton did pass for it is now become parcel of the Mannor of Quincamore and I grant that things which go with the Land shall pass well enough As if the Queen grant to three Coparceners of three Mannors 1 Inst 122. a 32 â—â— 6 11. the liberty of Warren in all the said three Mannors they afterwards make partition so as each Coparcener hath a Mannor and the one of them grants her Mannor the Grantee shall have Warren Grants of the King. But if the Queen grant a Leet ut supra and the Coparceners make Partition and each of them hath a Mannor she shall not have also a Leet but the Leet which was grantted doth remain in common and there shall not be there upon such partition several Leets And also I grant that in the case of two Coparceners of a Mannor if to each of them upon partition be allotted demeans and services each of them hath a Mannor for they were compellable to make partition by the common Law being in by descent See 26 H. 8. 4. 9 E. 4. 5. contrary of Ioynt-tenants for they are in by purchase and were not compellable by the common Law to make partition and therefore upon partition betwixt them a Rent cannot be reserved for the equality of the partition And in every Manor a Court is requisite for a Court Baron is incident to a Manor Court Baron but a Court cannot at this day be founded or erected but it ought to be of long time And in our Case no Court hath ever been holden in North-kelsey And if I be seised of the Manor of B. which extends into C. and B. and I grant my Manor of B. in D. now a Manor
estate is inherited of which the Wife demandeth her Dower And the Court doubted if it were the livery of the Son or not And note that the Feoffment was without deed See Dyer 16 Eliz. 339. XLIX The Queen against the Lord Vaux and others Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer A Bill of Intrusion was brought for the Queen against the Lord Vaux Rich. Vaux Hen. Vaux Intrusion supposing to have intruded into the Rectory Parsonage of Ethelborough in the County of Northampton shewed that in the time of Hen. the fourth the Colledge of Saint Peter of Ethelborough was founded at Westminster in the County of Midd. by the name of Decani capituli and shewed further that the Rectory of Ethelborough was appropriated to the said Colledge and that afterwards by the Statute of 1 E. 6. the said Colledge was dissolved and the said Rectory amongst other possessions of the said Colledge came to the hands of the King and that the Defendants 1. Eliz. intruded into the said Rectory and took one thousand Sheep one thousand Calves and one thousand Loads of Corn bona catalla dictae Dominae Reginae provenientia ex decimis rectoriae praedict apud Westm predict The Defendants pleaded c. That the said Colledge of Ethelborough was founded in Ethelborough Foundation c. per nomen Decani canonicorum fratrum c. who leased the said Rectory so appropriated to one Clark for forty six years in Anno 30 H. 8. who assigned the same to the Defendants by force of which they justified the taking at Ethelborough absque hoc that the said Colledge of Saint Peter in Ethelborough was founded per nomen Decani capituli Ecclesiae Sancti Petri de Ethelborough at Westminster aforesaid absque hoc that they took the said Sheep c. at Westminster c. Vpon which the Queens Attorny did demur in Law. Manwood chief Baron argued that Iudgment ought to be given for the Queen Exception hath been taken to the Information because mention is made in it of a Colledge and it is not shewed what person was the Founder And also an appropriation is alleadged of the Rectory aforesaid to the said Colledge and the Appropriation is not shewed certain who was Patron Ordinary c. as to that he argued that the alledging of the Appropriation and foundation is but matter of surplusage and therefore the insufficiency of alledging the same shall not prejudice the Queen for it had been sufficient to say That the said Colledge of St. Peter was seised of the Rectory aforesaid and then to shew the Statute of Chauntries 1 E. 6. and the same is a good title for the Queen The possession of the Colledge and the Dissolution of it by the Statute For this Bill of intrusion is but in the Nature of a possessory action Colledge in Reputation as an action of Trespass in which case it is sufficient to make title to the possession only without relying upon the right but as to the curious and exact pleading of an appropriation or a foundation it needs not in this case for admit that the Colledge were not well and duly founded yet such pleading is sufficient for a Colledge in Reputation is within the Statute of 1 E. 6. and where the party claims by or under such Foundation there the Foundation ought to be certainly shewed not precisely but conveniently General pleading not as we plead a common Recovery but as we plead the creation of a Bishop scil debito modo praefectus without shewing the particulars of the creation so if an Abbot will plead in discharge of his House of a Corody he ought to shew the Foundation and convenient certainty which see L. 5. E. 4. 118. Robert Milam founded the Abby of Leicester and conveyed the right of Patronage and foundership to the King by Attainder and the same was good pleading without shewing the particulars of the Foundation specially so 3 H. 7. 6. in the Case of the Priory of Norwich the pleading is quod Prioratus de Norwich est de fundatione Episcoporum Norwich for in such case refert quis sit Fundor so the King be not Founder but in our case non refert quis fit Fundor for whosoever be Founder whether the King or a Subject all is one the Statute in both Cases gives the possessions to the King And as to the case of Appropriation the pleading thereof is well if it be conveniently shewed in case where the party who shews it claimes by such Appropriation as 6 H. 7. 14. 11. H. 7. 8. Concurrentibus his quae de jure c. without shewing the particulars of the Appropriation Now in our case the Queen is meerly a stranger to this Appropriation and she doth not claim by it but the possession of the Colledge is the title of the Queen by the Statute of 1. E. 6. and therefore it sufficeth for the Queen to shew that the Colledge was seised c. without making mention of the manner of the Appropriation And as to the traverse of the County he conceived that the County is not traversable in this case for when the Tithes are severed from the nine parts they are presently vested in the party who hath right Traverse and they are things transitory and also the taking of them for the party may take them in any place as well as in his own Parish scil as well at Westminster where the Queen supposeth the taking as at Ethelborough where the Defendant doth justify c. and in such cases the place where is not traversable See â— H. 6. 62 63. by Babbington 35 H. 6. 5. In Trespass of Goods taken in the Parish of Saint Clements in the County of Midd. the Defendant did justify by buying in open Market in the County of Essex there needs no traverse for the Defendant hath made title by an open Market 34 H. 6. 15 16. In Trespass of Battery at D. in the County of Essex the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff made an assault upon him at B. in the County of Kent and the Defendant fled and the Plaintiff pursued him continually unto D. aforesaid at which place the Defendant did defend himself and so the hurt which the Plaintiff had was of his own assault and demanded Iudgment if Action the same is a good Plea without traversing of the County for a Battery may be continued from one County to another And it was observed by Manwood in citing of that case that although prima facie mirum videri potest that a Battery may be continued from Essex into Kent because the River of Thames is betwixt them and yet re intellecta it is plain for one parcel of Land containing thirty Acres of Lands of the Coasts of Essex is within the County of Kent See also 34. H. 6. 5. by Prisot In Trespass of Goods taken at Coventry the Def. doth justify the taking because the Plaintiff gave
in the seisin of the Queen that now is the Church voided by which it belonged to the Queen to present The Defendant did confess the seisin of the Lord Say and the whole matter contained in the Count until the Attainder and pleaded further that after the said Attainder Queen Mary leased the said Manor with the advowson to Rochester and Walgrave for forty years if the said Marquess should so long live who were possessed accordingly and in their possession the Church became void to which Avoidance one Twiniko did present the Defendant who upon his presentment was instituted and inducted Vpon which Plea the Queens Serjeant did demur in Law. It was argued by Serjeant Shuttleworth for the Queen That the counter-pleading of the title of the Queen by the Incumbent without shewing title in his own Patron could not be good nothwithstanding the Statute of 25 E. 3. Cap. 7. before which Statute the Incumbent could not plead any matter which went to the right of the Patronage but only in discharge or excuse of the disturbance and therefore we ought to observe the words of the said Statute sc the possessor shall be received to counter-plead the Kings title and to have his Answer and to defend his Right upon the matter although he claim nothing in the Patronage upon all which words taken together it appeareth that the Incumbent ought not only to counter-plead the title of the King but also to shew and defend his own right and that hath not the Defendant done here For Twiniko of whose presentment he is in the Church doth not claim under the lease made by Queen Mary to Rochester and Walgrave but during their said Lease and their possession of it by usurpation presented the Defendant 46 E. 3. 13. by Finchden The King brought a Scire fac upon a Recovery in a Quare Impedit the Defendant being Incumbent pleaded that after the said Iudgment the King had presented to the said Church I.S. his Clerk who was admitted accordingly and exception was taken because the Defendant did not shew a title in himself to maintain his possession but it was not allowed for a difference is taken betwixt a Plea in a Quare Impedit and a Plea in a Scire facias Where in pleading the party must make title to himself for in a Scire facias it is sufficient to extort the Plaintiff of execution without any title contrary in a Quare impedit And it is a general Rule that in all Cases where an Office is to be traversed none shall be received to traverse the title of the King without making a title to himself which see 38 E. 3. 18. So in the Case of the Lady Wingfield 3 H. 7. 14. and Stamford 63 64. And it is true in Actions real it is sufficient to traverse the title of the Demandant without making title to the Tenant himself As in a Formedon Ne dona pas But in Actions personal it is otherwise as 2 H. 4 14. In Ravishment of Ward it is not sufficient to traverse the title of the Plaintiff but the Defendant ought also to make title to himself Fenner Serjeant contrary who took exception to the Writ 2 Len. 5â— because it is brought against the Incumbent only without naming the Patron or Ordinary For here the Defendant hath pleaded that he is Parson impersonee of the Church aforesaid of the presentment of the said Twiniko and that he is admitted instituted and inducted and hath continued in his Church so many days and years in which Case the Writ ought to have been brought as well against the Patron and Ordinary as against him the Incumbent But in some Cases it is sufficient against the Incumbent only as upon a Collation by Lapse 9 H. 6. 32. by Babbington So where the Defendant is disturber without any presentment 7 H. 4. 93. so where the Defendant was deprived and kept himself in 4 E. 4. 18. So where the Pope makes Provision 11 H. 4. Quare Impedit 120. So a Scire facias upon a Recovery in a Quare Imped shall be brought against the Incumbent only 1 H. 5. 8. for by the Iudgment in the Quare impedit the right of the Patronage is bound and the Scire facias is only for the possession which concerns the Defendant only and no other And to prove that by the Common Law a Quare Impedit lay not but upon such special matter against the Incumbent alone it is clear upon the said Statute of 25 E. 3. For before the said Statute the Incumbent could not plead any matter which did trench to the right of the Patronage and therefore we ought not to presume that the common Law was so unreasonable to give an Action against a singular person who could not by the Law shew and defend his own right nor traverse the right of the other party And as to the plea here he conceived that the same plea which the Patron might have now after the Statute of 25 E. 3. the Incumbent shall have but he who is only a disturber not in by presentment c. he shall not plead any matter but in discharge or excuse of the disturbance 47 E. 3. 8. The King in a Quare Impedit counted That King H. was seised and presented one A. King H. died and the Advowson descended to King E. 3. A. died the now King presented B. and now B. is dead so it belongs to the King to present that the Defendant being Incumbent traversed the institution and induction of B. without making title to himself So 44 E. 3. 19. in a Quare Impedit the King declared that he himself was seised and presented one B. who at his presentment was received c. B. died by which it belonged to the King to present to which the Defendant being Incumbent pleaded that the said B. is yet alive and that plea was allowed without other title made to himself Note that at the first Argument of this case that the Court was of opinion against the Defendant because he had not in his plea any interest in the Advowson and by Periam the Patron himself could not have had such plea if he had been party to the Writ therefore not the Incumbent and it is no good pleading in any Action to discover in pleading any wrong as force disseisin usurpation But at length Mutata opinione all the Iustices were agreed that Iudgment should be given against the Queen And the Lord Anderson shewed openly the reason of their Iudgment for here is not bare usurpation pleaded against the Queen but also an estate scil a Lease for years in the said Advowson derived from Queen Mary and that the Avoidance upon which the Action is brought falleth within the said Term so as the Queen who is Plaintiff is encountred with the Lease of her Ancestor against which she cannot make title to present without special matter wherefore Iudgment was given against the Queen LIX Kynters Case Mich. 28 29.
Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt KYnter brought debt upon an Obligation the condition was that whereas the Plaintiff had bought of the Defendant a Ship if then the Defendant shall enjoy the said Ship with all the furniture belonging to the same without being disturbed for the said Ship or any furniture appertaining to it that then c. and the Case was that after the sale of the said Ship a stranger sued the Plaintiff for certain monies due for certain Ballast bought by the Defendant for the same Ship and put into the said Ship before the sale of it and in the said suit the Plaintiff obtained a Iudgment and Execution and thereupon the said Ship was seised and all the matter was if Ballast be furniture of a Ship or not And it was moved by Serjeant Gawdy that it was for Ballast is as necessary to a Ship as a Sail but the Court was against him for somtimes a Ship may sail without Ballast for it may be laden with such Merchandizes which are convenient Ballast in themselves as Coals Wheat c. Periam at the first doubted of it and by him if I be bound upon condition ut supra I am bound to deliver the Guns being in it at the time of the sale but yet he conceived that the Plaintiff should be barred because he had not specially shewed that at the time of the sale the Ballast was in the Ship. LX. Pendleton and Gunstons Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. PEndleton informed against Gunston upon the Statute of 13 Eliz. Cap. 5. for that where the said Pendleton had before brought a plaint of Debt against I.S. in the Guild-Hall of Norwich upon which issued out of the said Court an Attachment against the said I.S. by which the Sheriff of Norw being ready by virtue of the said process to attach the said I. S. by his goods there the now Defendant in disturbance of the said process and the execution of it did publish and shew to the Sheriff a conveyance by which he claimed the said goods as conveyed to him by the said I. S c. and averred the fraud c. and it was moved by Serjeant Snagg that the matter of which the Defendant is charged is not within the said Statute because the avowing of the said conveyance doth not go in delay of the execution for no Iudgment is given but only in delay of process but the Court was clear of opinion to the contrary and that by reason of the Statute and the words of it scil delay hinder or defraud Creditors of their just and lawful Actions sutes c. for here is a delay for want of serving the said Attachment the Appearance of I.S. to the sute of the Plaintiff is delayed which mischief is within the remedy of the said Statute And Periam and Rhodes Iustices conceived that such avowing of such conveyance where no sute is depending is within the said Statute which Anderson doubted See the pleading of this Case reported in the second Book of Entries 207 208. 30 Eliz. per quod secta impedita fult c. LXI Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. FEnner Serjeant moved this Case 4 Len. Alien Purchasor An Alien purchaseth Lands in Fee The Queen confirms it to the Alien Office is found if the confirmation shall bind the Queen and it seemed to some that it should for by the Lord Anderson Confirmation when an Alien is enfeoffed he receiveth by the Livery the Fee-simple of which he shall be seised until Office be found and a Praecipe quod reddat lyeth against him And by Fenner an Alien and Denizen Ioynt-tenants are disseised they both shall joyn in Assize vide 11 H. 4. 26. and by him the Kings Nief being an Inheritrix takes a Husband and hath issue Office is found the Husband shall be Tenant by the Curtesy which see 33 E. 3. Traverse 36. It was argued of the other side that the estate of the Alien is so feeble that a confirmation cannot enure upon it for an Alien cannot take but to the use of the King and cannot be enfeoffed to another use and if he be such use is void for there is not a sufficient seisin in the Alien to carry an use And it hath been adjudged in the Case of one Forcet that where an Alien and the said Forcet were Ioynt-purchasors and the Alien died Forcer had not the whole by the Survivor but that upon an Office found the Queen should have the moyety See Dyer 11 Eliz. 283. LXII Sir Roger Lewknor and Fords Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Cro. 17. Co. 5. Rep. 12. b. SIr Roger Lewknor seised of the Manor of Wallingford leased the same to A. for years and died after which it was Enacted by Parliament That the said Manor should from henceforth be deemed and reputed in the Heirs of the body of the said Sir Roger begotten upon Eliz. his Wife the said Sir Roger having three Daughters only without any other issue The Daughters married Husbands and had issue A. assigned his enterest in the said Manor to B. C. and D. and also to one Shelley B.C. and D. assigned their interest to one Sponer one of the Defendants and Shelly assigned his fourth part to Ford another of the Defendants excepting the Woods and Vnderwoods Wast is committed one of the Daughters having issue dieth living her Husband the two surviving Sisters and their Husbands the Term being expired brought a Writ of Wast leaving out the Husband of the third Sister who was Tenant by the Curtesy against Shelley and Sponer who Tenuerunt Shuttleworth Serjeant took Exception to the Writ scil praedictus Rogerus cujus haeredes ipsae funt which shall be intended Heirs general and by the Declaration it appeareth that the Daughters have to them by Act of Parliament an especial inheritance as Heirs in special tail and that by a special conveyance and therefore the Plaintiffs ought to have brought a special Writ according to their Case as where Cestuy que use maketh a lease for years by the Statute of 1 R. 3. and the Lessee committeth Wast now the Feoffees ought to have a special Writ of Wast according to their Case 26 H. 8. 6. but that exception was disallowed and the case cited out of 6 H. 8. is upon another reason for in such case the estate of the Lessee for years is created by the said Statute Another Exception was taken to the Writ for the Writ is tenuerunt which shall be intended prima facie conjunctim tenuerunt and in the Declaration it appeareth that one of the Defendants is assignee of three parts of the Lands demised and the other Defendant of the fourth part and so separatim tenuerunt but that Exception was also disallowed because originally it was one and intirely demised interest and estate and so it remaineth as to the Plaintiffs although it be devised by the Lessee himself
Another Exception was taken to the Writ because here it appears upon the Plaintiffs shewing that Sir Roger Lewknor had three Daughters and that they have all taken Husbands and that they have issue and that one of the said Daughters is dead living her Husband who is not named in the Writ for which cause the Writ shall abate See 22 H. 6. 24 25. But that Exception was also disallowed for as this Case is there is not any reason that the Tenant by the Curtesy should joyn in this Action for no judgment shall be given here that the Plaintiffs shall recover the place wasted for the term is expired as it appeareth by the words of the Writ scil quas tenuerunt and the Tenant by the curtesy is in possession and where Tenant by the curtesie and the Heir joyn in an Action of Wast Tenant for life shall have Locum vastatum and the Heir the damages which see 27 H. 8. 13. As unto the matter of Law upon the Exceptions of Woods and Vnderwoods it was argued by Shuttleworth that the Action of Wast was not well brought against Ford c. for the Assignment made by Shelley to Ford was with an exception of all Woods and Vnderwoods and therefore Shelley remained Tenant and he ought to answer for the Wood and the Vnderwood in the Action of Wast for upon every demise of Lands the Woods there growing are as well demised as the Land it self for so it appeareth by the Writ of Wast in domibus boscis dimissis ad terminum annorum c. which proves that the Trees are parcel of the demise and so may be execepted See Dyer 28 H 8. 19. by Shelley and Baldwin A man leaseth a Manor except Woods and Underwoods the Lessee cuts the Trees an Action of Wast doth not lie against him for the same for the thing in which the Wast is supposed to be committed was not demised c. and therefore the Lessee shall be punished as a Trespassor and not as Farmer Fenner Serjeant contrary and that the Exception of the Woods and Vnderwoods is meerly void for Shelley who assigns his interest with the said Exception hath not any such interest in the Woods and Vnderwoods so as he can make such exception for he had but an ordinary interest in them as Farmer viz. House-boot Hedge-boot c. which interest cannot by any means upon an Assignment be reserved to the Assignor in gross of the estate no more than if one hath common appendant to his Land and he will make a Feoffment of the Land reserving or excepting the common And he who hath the inheritance of the Land hath an absolute property in the Trees but the Lessee hath but a qualified interest and therefore 21 H 6. 46. the Lessor during the term for years may command the Trees to be cut down and 10 H. 7. 3. Lessee for years hath not any interest in the Trees but for the loppings and for the shadow for his Cattle And in the Case cited where Lessee for life and he in the Reversion make a Lease for life unto a stranger and wast is committed Co. 1 Inst 42. 2. and they bring an Action of Wast the Lessee for life shall have the place wasted and he in the Reversion the treble damages for in him was the true and very property of the Trees and therefore the treble damages do belong unto him and not to the Lessee for life who joyneth with him and the reason wherefore the Lessee for life or years shall recover treble damages against a stranger who cuts down any Trees growing upon the Land to him demised is not in respect of any property that the Lessee hath in the Trees cut down but because he is chargable over to his Lessor in an Action of Wast in which he shall render damages in such proportion So see 27 H. 6. Wast 8. A lease for life is made without impeachment of wast a stranger of his own wrong cuts down Trees against whom the Lessee brings an Action of Trespass in such Case he shall not recover treble damages not for the Trees but only for the breaking of the Close and the loppings for he is not chargeable over to his Lessor for the same because that his Lease was made without impeachment of Wast and if the Lessee hath such a slender interest in the Trees where his Lease is without impeachment of wast his interest is less where it is an ordinary lease without any such priviledge And the property which the Lessee for years hath in the Trees in such Case is so appropriated to the possession that it cannot be severed from it Windham and Anderson Iustices were of opinion that the Exception above is meerly void For Ford the Assignee of Shelly is now Termer and Farmer who alone can challenge interest in the Trees against all but the Lessor and Shelley after his Assignment is meerly a stranger The interest of the Lessee and also of his Assignee in the Trees is of necessity and follows the Farm and the Land as the shadow doth the body And by him where Lessee for years by reason of his lease is to have Wind-fals yet he cannot imploy them but to the benefit and profit of his Farm for if he sell them or spend them elsewhere he shall be punished Rhodes and Periam Iustices that the exception is good as the fruits of the Trees Shovelers c. And afterwards the Case was adjudged upon another point in the pleading so as the matter in Law did not come to Iudgment See Saunders Case 41 Eliz. Where Lessee doth assign excepting the Timber Trees it is a void Exception LXIII Gray and Jeffes Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 55. Action of assault and Batterry IN an Action upon the Case by Gray against Jeffe the Plaintiff declared that where he had placed his Son and Heir apparent with the Defendant to be his Apprentice and to learn of him the Art of a Tailor That the Defendant had so beaten his Son with a Spade that he thereupon became lame by reason of which he could not have so much with his Son in marriage of him as otherwise he might have because the same lameness is a disparagement to his said son And further shewed that he himself might spend twenty pounds per annum in Lands Haulton argued for the Plaintiff The Action Quare filium haeredem cepit abduxit is given to the Father in consideration that the marriage of his Son and Heir doth appertain to him by the Law and here by the Battery the Son is become so same that he is not so commendable to a Marriage as before and if the Father had lost the whole marriage then the Father should have had the Action Quare filium haeredem c. but here he hath not lost the whole marriage but the marriage is lessened by it and therefore he shall have this Action
K. his Wife the Tenant demanded Iudgment of the Writ upon special shatter and concluded so is the said K. our Wife and not the Wife of A. So in a Cui invita by B. and C. his Wife the Tenant pleaded never accoupled in loyal matrimony the same is no answer to the Wife for she demanded in her own right and if he who aliened was her Husband in possession the Wife could not have other Action for Assize doth not lie because he was her Husband in fact at the said time in possession And see also 50 E. 3. 20. adjudged according to the opinion of Belknap And see also 39 E. 3. As to the marriage in right as the case in question is for upon such marriage if the Husband be murdred before disagreement the Wife shall have an Appeal of Murder and a Writ of Dower so where Appeal is brought of the Rape of his Wife although she be his Wife but in possession and not in right 11 H. 4. 13. by Hulls 168. and by Littleton if the Wife be of the age but of nine years she shall have Dower which see also 35 H. 6. and yet Dower shall never accrue but in case of marriage in right for there never coupled in marriage is a good Plea See 12 R. 2. Dower 54. In Dower the Tenant pleaded that the Husband at the time of his death was but at the age of 10 years and the Demandant now but 11 years and yet Iudgment was given for the Demandant for by Charleton the same was a marriage in right until disagreement See 22 Eliz. Dyer 369. A woman at full age marrieth a Husband of 12 years who dieth before the age of consent the same is a good marriage and so ought to be certified by the Bishop and 7 H. 6. 11. by Newton a woman married within age of consent may bring an Action as a feme sole and the Writ did abate Stamford Prerogat 27. 19 E. 3. Judgment 123. In a Writ of Ward the Iury found that the Infant was of the age of 10 years and no more but they did not know whether she was married or not but de bene esse if she be married assess damages one hundred pounds and if not five pounds upon which it appeareth that marriage at such an age is such a marriage upon which the Lord shall recover damages See 13 H. 3. gard 148. such marriage in the life of the Ancestor infra annos nubiles if there be no disagreement shall bind the King And after the death of the Ancestor the heir shall remain in custodia Domini Regis usque ad aetatem ut consentiat vel dissentiat 45 E. 3. 16. In a Writ of Ward the Infant was found of the age of 12 years and the Iurors gave damages 300 marks if he were married and 27 H. 6. gard 118. 47 E. 3. Br. Trespass 420. and Fitz. Action upon the Statute 37. Trespass de muliere abducta cum bonis viri where the wife is within the age of consent and if I be bounden unto another in an Obligation upon condition to pay a sum of mony upon the marriage day of I S. now if I S. be married within the age of consent I am bound to pay the mony the same day although afterwards the parties do dissent and the Wife after such marriage shall be received in a Plea real upon the Default of her Husband and the words si dicta Eliz ad id condescendere agreare vellet are to be understood of an agreement at the time of the marriage and here the time is limited for the solemnization of the marriage scil at or before they shall have accomplished their several ages of 21 years makes the matter clear For it is in the election of Hanmer the Father to procure this marriage scil that his Son shall take to Wife the said Elizabeth at which of the two times he will scil at or before c. to the marriage before c. is as effectual in respect of the performance of this condition as if the marriage had been had after and as the case is the condition could not be better performed for if the marriage had been stayed till after 14 years c. although the marriage doth not ensue yet the Obligation had been forfeited and that the marriage be solemnized just at the age of both of 14 years was impossible for Thomas Hanmer was the elder by 2 years than the said Elizabeth and therfore they ought to be married at such time which might stand with the condition and the same is done accordingly And as to that which hath been objected That now by disagreement the marriage is determined we ought to observe that Hanmer was bounden for the performance of the Covenant and that his son and heir apparent maritaret in uxorem duceret dictam Eliz. ud vel ante c. which is executed accordingly and he is not bounden for the continuance of the said marriage but the continuance of the same ought to be left to the law which giveth to the parties liberty to continue the marriage by agreement or to dissolve it by disagreement And therefore if I am bounden to you that I S. who in truth is an Infant shall levy a Fine before such a day which is done accordingly and afterwards the same is reversed by Error yet notwithstanding the condition is performed c. and afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff LXVIII The Earl of Warwick and the Lord Barkleys Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AMbrose Earl of Warwick and Robert Earl of Leicester brought a Writ of Partition against the Lord Barkley Partition Challenge in which the parties pleaded to issue And now at the day of the Enquest the Defendant did challenge that in the whole Pannel there were but two Hundreders and at the first it was doubted by the Court if upon the Statute of 27 Eliz. cap. 6. by which it is Enacted That no further challenge for the Hundred shall be admitted if two sufficient Hundreders do appear the Enquest shall be taken But at length the whole Court was clear of opinion that the said Statute did extend but to personal Actions but this Action of Partition is a real Action and Summons and severance lieth in it but not process of outlawry and therefore here four Hundreders ought to be returned so in an Action of Wast although it be in the personalty and therefore the Council of the Plaintiffs prayed a Tales LXIX The Archbishop of York and Mortons Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Archbishop of York recovered in an Assize of Novel disseisin against one Morton before the Iustices of Assize 3 Len. 159. Error upon recovery in Assize upon which Iudgment Morton brought a Writ of Error before the Iustices of the Common Pleas and after many motions at the bar it was adjudged that a Writ of Error upon the said Iudgment
for that he hath not made his Fresh sute according to the Law for he ought to have begun his Fresh sute within the Hundred where the Robbery was done and it was also objected that the Robbery was done post occasum solis in which Case the Hundreders are not to pursue the Malefactors And Walmsley Serjeant cited a Case out of Bracton Si appellatus se defenderit contra appellantem tota dle usque ad horam in qua Stellae incipiunt apparere recedat quietus de appello and it is not reason to drive the Hundreders to Follow felons at such a time 1 Cro. 270. when for want of light they cannot see them And all the Iustices were clear of opinion that if the Robbery was done in the night time the Inhabitants are not bound to make the pursute And by Rhodes if in a Praecipe quod reddat of Lands the Sheriff summons the Demandant upon the Land in the time of night such a summons is meerly void LXXIII Wiseman and Wisemas Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intrat Trin 28. Rot. 1458. IN an Action of Debt by Wiseman against Wiseman the Case was Debt 1 And. 160. Owen 140. that one Wiseman was seised of the Lands and by his Will devised 1. I will and bequeath unto my Wife B. acre for the Term of her life the remainder to my Son Thomas in tail Item I will and bequeath unto my Son Thomas Devises all my Lands in D. and also my Lands in S. and also my Lands in V. Also I give and bequeath unto the said Thomas my Son all that mâ— Island or Land enclosed with water which I purchased of the Earl of Essex To have and to hold all the said last before devised premisses unto the said Thomas my Son and the Heirs of his Body The only matter was If the Habendum shall extend to the Island only in which Case Thomas shall have but for life in the Lands in D. S. and V. or unto the Island and also to the Lands in D. S. and V 2 Roll. 60. Roph. 126. in which Case he shall have Fee-tail in the whole And it was argued by Fenner that the Habendum should extend to the Island only as he said the opinion of the Iustices of this Court was in 4 Eliz. in another Case I devise my Manor to D. my eldest Son and also my Land in S. in tail in that Case the entail limited for the Land in S. shall not extend to the 1 Roll. 844. said Manor and of such opinion was Weston Welsh and Dyer Brown contra that the Son hath tail in both But if the words of the devise had been I devise my Manor of D. and my Lands in S. to my Son in tail here the Son had an estate tail in both So it hath been adjudged that if I devise Lands to A. B. and C. successively as they be named the same is good by way of Remainder Walmesley contrary and he relied much upon this that the words of the Habendum are in the plural number 2 Bulst 180. 181. All the last before devised premisses whereas the thing lately devised by the Will was an Island in the singular number which cannot satisfie the Habendum Extent of an Habendum which is in the plural number and therefore to verifie the plural number in the Habendum the Habendum by fit construction shall extend to all the Lands in D. S. and V. and so upon his motion made at another day it was resolved by all the Iustices that the Habendum should extend to all the said Lands and the Habendum should not streighten the Devise to the Island only LXXIV Fullwood and Fullwoods Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Bail renders himself in Court. IN an Action upon the Case the Defendant put in bail to the Court to answer to the Action and now Iudgment being given against him he came into Court and rendred himself and prayed that in discharge of his sureties that the Court would record the rendring of himself which was granted And the Court demanded of the Plaintiff if he would pray execution for the body against the Defendant who said he would not whereupon the Court awarded that the sureties should be discharged and the Rule was entred that the Defendant offered himself in discharge of his sureties and Attornatus Querentis allocatus per curiam c. dixit se nolle c. Ideo consideratum fuit per curiam quod tam praedict defend quam praedict Manucaptores de recognitione praedict denariis in eadem contentis exonerentur LXXV Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was He in the Reversion upon a Lease for years makes a Charter of Feoffment to divers persons to the use of himself for life Feoffments and after to the use of his eldest Son in tail and the words of the Charter were Dedi Concessi Barganizavi Feoffavi and he sealed and delivered the deed but no livery of seisin was made and afterwards he came to his Lessee for years and said to him that he had made a Feoffment and shewed also the uses but did not shew to whom the Feoffment was made to whom the Lessee said you have done very well I am glad of it Attornment And if that were a good Attornment was the Question It was said that that was the Case of one Arden And Gent and Manwood were of opinion that the same was no Attornment because it was not made to the Feoffee scil to the Grantee of the Reversion and so it was ruled in this Case for Attornment ought to be to the Grantee himself and not to Cestuy que use 1 Cro. 251. Tythes and where the spiritual court shall have jurisdiction of them LXXVI The Parson of Facknams Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Parson of great Facknam brought an Action of Trespass against the Parson of Hannington and the Case was If the Parson of one Parish claim by prescription a portion of Tythes out of the Parish of another if the Spiritual Court shall have the Iurisdiction for the tryal of it And the opinion of the whole Court was clear that it should because that the matter is betwixt two spiritual persons and concerning the right of Tithes As 35 H. 6. 39. I. Vicar of B. brought Trespass for taking away of forty loads of Beans c. The Defendant pleaded that he is Parson of the said Church of B. and the Plaintiff is Vicar c. and before the Trespass c. the Beans were growing in the same Town and severed from the nine parts and he took them as belonging to his said Church and demanded Iudgment of the Court c. The Plaintiff said that he and all his Predecessors Vicars c. time out of mind c. have used to have the Tithes of such a Close c. belonging to his Vicaridge and
within the said Close the Beans were growing and were parcel of his endowment and that at the time of the taking they were severed from the nine parts whereupon he took them And it was holden by Ashton and Danby because it is confessed on both sides that the Beans whereof c. were Tithes the Right of which would come in debate betwixt the Parson and the Vicar and both are spiritual persons that the tryal thereof doth belong to the Spiritual Court. See 6 E. 4. 3. 22 E. 4. 23. 24. in such a matter betwixt the Parson and Vicar there the Temporal Court was ousted of the Iurisdiction See also 31 H. 6. 11. betwixt the Parson and the Servant of another Parson 7 H. 4. 102. In Trespass by a Parson against a Lay-man who said that one A. is Parson of a Church in a Town adjoyning to a Town where the Plaintiff is Parson and that A. let to him the Tithe and demanded Iudgment c. and pleaded to the Iurisdiction and by Gascoigne the Plaintiff may recover his Tithes in the Spiritual Court. LXXVII Bunny against Wright and Stafford Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trespass the Case was this Leases within 1 Eliz. and 32. 7 8. made by Bishops Grindal Bishop of Lond. leased parcel of the possessions of his Bishoprick for one and twenty years and afterwards ousted the Lessee and leased unto another for three lives rendring the antient and accustomed Rent which was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter And afterwards Grindal is translated Cook argued That the Lease is warranted by the Statute of 1 Eliz. At the Common Law a Bishop might make an Alienation in Fee-simple being confirmed by the Dean and Chapter But by 32 H. 8. cap. 28. Bishops without Dean and Chapter or their confirmation may make a Lease for one and twenty years but with the confirmation of the Dean and Chapter may make a Lease for one thousand years Co. 1. Inst 45. 2. More 107. 1 Anderson 65. But by the Statute of 1 Eliz. the power of Bishops in that right is much abridged for now with confirmation or without confirmation they cannot dispose of their possessions but for one and twenty years or three lives and this Lease is in all points according to the Statute of 1 Eliz. for first it begins presently upon the making of it Secondly the antient rent is reserved payable yearly during the term for although here be an old Lease in esse yet the Rent reserved upon the second Lease is payable during the second term for payable is a word of power and not of action as 1 H. 4. 1. 2. 3. Lord Mesne and Tenant the Mesne gives the Mesnalty in tail rendring Rent it is a good Rent and well reserved although here be not a present distress yet it may be the Tenancy will escheat and then the Donor shall distrein for all the Arrearages And so the Rent is payable by possibility And 10 E. 4. 4. A. leaseth for years and afterwards grants the Reversion to a stranger if the Beasts of the stranger come upon the Lands during the term A. may distreâ—â— for the Arrearages incurred and if he happen seisin he shall have aâ—â— Assise during the continuance of the first term And he cited a Case lately adjudged in the Exchequer A Lessor entred upon Lessee for years and made a Feoffment rendring Rent with clause of Re-entry the Lessee re-entred claiming his Term and afterwards during the said Term for years the Rent reserved upon the Feoffment upon demand of it is behind Now hath the Lessor regained the Reversion And so a Rent may be demanded although not distreinable And all that was affirmed by Egerton Solicitor General And see the words of the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 28. Rent reserved yearly during the said Lease due and payable to the Lessor c. such Rent c. and yet by the said Statute such Leases may be good although there be a former interest for years in being if the same shall be expired surrendred or ended within one year after the making such new lease and so not expresly payable in rei veritate annually during the Term. LXXVIII Bonefant and Sir Rich. Greenfields Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Sale of Lands by the Executors of the Devisor BOnefant brought Trespass against Sir Rich. Greenfield and upon the general issue this special matter was found Tremagrie was seised of a Manor whereof the place where c. was parcel in his Demesne as of Fee and by his Will devised the same to his four Executors and further willed Post 260. that his said Executors should sell the same to Sir John Saintleger for the payment of his debts if the said Sir John would pay for it one thousand one hundred pounds at such a day and died Sir John did not pay the mony at the day One of the Executors refused Administration of the Will the other three entred into the Land and sold it to the Defendant for so much as it could be sold and in convenient time It was moved that the sale was not good for they have not their authority as Executors but as Devisees and then when one refuseth the other cannot sell by 21 H. 3. Cestuy que use Wills that is Executors shall alien his Land and dieth although the Executors refuse the Administration yet they may alien the Land. 19 H. 8. 11. 15 H. 7. 12 Egerton Solicitor argued that the sale is good by the Common Law and also by the Statute 49 E. 3. 16 17. Devise that his Executors shall sell his Land and dieth and one of the Executors dieth another refuseth the third may sell well enough 1 And. 145. and the sale is good See Br. Devise 31. 30 H. 8. 39 E. 3. Br. Assise 356. And he put a difference where an Authority is given to many by one deed there all ought to joyn contrary where the Authority is given by Will And if all the Executors severally sell the Lands to several persons such sale which is most beneficial for the Testator shall stand and take effect And here it is found by verdict that one of the Executors recusavitonus Testamenti Ergo he refused to take by the Devise for it was devised unto him to the intent to sell therefore if he refuseth to sell he doth refuse to take and so it is not necessary that he who refuseth joyn in the sale and although we are not within the express words of the Statute yet we are within the sense and meaning of it And afterwards it was adjudged that the Condition for the manner of it was good LXXIX Gamock and Cliffs Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Ejectione firmae EJectione firmae was brought by Gamock against Cliff of the Manor of Hockly in the County of Essex and upon the evidence the case was That the King and Queen Philip and Mary seised
of the said Manor of Hockley seased the same to Edmund Terrel for years exceptis Reservat grossis arboribus super praemissis crescentibus existentibus Proviso Conditions that if the said Lessee his Executors or Assigns shall do any voluntary Wast in any of the Premisses before demised that then the said demise shall be void and accounted none in Law the said King and Queen after that lease grant the Reversion to the Lord Rich and his Heirs the Lessee cuts down certain great Trees which at the time of the demise were not great but little Trees but after tractu temporis became great and at the time of the cutting down were great upon whom the Lady Rich Wife and Widow of the said Lord Rich being Tenant in Dower the said Manor inter alia being assigned to her in Dower did enter for the condition broken It was moved If the exception did extend to the trees which at the time of the demise were but little trees but afterwards at the time of their cutting down were become great for if the exception do extend to such Trees then upon the matter they were not demised and if so then wast cannot be assigned in the cutting down of them and then by the cutting of them the condition is not broken But if the exception shall be construed to extend to such Trees only which were great Tempore dimissionis then those Trees in which c are demised and by the cutting down of them the condition is broken And the Lord Anderson was of opinion that the exception did extend to Trees which at any time dimissionis praedict became great Where the Tenant in Dower shall take advantage of a condition although at the time of the demise they were but little so as upon the matter such Trees were never demised and so the condition doth not extend to them otherwise it should be if the words had been modo crescentibus existentibus Another matter was moved because if the Lady Rich being Tenant in Dower and so in by the Law not by the party and so not privy nor as Assignee could enter for the condition broken And the Court was clear of opinion that because that the words of the condition are Quando dimissio praedict erit vacua c. and no clause of reentry is reserved so that privity is not requisite the Lady Rich shall take advantage of the condition 11 H. 17. Where the words of a Lease are that upon the not going to Rome that the Lease shall cease it was holden that the Grantee of the Reversion by the common Law should take advantage of such a condition contrary where the condition is conceived in words of re-entry 21 H. 7. 12. It was moved further that here is not any voluntary wast in the Lessee as to the condition Dyer 281. Owen 93. because done by a stranger and not by the Lessee himself and for that the condition is not broken only the Lessee is subject unto an Action of Wast otherwise if the Lessee had expresly commanded the Vendee to cut them down or had given to him express authority The sale was All his Woods growing c. LXXX Gill and Harewoods Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. GIll brought an Action upon the Case against Harewood and declared Assumpsit that where the Defendant was endebted to the Plaintiff in such a â—um and shewed how the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff per parvum tempus deferret diem solutionis c. did promise to pay And upon Non Assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that here is not any consideration for no time is limited for the forbearance but generally parvum tempus which cannot be any commodity to the Defendant for the same may be but punctum temporis c. But the exception was not allowed for the Debt in it self is a sufficient consideration LXXXI Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Co. 74. 5 Co. 38. 8 Co. 155. FEnner Serjeant would have drawn a Fine which was by Dedimus Potestatem and the Fine was to two and their heirs but the Court would not receive such Fine for the incertainty of the Inheritance which always in case of Fine ought to be reposed in a person certain and not left to uncertainty of the Survivor and the said Serjeant prayed presently that the said Fine be received at the peril of the Conusees but the same was denied him by the whole Court. LXXXII Mascals Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco Covenant 2 Cro. 644. MAscal leased a House to A. for years by Indenture by which A. covenanted with Mascal to repair the House Leased and that it should be lawful for Mascal his Heirs and Assigns to enter into the House to see in what plight for matter of Reparation the said House stood and if upon any such view any default should be found in the not repairing of it and thereof warning be given to A. his Executors c. Then within four months after such warning such default should be amended the House in the default of the Lessee became ruinous Mascal granted the Reversion over in Fee to one Carre who upon view of the House gave warning to A. of the default c. which is not repayred upon which Carre as Assignee of Mascal brought an Action of Covenant against A. It was moved by Fenner Serjeant that the Action did not lye because the House became ruinous before his interest in the Reversion But the opinion of the whole Court was against him for that the Action is not conceived upon the ruinous estate of the House or for the committing of Waste but for the not repayring of it within the time appointed by the Covenant after the warning so as it is not material within what time the House became ruinous but within what time the warning was given and the default of the Reparation did happen LXXXIII Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco Dower IN a Writ of Dower brought by a Woman of the third part of certain Lands c. The Tenant pleaded That the Lands of which Dower is demanded are of the nature of Gavel-kind and that the custom of such Land is that Dower ought to be demanded of the moity of it and not of the third part upon which the Demandant did demur And the opinion of Windham and Anderson Iustices was That such a Woman of such Land might at her pleasure demand her Dower either according to the Custom 1 Cro. 825. Poph. 133. or according to the common Law for by Anderson the common Law was before the Custom quod quaere And by Windham if the Demandant here recover her Dower according to the common Law yet if she taketh another Husband she shall lose her Dower as if she had been endowed according to the Custom Coke an Apprentice
the of Inner Temple being at the Bar when this Case was moved said unto Serjeant Shuttleworth that the Case had been adjudged against the Demandant and Scot Prothonotary did affirm that the Lord Dyer was of opinion that the Woman ought to be endowed according to the Custom and not otherwise And Sayer one of the Clarks of Nelson chief Prothonotary said that it was adjudged accordingly 16. Eliz. and that the Case was betwixt Gelbrand Demandant and Hunt Tenant LXXXIV Beverlie and Cornwals Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. BEverlie brought a Quare Impedit against Cornwal Quare Imped 2 Roll. 805. Out-lawry pleaded and had Iudgment to recover upon a Demurrer in Law Which see Mich. 28 29 Eliz. And now the Queen brought a Scire facias upon the matter That the said Beverly after the said Iudgment was out-lawed in an Action of Trespass at the sute of I. S. and upon that a Scire facias issued ad respondendum Quare dicta Domina Regina should not have execution of the Iudgment aforesaid by reason of the Out-lawry aforesaid and declared in all as aforesaid And further that the said Cornwal had resigned Vpon which Beverlie did demur in Law. And this Term it was argued by Puckering Serjeant for the Queen that by that Out-lawry the Interest to present is tranferred to the Queen Which see 5 H. 5. 3. Tenant at will of a Manor to which an Advowson is appendant is out-lawed in an Action of Trespass the Church voided by award of the Court it belongs to the King to present And see 8 R. 2. scil Quare Imped 200 A. seised of an Advowson the Church becomes void A. is Out-lawed in a personal Action the King shall have a Quare Impedit in that Case And as to the Exception taken because the Out-lawry is not sufficiently layed in the Writ but only generally viz. utlagatus in Com. Lincoln ad sectam J.S. in placito transgressionis without shewing the Out-lawry at large There is a difference where an Out-lawry is pleaded by way of â—â—r and disability of the person c. and where it is set down in a Writ for a Writ ought shortly and compendiously to comprehend the cause of the Action especially judicial Writs which are not tied to any form certain especially because that the Out-lawry set forth in the Writ is a Record of the same Court For the perclose of the Scire facias is prout per recordum hic in curia plenius apparet And that Record being in the Court the party cannot plead Nul tiel record as if the Record had been in any other Court But he ought to demand Dyer of the Record Which vide 5 H. 7. 24. Walmesley Serjeant contrary By Out-lawry in an Action personal the King cannot seise Land but only take the profits of it 9. H. 6. 20. 21 H. 7. 7. And as our case is nothing doth accrew to the Queen by this Out-lawry for the Queen her self is seised of the Advowson because she usurpando presentavit and her Clerk admitted and although Beverlie hath recovered in a Quare Impedit against the Presentee of the Queen yet because he is not removed by a Writ to the Bishop the Queen continues Patron and nothing remains in Beverlie that may be forfeited But Rhodes and Periam contrary for by Periam if after such Recovery the Incumbent dieth the Patron shall present for by the Iudgment in the Quare Impedit for Beverlie the Patronage is revâ—â—ted in him without any other execution And by Rhodes If after such Iudgment the Patron dieth his Executors shall have a Writ to the Bishop And by Walmesley the Scire facias doth not lie for the Queen for that Writ always runs in privity of the Record upon which it is grounded to which Record the Queen is a stranger and by Out-lawry in an Action personal no Action real shall escheat and therefore this Scire facias being in the nature of a Quare Impedit upon which it is grounded which is a real Action or at least a mixt shall not be forfeited and also it shall be absurd to grant now a Writ to the Bishop for the Queen whereas Iudgment was given against the Queen as in our case it hath been And in no Case the Iudges shall respect the title of the Queen being a stranger to the Writ But where a title for the Queen doth appear upon the pleading or otherwise within the Record 11 H. 4. 224. by Hankford If a clear title for the King be confessed by the parties upon pleading a Writ to the Bishop shall issue for the King so if such matter appear in Evidence 3 Cro. 427. c. the Land in question is seisable into the Kings hands See 9 H. 7. 9. 16 H. 7. 12. so 21 E. 4. 3. by Choke and F.N.B. 38. e. In a Quare Impedit betwixt two strangers if title doth appear to the Court for the King a Writ to the Bishop shall issue forth for the King but in our Case nothing is within the Record to intitle the Queen but all the matter upon which a Writ to the Bishop is prayed for the Queen is out of the Record and a foreign thing And as to the Out-lawry he conceived it is not sufficiently alledged for he ought to have made mention of the Exigent and of all the proceeding upon it and the Iudgment of the Coroners and for defect of that no title is given to the Queen and of that opinion was the Lord Anderson and that it ought to be set forth in the Writ in what Term the said Beverly was out-lawed and the Number Roll also so that if Beverly had demanded Dyer of the Record the Court might know it And by Nelson chief Prothonotary the Term in which the Out-lawry was ought to be comprised in the Scire facias Vide Book of Entries 485. where in a Quare Impedit for the King upon such a title the King shewed in his Count that A. was seised of such an Advowson and granted the next Avoidance to B. and that afterwards one C. impleaded the said B. in a Writ of Account in such a Court where Nihil was returned upon the summons upon which issued forth a Capias upon which is returned Non est inventus c. upon which an Exigent upon which the Sheriff did return quod ad com tent c. ad v. comitat tunc prox praecedent the said B. exactus fuit non comparuit quia ad nullum eorundem comitat apparuit utlagatus fuit and after the the Church voided and that by reason thereof it did belong to the King to present vide ibid. 196. accordingly And as to the Scire facias all the Iudges agreed that upon the matter the Writ lay well enough And it is good discretion in the Court to grant such a Writ And by Rhodes If two Coparceners of an Advowson make composition to present by turns and afterwards
the Land was entailed by the second Fine But that Exception was disallowed by the whole Court and a difference put by Anderson Where a man pleads the grant of an Advowson in gross by Tenant in tail in such case the life of the Tenant in tail ought to be averred for by his death the grant ceaseth But where a man pleads the Lease of Tenant in tail of a Manor with an Advowson appendant in such case such averment is not necessary So accordingly Smith Stapletons Case 15 Eliz. 431. And here it was moved if in as much as by the first Fine an estate for life was rendred to the Wife and by the second Fine in which she did not joyn an estate tail was limited unto her and now when the Husband dieth if he shall be remitted to her estate for life Co. 1 Inst 357. 2 Cro. 489. which Windham granted for that was her lawful estate and the second estate tortious But by Rhodes Periam and Anderson the Wife is at liberty to make her election which of the two estates she will have And as to the Writ to the Bishop for the Queen the Court was clear of opinion that it ought not to be granted upon this matter But all the question was if Regina inconsulta the Court would or ought to proceed And it was holden clearly by the whole Court that the tenure alledged modo forma could not be a tenure in chief for it is said that the Land was holden of the King as of the Castle of Dover in Capite LXXXVI Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco Intr. Pasc 28 Eliz. Rot. 602. Wast â— Cro. 40. 4â— WAst was brought by F. and his Wife agaist Pepy and counted that the said Pepy was seised and enfeoffed certain persons to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of the Wife of the Plaintiff and her Heirs The Defendant pleaded that the said Feoffment was unto the use of himself and his Heirs in Fee c. without that that it was to the uses in the Count Vpon which they were at issue And it was found by verdict that the said Feoffment was unto the uses contained in the Count But the Iury further found that the estate of the Defendant by the limitation of the use was priviledged with the impunity for Wast that is to say without impeachment of Wast And it was moved if upon this verdict the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment And Anderson and Rhodes Iustices he shall for the matter in issue is found for the Plaintiff and that is the Feoffment to the uses contained in the Count and this impunity of Wast is a forrein matter not within the charge of the Iury and therefore the traverse of it but matter of surplusage As if I plead the Feoffment of I. S. To which the other pleads that he did not enfeoff and the Iury find a conditional Feoffment the Court shall not respect the finding of the condition for it was not in issue and no advantage shall ever be had of such a liberty if it be not pleaded 30 H. 8. Dyer 41. In Dower the Tenant pleaded Ne unques seisi que Dower the Tenant pleaded that before the coverture of the Demandant one A. was seised of the Lands of which Dower is demanded in tail who made a Feoffment to a stranger and took the Demandant to Wife and took back an estate in Fee and died seised having issue inheritable Now although upon the truth of the matter she is not dowable de jure yet when the parties are at issue upon a point certain Hob. 53. Owen 91. no foreign or strange matter not in question betwixt the parties shall be respected in the point of the Iudgment But if the Defendant had pleaded it in bar he might have foreclosed the Demandant of her Dower Vide 38 H. 6. 27. 47 E. 3. 19. In a Praecipe quod reddat in the default of the Tenant one cause and shewed how the Tenant who made default was but Tenant for life of the Lands in demand the reversion in Fee to himself and prayed to be received The Demandant did counter-plead the receit saying the Defendant had fee upon which issue was joyned And it was found that neither the tenant nor he which prayed to be received had any thing in the Land In that case the Court did not regard the matter which was superfluous in the verdict for they were at issue upon a point certain that is whether the Tenant was seised in Fee for it was confessed of both sides that he had an estate for life and with that matter the Iury was not charged and they are not to enquire of it and so it was found against the Demandant for which cause the Receit was granted 7 H 6. 20. The parties were at issue upon a dying seised which is found by verdict but the Iury further find that the other party made continual claim this continual claim shall not be regarded in the point of Iudgment because it was pleaded in avoidance of the descent Windh Iustice contrary Forasmuch as it appeareth unto us upon the verdict that the Plaintiff hath not cause of Action and therefore he shall not have Iudgment As in Detinue No advantage of impunity for Wast shall be taken where the same is not pleaded though found by verdict Judgment Hob. 53. Owen 91. The Plaintiff counteth of a bailment by his own hand the Defendant pleadeth that he doth not detain c. the Iury find the Detinue but upon a bailment by another hand In this case notwithstanding that the Detinue be found yet the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment But Rhodes Periam and Anderson in the principal case were of opinion Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff for in no case the party shall have advantage of such a Liberty of impunity of Wast if he do not plead it And the Iurors are not to meddle with any matter which is not in issue And if it be but matter of surplusage it is to no purpose And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff LXXXVII Bracebridge and Baskerviles Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco AN Action of Debt is brought against three Executors Debt against Executors one of them pleads in Bar a Recovery against himself in the Kings Bench The other two plead plene administr Against the first plea the Plaintiff did aver covin and upon the second plea they are at issue The first issue is found for the Plaintiff and as to the other plea it was found that the Defendants have in their hands thirty pounds of the goods of their Testator not administred Note the debt in demand was one hundred pounds upon which the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover the goods of the Testator and thereupon had execution Now the Plaintiff brought a Scire facias against the said Executors supposing that many other goods of the Testator have come unto their
in pleading of a Fine it needs not to shew any engrossing of it and so are many Presidents vide Plowd Com. Smith and Stapletons Case 15 Eliz. 428. Where a Fine was pleaded Quaedam finalis concordia facta fuit in Octav. Sancti Hillarii 35 H. 8. postea a die Pasch in quindecem dies 36 H 8. concessa recordata c. Super quem finem proclam secundum formam Statuti factae fuer viz. prima proclam 7. Maii. Term. Pasch 36 H. 8. without any mention of the engrossing of it And see the Case betwixt Stowel and the Lord Zouch where the Fine is pleaded as it is pleaded in the Case at Bar quiquidem finis in forma praedict levatus and that fine was levyed Pasch 30 H. 8. ingrossatus fuit postea in Curia praedict secundum formam Stattui c. lectus proclamatus fuit viz. prim proclam Term. Pasch 30 H. 8. And so upon the matter it is sufficient to shew that the Fine was engrossed the same term in which it was levyed for the Fine is pleaded to be levyed Term. Pasch qui quidem Finis ingrossatus fuit postea proclam viz. prim proclam Termino Pasch which was the same Term it was levyed And so admit that in pleading it ought to be shewed that the Fine was ingrossed in the same Term in which it was levyed c. Now it appears here to us by necessary consequence that the Fine was ingrossed accordingly And also the Ingrossment is pleaded as the Statute is penned for the words of the Statute of 4 H. 7. are after the engrossing of every Fine the same Fine to be openly read and proclaimed in the same Court the same Term and so the words of our plea here pursue the words of the Statute for the said Statute doth not require by express words that the Fine be engrossed the same Term but the same is to be conceived by matter of construction and implication and according to such manner of speech this plea is pleaded And of the same opinion was Windham and upon the same reason Anderson conceived that the Tenant in pleading of the Fine ought to shew in express words that the Fine was engrossed the same Term in which it was levyed for whosoever in pleading a plea will take the benefit of the Statute ought precisely to follow the Statute in all points and it is clear that if the Fine be not engrossed according to the Statute that then it is not any bar by the Statute and therefore it ought to be expresly alledged according to the Statute and not by implication only Another Exception was taken to the Bar as was remembred by Windham i. pro ut per finem hic in Curia de recordo remanen-plenius apparet without saying per proclamation inde c. But that Exception was disallowed by Periam and Windham for the Fine had been good and well pleaded without any such conclusion pro ut c. And also the proclamations are endorsed upon the Fine and then they appear upon the Fine according to the words of the said conclusion And so by Windham are many Presidents and so in the said Case between Stowel and the Lord Zouch cited before pro ut per finem illum hic de record remanen plane liquet And See 1 Eliz. Plowden 224. between Willion and Barkly a Fine pleaded without any pro ut c. Anderson took an Exception to the Bar at the beginning of it i. Quod medietas 60 Messuagiorum c. parcel medietatis 70 Messuag praedict that that is no good pleading for one moyety cannot be parcel of another moyety for every moyety is entire Rhodes took Exception to the Replication because the Demandant in avoidance of the Fine that at the time of the Fine levyed Bamfield was seised semper postea hucusque c. of the moyety in Demesn and doth not traverse the seisin of the Conusor at the time of the Fine levyed for here two contrary pleas stand before us in equity of truth aeque vera aeque falsa aeque dubia and a traverse would have made an end of all and reduced the matter to certainty And by Periam the Bar is not answered for every Bar ought to be traversed confessed or avoided See 6 H. 7. 5 and 6. where it is said by Hussey and Fairfax where matter in fact is alledged by way of Bar it ought to be traversed if it be not for the mischeif of tryal as in case of Basterdy where a thing is alledged to be done beyond the sea or to leave the matter in Law to the Court without putting the same to the Iudgment of the Lay-people c. See also 5 H. 7. 12. Where it is holden that a thing material alledged in the Bar ought to be directly traversed or confessed or avoided in fact or in Law or conclude the other party by matter of estoppel And that two affirmatives cannot make a good issue But the matter alledged in the Replication scil that Bamfield was seised at the time of the Fine levyed shall be holden for void and the matter alledged in the Bar scil that the Counsor was seised as not answered for it shall be taken true until it shall be avoided and destroyed by matter in Law traverse c. Vide Librum So he in default of traverse the Bar is not answered but argumentative scil Bamfield was seised ergo the Conusor was not seised And it is a common learning that in every Replication there ought to be certainty as to that See the Case betwixt Fulmerston and Steward 2 Ma. 103. that a Bar ought not to be answered by argument And as to the certainty which is requisite in a Replication See the Case betwixt Wimbish and Talboies Plow Com. 4 E. 6. 42. where the Plaintiff shewed in his Replication his title as Heir but because he did not shew how heir for want of such certainty in the Replication the Plaintiff could never have Iudgment although the Iustices for the matter in Law then in question were clearly resolved for the Plaintiff and here in this Replication the incertainty is such that the Court doth not know to which to give credit to the Plaintiff or to the Def. and the bare matter of the Replication is not sufficient For in avoidance of a Fine to say that a stranger to the Fine at the time of the Fine levyed was seised was never received but that partes Finis nihil habuerunt that was the ordinary plea. Windham to the same intent that which the Demandant hath alledged in avoydance of the Fine is but matter of Argument and implication And we ought in this Case first to be insured of the matter of fact scil Whether Zouch or Bamfield were seised and the Court doth not know to which to give credit 39 H. 6. 49. in Debt by an Executor the Defendant pleaded that the Testator made the Plaintiff
because without summons but where summons issueth and the same is entred upon the Roll there may the vouchee at the Return appear in person or by Attorny at his Election And that was the clear opinion of all the Iustices and also of the Prothonotaries CV Keys and Steds Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco IN a Formedon by Keys against Sted the Case was the Sted and his Wife were Tenants for life Formodon 2 Len. 9. the Remainder over to a stranger in Fee and the Writ of Formedon brought against Sted only who made default after default whereupon came his Wife and prayed to be received to defend her right which was denied her by the Court for this Recovery doth not bind her and it is to no purpose for her to defend her right in that Action which cannot here be impearched Whereupon he in the Remainder came and prayed to be received and the Court at first doubted of the Receit forasmuch as if the Demandant shall have Iudgment to recover he in the Remainder might falsify the Recovery because his estate upon which he prayeth to be received doth not depend upon the estate impleaded scil a sole estate whereas his Remainder doth depend upon a joynt estate in the Husband and Wife Falsifier of Recovery not named in the Writ But at the last notwithstanding the said Exception the Receit was granted See 40 E. 3. 12. CVI. Liveseys Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco Writ of Right IN a Writ of Right against Thomas Livesey of the Mannor of D. de duabus partibus Custodiae Forrestae de C. the Tenant did demand the view and he had it and return was made and now the Writ of Habere facias visum was viewed by the Court and it was Visum Manerii duarum partium Custodiae c. And it was holden by the Court not to be a sufficient view for the Forrest it self ought to be put in view scil the whole Forrest View and not duae partes tantum as where a Rent or Common is demanded the Land out of which the Rent or Common is going ought to be put in view and there a Writ of Habere facias visum de novo issued forth CVII Germys Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco GErmy brought Debt upon a Bond against A. as Executor Debt 2 Len. 119. and the Case was That the Testator of A. by his Will did appoint certain Lands and named which should be sold by his Executors and the moneys thereof arising distributed amongst his Daughters when they have accomplished their ages of one and twenty years the Lands are sold if the moneys thereof being in the hands of the Executors until the full age of the Daughters shall be assets to pay the debts of the Testator And by the clear opinion of the whole Court Assets Post 224. the same shall not be assets for that this money is limited to a special use CVIII Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco IN an Action of Debt upon an Obligation the Defendant saith that the Plaintiff shall not be answered for he is out-lawed and shewed the Outlawry in certain by the name of I. S. of D. in the County of c. The Plaintiff shewed that at the time of the sute begun against I.S. upon whom the Out-lawry was pronounced the said I.S. now Plaintiff was dwelling at S. absque hoc that he was dwelling at D. Vide 21 H. 7. 13. And it was holden a good Replication to avoid the Out-lawry without a Writ of Error by Anderson 10 E. 4. 12. For if he were not dwelling at D. then he cannot be intended the same person See 39 H. 6. 1. CIX Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In Communi Banco IT was agreed by the whole Court and affirmed by the Prothonotaries That if in Account the Defendant be adjudged to account and be taken by a Capias ad computandum and set to mainprize pendent the Account before the Auditors and doth not keep his day before them that now a Capias ad computandum de novo shall issue forth against him CX Glosse and Haymans Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. JOan Glosse brought an Action of Trespass vi armis Trespass vi armis against a Servant for carrying away his Masters goods Owen 52. Morâ— 248. against John Hayman who pleaded the general Issue and the Iury found this special matter That the Plaintiff was a Grocer in Ipswich and there held a Shop of Grocery quod illa reposuit fiduciam in the Defendant to sell the Grocery Wares of the Plaintiff in the said Shop And further found that the said Defendant being in the said Shop in form aforesaid cepit asportavit the said Wares and did convert them c. It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that this Action vi armis upon this matter doth not lie but rather an Action upon the Case But the Court was clear of opinion that the Action doth well lie for when the Defendant was in the Shop aforesaid the Goods and Wares did remain in the custody and possession of the Plaintiff her self And the Defendant hath not any Interest possession or other thing in them and therefore if he entermeddle with them in any other manner than by uttering of them by sale according to the authority to him committed he is a Trespassor for he hath not any authority to carry the Wares out of the Shop not sold but all his authority is within the Shop And Rodes put the Case of Littleton 25. If I deliver my Sheep to another to manure his Land or my Oxen to plow his Land and afterwards he kills them I shall have an Action of Trespass against him And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXI Martin and Stedds Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. RIchard Martin Alderman of London brought an Action upon the Case against Stedd and declared That whereas the Queen by her Letters Patents dated the 27. of August anno 24. of her Reign had granted to the Plaintiff the Office of Master of the Mint through all England to exercise the said Office secundum formam quarundam Indent betwixt the said Queen and the said Plaintiff conficiendam and that in January following the said Indenture was made by which it was agreed betwixt the said Queen and the Plaintiff that the money in posterum should be made in such manner c. according to the true Standard and declared that he had duly and lawfully made all the money according to the said Standard Yet the Defendant machinans c. had slanderously spoken and given out speeches in these words Mr. Martin hath not made the money as good and fine as the Standard by an half penny in the ounce and so he hath saved four thousand pounds It was objected against this Declaration by Walmesley Serjeant that here the Plantiff hath declared upon
Kings Bench. PRowse brought an Action upon the Case against Cary for words That the Plaintiff did subborn procure and bring in false Witnesses in such a Court at Westminster c. The Defendant pladed Not guilty And it was found that he did procure and brought in false Witnesses but was acquitted of the suborning It was objected 1 Cr. 296. 554. 607. That the Action doth not lie for it may be that the Defendant did not know that he would depose falsly Thou art a forger of false Writings are not actionable and so it was adjudged for it may be understood of Letters of small importance but that Exception was not allowed for it shall be taken in malam partem and cannot be spoken of any honest man. CXXXII Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A. Was bounden in an Obligation to B. upon condition that if A deliver to B. twenty Quarters of Corn the nine and twentieth of February next following datum presentium that then c. and the next February had but eight and twenty days And it was holden that A. is not bounden to deliver the Corn until such a year as is Leap-year for then February hath nine and twenty days and at such nine and twentieth day he is to deliver the Corn and the Obligation was holden good CXXXII Allen and Palmers Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was a Copy-holder did surrender his Lands to the use of a stranger for life Copy-holder surrenders where his heir shall be in by purchase 2 Roll. 416. Co. 1 Inst 226. and afterwards to the use of the right Heirs of the Copy-holder who afterwards surrendred his Reversion to the use of a stranger in Fee died and the Tenant for life died and the right Heir of Palmer the Copy-holder entred And by Cook nothing remained in the Copy-holder upon the said surrender but the Fee is reserved to his right Heirs for if he had not made any such second surrender his Heir should be in not by descent but by purchase And the common difference is where a surrender is to the use of himself for life and afterwards to another in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of him who surrendreth there his Heirs shall have it by descent contrary where the surrender hath not an estate for life or in tail limited to him for there his Heir shall enter as a purchasor as if such use had been limitted to the right Heirs of a stranger And by him if a Copy-holder surrender to the use of his right Heirs the Land shall remain in the Lord until the death of the Copy-holder for then his Heir is known c. See Dyer 99. The Husband made a Feoffment to the use of his Wife for life and afterwards to the use of the right Heirs of the body of the Husband and Wife begotten they have issue the Wife dieth the issue cannot enter in the life of his Father for then he is not his Heir See Dyer 7 Eliz. 237. The Husband is sole seised in Fee and levieth a Fine of the Land to the use of himself and his Wife and the Heirs of the Husband and they render the Land to the Conusor for the life of the Husband the remainder to B. for life the remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband The Husband dieth B. dieth Now the Wife shall have the Land for the life of the Wife for she shall not lose her estate by that render and this remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband is void and the Land and estate in it is in him as a Reversion and not as a Remainder And a man cannot tail a Remainder to his right Heirs whilest he is living unless it begin first in himself See Br. 32 H. 8. Gard. 93. CXXXIV Pearle and Edwards Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was that the Defendant had leased Lands to the Plaintiff rendring Rent for certain years Assumpsit Consideration 1 Cro. 94. and after some years of the Term expired the Lessor in consideration that the Lessee had occupied the Land and had paid his Rent promised the Plaintiff to save him harmless against all persons for the occupation of the Land past and also to come And afterwards H. distrained the Cattle of the Plaintiff being upon the Lands upon which he brought his Action Golding Here is not a sufficient consideration for the payment of the Rent is not any consideration for the Lessee hath the ocupation of the Land for it and hath the profits thereof and also the consideration is past Cook The occupation which is the consideration continues therefore it is a good Assumpsit as 4 E. 3. A Gift in Frank-marriage after the espousals and yet the marriage is past but the blood continues so here and here the payment of the Rent is executory every year and if the Lessee be saved for his occupation he will pay his Rent the better Godfrey If a man marrieth my Daughter against my will and afterwards in consideration of that marriage I promise him one hundred pounds the same is no good consideration 2 Len. 111. which Clench Iustice denied And afterwards the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover his damages CXXXV Wakefords Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Extinguishment of Copy-hold by Release THe Earl of Bedford Lord of the Manor of B. sold the Free-hold Interest of a Copy-holder of Inheritance unto another so as it is now no part but divided from the Manor and afterwards the Copy-holder doth release to the purchasor It was holden by the Court that by this Release the Copy-hold Interest is extinguished and utterly gone but if was holden that if a Copy-holder be ousted so as the Lord of the Manor is disseised and the Copy-holder releaseth to the Disseisor nihil operatur CXXXVI Docton and Priests Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trespass for breaking of his Close 1 Cro. 95. it was found by special verdict that two were Tenants in common of a house and of a close â—djoyning to the house and they being in the house make partition without deed of the house and the close see 3 E. 4. 9. 10. Partition without deed upon the Land is good enough Vide 3 H. 4. 1. And it seems by 3 E 4. Partition made upon the Land amounts to a Livery Vide 2 Eliz. Dyer 179. Partition by word out the County void 19 H. 6. 25. Betwixt Tenants in common not good without deed 2 Roll. 255. 47 E. 3. 22. being upon the Land it is good without deed Two Ioynt-tenants make partition by word make partition in another County the same is no partition for as to that matter the common Law is not altered by the Statute but as to compel such persons to make partition Wray Iustice conceived that the partition here being without deed was not good although made upon the Lands Vide 18 Eliz. Dyer 35.
And at another day Wray said Dy. 179. that partition by Tenants in common without deed wheresoever it is made is good but in this case it appears that the parties who made the partition were in the house for they were Tenants in common of the Messuage and a close adjoyning to it and made partition that one should have the house 6 Co. 12. and the other the close so as they were not upon the close when they made the partition and then it was void for the close and if for the close then also for the house And Iudgment was given accordingly CXXXVII Cook and Songats Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the case by Cook against Songat the Plaintiff declared Quod cum quaedam Lis and controversie had been moved betwixt the Plaintiff Lord of the Manor c. and the Defendant claiming certain Lands parcel of the said Manor to hold it by copy and whereas both parties submitted themselves to the Iudgment and Arbitrament of I. S. Counsellor at Law concerning the said Land and the title of the Defendant to it The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff promised to the Defendant that if the said I. S. should adjudge the said Copy to be good and sufficient for the title of the Defendant that then he would suffer the Defendant to enjoy the said Land accordingly without molestation The Defendant reciprocally promised the Plaintiff that if the said I. S. should adjuge the said Copy not sufficient to maintain the title of the Defendant that then he would deliver and surrender the possession of the said Land to the Plaintiff without any sute And shewed further that I. S. had awarded the said Copy utterly insufficient c. yet the Defendant did continue the possession of the Land c. And by Godfrey here is not any consideration But by Gawdy the same is a good and sufficient consideration because it is to avoid variances and sutes And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXXXVIII Pawlet and Lawrences Case Pasc 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. GEorge Pawlet brought an Action of Trespass against one Lawrence Parson of the Church of D. for the taking of certain Carts loaded with Corn which he claimed as a portion of Tythes in the Right of his Wife and supposed the Trespass to be done the seven and twentieth of August 29 Eliz. upon Not guilty it was given in evidence on the Defendants part that the Plaintiff delivered to him a Licence to be married bearing date the eight and twentieth of August 29 Eliz. and that he married the Plaintiff and his said Wife the same day so as the Trespass was before his title to the Tythes And it was holden by the whole Court that that matter did abate his Bill But it was holden that if the Trespass had been assigned to be committed one day after that it had been good but now it is apparent to the Court that at the time of the Trespass assigned by himself the Plaintiff had not Title and therefore the Action cannot be maintained upon that evidence for which cause the Plaintiff was Non-suit CXXXIX Sir John Braunches Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Forfeiture IN the Case of Sir John Braunch it was said by Cook that if a Copy-holder be dwelling in a Town long distant from the Manor a general warning within the Manor is not sufficient but there ought to be to the person notice of the day when the Court shall be holden c. For his not coming in such case cannot be called a wilful refusal Copy-holder So if a man be so weak and feeble that he cannot travel without danger so if he hath a great Office c. these are good causes of excuse It was also holden that if a Copy-holder makes default at the Court and be there amerced although that the amercement be not estreated or levyed yet it is a dispensation of the forfeiture Gawdy Iustice If the Copy-holder be impotent the Lord may set a Fine upon him and if he will not pay the Fine then it is reason that he shall forfeit his Land. Egerton Sollicitor Warning to the person of the Copy-holder is not necessary for then if the Lord of a Manor hath one Copy-holder of it dwelling in Cornwal and another in York c. the Lord ought to send his Bayliff to give notice of the Court to them which should be very inconvenient and by him continual default at the Court doth amount to a wilful refusal And by the whole Court general warning within the Parish is sufficient 1 Cro. 353. 505. 506. for if the Tenant himself be not Resient upon his Copy-hold but elsewhere his Farmer may send to him notice of the Court And it was further given in evidence that Sir John Braunch had by his Letter of Attorney appointed the Son of his Farmer his Attorney to do the services for him due for his said Copy-hold And it was holden that such a person so appointed might essoin Sir John but not do the services for him for none can do the same but the Tenant himself CXL Wilkes and Persons Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. JOhn Wilkes and Margery his Wife and Thomas Persons brought Trespass Quare clausum fregit herbam suam messuit foenum suum asportavit Trespass ad damnum ipsius Johannis Margeriae Thomae And exception was taken that it was not the Hay of the Wife nor she was not damnified by it but her Husband Wray Iustice the Declaration is good enough 1 Cro. 96. Record for although it be not good for the Hay yet clausum fregit herbam messuit makes it good And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiffs CXLI Atkinson and Rolses Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the case by Atkinson against Rolfe the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant in consideration of the love which he â—ore unto A. his Father did promise that if the Plaintiff would procure a discharge of a Debt of I. S. which his said Father owed to the said I. S. that he would save the Plaintiff harmless against the said I. S. And declared further that he had discharged the Father of the Defendant from the said Debt and is become bounden to the said I. S. in an Obligation for the payment of the said Debt upon which Obligation the said I. S. hath sued the Plaintiff and hath recovered and had execution accordingly and so hath not been saved harmless c. It was objected that the Declaration was not good because the Plaintiff hath not shewed in his Declaration that he had given notice to the Defendant of the said Obligation or of the suit brought against him but that was not allowed but the Declaration was holden to be good notwithstanding the exception Shuttleworth if I be bound to make to you such an assurance as I. S. shall devise I am bound
this matter for although the Town in discretion might have stayed the offender before the death of the party yet it is not bound so to do And the Court took time to advise of the Case CXLVI Jerom and Knights Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. JOan Jerom brought an Action upon the Case in the nature of Conspiracy against one Knight and declared Conspiracy 1 Cro. 70. that the said Knight had malitiously caused the Plaintiff to be endicted of Felony and to be arrained upon it and that she was legitimo modo acquietat c. And the Case was that the Defendant came into the Court where the Sessions was holden and complained of the Plaintiff for the said Felony for which the Iustices there comanded her to cause an Indictment to be drawn c. Coke upon the Books of 27 H. 6. 12. 35 H. 6. 14. 27 H. 8. 2. Fitz. 115. It appeareth that if one come voluntarily into the Court and discover Felonies and if it be true which he saith or if he come in Court and draw an Indictment by the command of the Iustices or if he be bound by order of Law to cause the party to be Indicted or to give in Evidence although he do it falsely yet he shall not be punished for the same in Conspiracy or in an Action upon the Case But if he come gratis with malice in him before and maliciosly and falsely cause the party to be Indicted so as falsity and malice are the ground of it c. it is otherwise Gawdy Iustice How shall it be tried if he doth it with malice or not Coke It may be enquired of for malice makes the difference betwixt Murder and Manslaughter and in such case it is to be enquired and here he came to do the same without Process or cohersion in Law. But if he will safely do such office his direct course is to come to a Iustice of Peace and to shew to him that his Goods are stolen and that he doth suspect such a one and then upon examination he shall be bound to come and give in Evidence against the party c. and in such case although that his Evidence he false yet he is not punishable Owen 158. At another day it was said by Coke in the same case ut supra If a man be bound to give Evidence against any person although he give false Evidence no Action lieth Also if one come into Court gratis and discloseth a Felony and gives Evidence if no malice proceed against the party it is not punishable and here fore thought malice is alledged and put in the Declaration to which the Defendant hath pleaded not guilty And now he is found guilty See the Statute of Westminster 2. Cap. 12. Si inveniatur per inquisitionem quod aliquis sit abettator per malitiam c. Wray Iustice It should be hard to charge one with this Action where he hath his goods stolen from him and therefore causeth an Indictment to be drawn against one who he suspects of it who shall be found guilty who should be punished for it for many Malefactors notwithstanding that the Evidence against them be full and pregnant in favour of life are acquitted whereas by Law they ought to be hanged and it is not reason Upon an Acquital of Grace no Conspiracy lieth that upon such an acquital of grace and mercy he should have this Action if such person had used any words of malice before the Sessions an Action upon the case would have lain And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 27 Eliz. 750. Ratford and afterwards a Writ of Error was brought Trin. 29 Eliz. Rot. 669. In the Original Action the Writ and Declaration were that the Defendant malitiose intendens querentem in nomine vita fama bonis defraudare quandam Billam Indictamenti scribi fecit eam exhibuit to the grand Enquest ibidem false deposuit omnia in ea contenta esse vera which by Coke is full matter of conspiracy for the drawing of an Indictment is not the office of a witness but if it were by the commandment of the Court or of one Iustice of Peace it should be otherwise for there he goes by course of Iustice 21 E. 3. 17. If one conspire with another and afterwards he procures himself to be one of the Indictors his oath shall not excuse his malice before Gawdy If the party had taken upon him to proceed against the party upon any good presumtions he might have pleaded it as to say he found the party in the house suspiciously c. but because he doth not plead any such matter but generally not guilty and the Writ and Declaration stand not answered specially nor controlled with the Verdict there is no reason but that the Iudgment should be affirmed And afterwards the Iudgment was affirmed and it was said by Wray that here the words in the Writ and Declaration are all one as the words in a Writ of conspiracy and the Defendant hath not shewed any special matter to enduce him to the proceedings CXLVII Ferrers Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. HUmphry Ferrers brought an Action upon the case and declared that he is seised of an ancient messuage in the Town of Tamworth Prescription and that he and all his Ancestors whose heir he is owners of the Messuage c. have used time out of mind c. to erect Herdells in aperta platea of Tamworth juxta Messuagium praedict every Market day to make Penns there for Sheep and that he c. have used for such penning of Sheep there to take divers sums of mony of such persons who would Penn their Sheep there and further declared that the Defendant had broken and pulled down his Herdels per quod proficuum suum inde amisit And upon this Declaration Godfrey did demur in Law 1. The Plaintiff hath not shewed in his Declaration specially where he hath used to erect his Herdels but generally in aperta platea without shewing in his own Land or in the Land of another if in the Land of another it is no good title for although that those who fish in the Sea may prescribe to set Stakes on the Land adjoyning to the Sea to hang their Nets to dry after they have done Fishing and that is through the whole County of Kent 8 E. 4. for their prescription is for the common Wealth but the same is not so here but only for a private gain also no prescription is good but where some profit comes to him who prescribes for it which see in the case of the Abbot of Buckfast 21 E. 4. 4. 21 H. 7. 20. Also the Declaration is that the Plaintiff hath taken diversas denariorum summas and see the Prior of Dunstables case 11 H. 6. 19. 19 R. 2. Action surle Case 51. But the certainty of the sums do not appear in this Declaration so as the reasonableness of
Close of wood called Frith-Close but as to the Park for the Defendant for that Frifth-Close was all excepted scil the wood and the soil And these words supra praemissa shall be intended such things which were demised and no other and by this Covenant Dy. 199. Hob. 173. 2 Cro. 172. Bridg. 117. the Lessee hath power to take the wood upon the other Lands although that the wood be excepted for the soile was demised and he shall not be punished in Trespass and put to his remedy by Action of Covenant against the Lessor And by Wray there is not any colour against the Plaintiff for the Frith-Close if not that the Defendant had averred that there is not any wood upon the other Lands not excepted but demised And this word Praemissa doth not extend by construction to this mentioned before being excepted but only to the things demised CLIX. Rivett and Rivetts Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. EDmund Rivett brought an Action upon the Case against Geoge Rivett and declared that where it was pretended by the Defendant that one R. made his Will and by the same devised certain Legacies to the Defendant and the Plaintiff upon that had sued in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury for to disprove the said Will And if he prosecutus fuisset he might have disproved the said Will and so defeated the Defendant of his pretended Legacies Assumpsit Owen 133 134. The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff ultra non procederet did promise to give to the Plaintiff one hundred pounds and averred that he had surceased his said suit And further declared that licet the Defendant ad hoc requisitusfuerit tali die anno c. It was moved in arrest of Iudgment that here is not any consideration for the Defendant hath not any means to compel the Plaintiff for to surcease his suit for there is not any cross promise set forth in the Declaration And although that he doth surcease his suit yet he may begin the same again and therefore the Plaintiff ought to have shewed in his Declaration a Release or other discharge of it as the case was 3 Eliz. reported by Bendloe A. was bound unto B. in twenty pounds and afterwards A. promised B. that in consideration the said A. should not be damnified by reason of the said Bond to give the said B. ten pounds and upon that promise B. brought an Action upon the Case and shewed that the Defendant was not damnified by reason of the said Bond. But it was adjudged that the Action was not maintainable upon that matter because that the Plaintiff did not shew in his Declaration that he had released or otherwise discharged the Defendant of the said Bond and so no consideration in the case Request Another Exception was because the request is not layed certainly but generally licet requisitus and doth not say by whom he was required or what thing to do And afterwards a Precedent was shewed Trinit 28 Eliz. rot 523. betwixt Smith and Smith An Assumpsit in consideration that the Plaintiff should not implead the Defendant upon Bond And the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover And as to the request it ws said by Kempe that there are many Precedents that a Request generally layed is sufficient And afterwards in the principal Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXL Wheeler and Twogoods Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. WHeeler brought an Ejectione firmae against Twogood and it was found by special verdict that the Earl of Oxford was seised of the Manor of Hornely in which were divers Copy-holds And that the said Earl leased the said Manor to one Heywood for one and twenty years to begin two years after Except all casualties and profits of Courts which severally did not pass the value of six shillings eight pence And afterwards the Earl bargained and sold the Reversion to Anthony Cage And afterwards a composition was made betwixt Anthony Cage and the Lessee by which the Lessee did grant and covenant to and with the said A. Cage that he would permit the said Anthony Cage peaceably to hold the Courts and to take the profits to his own use Proviso that the said Lessee should have the Rents of the Copy-holders Free-holders And afterwards the Lessee granted over his Interest in the said Term. It was moved by Towse that by this Exception the Court Baron is not excepted nor severed from the Manor nor destroyed Covenant amounts to a grant for it is incident to the Manor and this Covenant betwixt the Lessee and Anthony Cage amounts to a grant of the Court to Anthony Cage See 44 E. 3. Fitz. Mannors de faits 144 29 E. 3. Burr 280. and see 37 H. 8. 1 E. 6. Br. Leases 60. That where I.S. Covenants concessit to I. N. that he shall have twenty acres of Land in B. for one and twenty years it is a good Lease for this word concessit is as strong as dimisit And it was moved that here the Earl leased for years to begin two years after and the Lessee being in possession doth continue it after the two years and afterwards before any entry the Lessee assignes over his Interest that the same is not a good grant but only a Right But by the whole Court the grant was holden good notwithstanding the said Exception And it was holden also that the Covenant ut supra was void for although that Anthony Cage hath authority to hold the Courts yet it ought to be in the name of the Lessee CLXI Stretton and Taylors Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. STretton did inform against Taylor upon the Statute of Vsury Information upon the Statute of Usury Retraxit by the Queens Attorney shall not bind the Informer 1 Cro. 138. 583. Qui sequitur tam pro Domina Regina quam pro seipso And the Queens Attorney entred upon it c. non vult prosequi and that was pleaded in Bar against the Informer for the whole And by Wray the same is not any Barr to the Informer But Popham the Attorney general said that by the favour of the Court he would maintain the authority of his place which his Predecessors had enjoyed for he said it cannot be found by any Record in this Court Common Pleas or the Exchequer that the Informer had proceeded where the Attorney General had made such an Entry for we have not used to do it without great consideration for if the Informer hath ceased to prosecute the Suit two or three Terms then we used to enter a Non vult prosequi For it is not reason that the Subject should be molested or attendant so long without just cause and it is not against Law that in personal Suits the act of one should prejudice the other And the Queen is the principal party in this Suit for the Replication shall be made in the name of the Queen only and not
otherwise it should be idle And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Queen CLXIII Piers and Leversuchs Case In Ejectione firmae Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IT was found by special verdict that one Robert Leversuch Grand-father of the Defendant was Tenant in tail of certain Lands whereof c. and made a Lease for years to one Pur. who assigned it over to P. father of the Plaintiff Robert Leversuch died W. his Son and Heir entred upon P. who re-entred W. demised without other words the Land to the said P. for life the remainder to Joan his Wife for life the remainder to the Son of P. for life with warranty and made a Letter of Attorney therein to enter and deliver seisin accordingly P. died before that the Livery was executed and afterwards the Attorney made livery to Joan. W. died Ed. his Son and Heir entred upon the Wife she re-entred and leased to the Plaintiff who upon an ouster brought the Action Heale When P. entred upon W. Leversuch the issue in tail he was a disseisor and by his death the Land descending to his Heir the entry of W. Leversuch the issue in tail was taken away 3 Cro. 222. Cook contrary P. by his entry was not a disseisor but at the Election of W. for when P. accepted such a deed from W. it appeareth that his intent was not to enter as a disseisor and it is not found that the said P. had any Son and Heir at the time of his death and if not then no descent and there is not any disseisin found that P. expulit Leversuch out of the Land. And Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff And Cook cited a Case which was adjudged in the Common Pleas and it was the Case of Shipwith Grand-father Tenant in tail Father and Son The Grand-father died the Father entred and paid the Rent to the Lessor and died in possession and adjudged that it was not any descent for the paying of the Rent doth explain by what title he entred and so he shall not be a Disseisor but at the Election of another CLXIV Severn and Clerks Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. â—ts THe Case was that A. by his Deed Poll recited That whereas he was possessed of certain Lands for years of a certain Term By good and lawful conveyance he assigned the same to I. S. with divers Covenants Articles and Agreements in the said deed contained which are or ought to be performed on his part It was moved if this recital whereas he was be an Article or Agreement within the meaning of the condition of the said Obligation which was given to perform c. Gawdy conceived that it is an agreement For in such case I agree that I am possessed of it for every thing contained in the deed is an Agreement and not only that which I am bound to perform As if I recite by my deed that I am possessed of such an interest in certain Land and assign it over by the same deed and thereby covenant to perform all Agreements in the deed if I be not possessed of such Interest the covenant is broken And it was moved if that recital be within these words of the condition which are or ought to be performed on my part And some were of opinion that it is not within those words for that extends only in futurum but this recital is of a thing past or at the least present Recital 2 Cro. 281. Yyl. 206. Clench Recital of it self is nothing but being joyned and considered with the rest of the deed it is material as here for against this recital he cannot say that he hath not any thing in the Term. And at the length it was clearly resolved that if the party had not that Interest by a good and lawful conveyance the Obligation was forfeited CLXV Page and Jourdens Case Trin. 30. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trepass betwixt Page and Jourden the case was A Woman Tenant in tail took a Husband who made a Feoffment in Fee and died The Wife without any Entry made a Lease for years It was moved that the making of this Lease is an Entry in Law. As if A. make a Lease for years of the Land of B. who enters by force of that Lease A general entry amounts to a disseisin now the Lessor without any Entry is a Disseisor And it was resolved that by that Leasâ— the Free-hold is not reduced without an Entry CLXVI Havithlome and Harvies Case Trin. 30. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Action upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 9. 1 Cro. 130. 3 Cro. Goodwin vers West HAvithlome brought an Action upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 9. against Harvy and his Wife for the penalty of ten pounds given by the said Statute against him who was served with process ad testificandum c. and doth not appear not having any impediment c. and shewed that process was served upon the Defendants Wife and sufficient charges having regard to her degree and the distance of the place c. tendred to her and yet she did not appear And it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Declaration is not good because the Plaintiff in setting forth that he was damaged for the not appearance of the Wife according to the process hath not shewed how damnified Also it was moved that a Feme Covert is not within the said Statute for no mention is made of a Feme Covert and therefore upon the Statute of West 2. cap. 25. If a Feme Covert fail of her Record she shall not be holden disseisseress nor imprisoned Also here the Declaration is that the Plaintiff tendered the charges to the Wife where he ought to have tendered the same to the Husband To these three Exceptions it was answered 1. That although the party be not at all damnified yet the penalty is forfeited 2. Feme Coverts are within the said Statute otherwise it should be a great mischeif for it might be that she might be the only witness And Feme Coverts if they had not been expresly excepted had been within the Statute of 4 H. 7. of Fines 3. The wife ought to appear therefore the tender ought to be to her And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXVII Dellaby and Hassels Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case 1 Cro. 132. the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant in consideration that he had retained the Plaintiff to go from London to Paris to Merchandize diverse goods to the profit of the Defendant promised to give to him so much as should content him and also to give him all and every sum of money which he should expend there in his Affairs and further declared that he was contented to have twenty-pounds for his labour which the Defendant refused to pay And exception was taken to the Declaration because there is
the limitation for the life of the Wife cannot extend to both And as to the Book of 24 H. 8. Br. Forfeiture 87. 3 Cro. 167 168. Tenant for life aliens in Fee to B. Habendum sibi haeredibus suis for Term of the life of the Tenant for life the same is not a forfeiture for the whole is but the limitation of the estate And afterwards it was adjudged that it was a forfeiture Gawdy continuing in his former opinion And VVray said that he had conferred with the other Iudges of their House and they all held clearly that it is a forfeiture CLXXII Toft and Tompkins Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Rot. 528. UPon a special Verdict the case was that the Grand-father Tenant for life the Remainder to the Father in tail Discontinuance 1 Cro. 135. that the Grand-father made a Feoffment in fee to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the Father in Fee And afterwards they both came upon the Land and made a Feoffment to Tompkins the Defendant Coke There is not any discontinuance upon this matter for the Father might well wave the advantage of the forfeiture committed by the Grand-father then when the Father joyns with the Grand-father in a Feoffment the same declares that he came upon the Land without intent to enter for a forfeiture It was one Waynmans Case adjudged in the common Pleas where the Disseissee cometh upon the Land to deliver a Release to the Disseissor that the same is no Entry to revest the Land in the Disseissee Then here it is the Livery of the Tenant for life and the grant of him in the Remainder and he in the Remainder here was never seised by force of the tail and so no discontinuance Godfrey Here is a Remitter by the Entry and afterwards a discontinuance for by the Entry of both the Law shall adjudge the possession in him who hath right c. Gawdy This is a discontinuance for when the Father entreth ut supra he shall be adjudged in by the forfeiture and then he hath gained a possession and so a discontinuance for both cannot have the possession Clench The intent of him in the Remainder when he entred was to joyn with the Grand-father and when his intent appeareth that the estate of the Grand-father and his own also shall passe that doth declare that he would not enter for the forfeiture Shute agreed with Gawdy CLXXIII Broake and Doughties Case Hill. 31 Eliz. Rot. 798. Trin. 30. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Action upon the Case for words Action upon the Case for words 1 Cro. 135. viz. Thou wast forsworn in the Court of Requests and I will make thee stand upon a Stage for it It was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Action will not lye for these words for he doth not say that he was there forsworn as Defendant or witness And Trin. 28 Eliz. betwixt Hern and Hex thou wast forsworn in the Court of Whitchurch And Iudgment given against the Plaintiff for the words are not Actionable and as to the residue of the words I will make thee stand upon the Stage for it they are not Actionable as it was adjudged between Rylie and Trowgood If thou hadst Iustice thou hadst stood on the Pillory and Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff Daniel contrary thou wast forsworn before my Lord chief Iustice in an Evidence these words are Actionable for that is perjury upon the matter and between Foster and Thorne T. 23 Eliz. Rot. 882. Thou wast falsly forsworn in the Star-Chamber the Plaintiff had Iudgment for it shall be intended that the Plaintiff was Defendant or a Deponent there And yet the words in the Declaration are not in the Court of Star-Chamber Wray Thou art worthy to stand upon the Pillory are not Actionable for it is but an implication but in the words in the Case at the Bar there is a vehement intendment that his Oath was in the quality of a Defendant or Deponent which Gawdy granted In the Case 28 Eliz. Thou wast forsworn in Whit-Church Court there the words are not actionable for that Court is not known to you as Iudges And it may be it is but a great House or Mansion house called Whit-church Court But here in the principal case it cannot be meant but a Court of Iustice and before the Iudges there juridice and the subsequent words sound so much I will make thee stand upon a Stage for it And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXXIV Gatefould and Penns Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Prescription for tythes 1 Cro. 136. 3 Len. 203 265. Antea 94. GAtefould Parson of North-linne libelled against Penne in the spiritual Court for tythes in Kind of certain pastures The Defendant to have prohibition doth surmise that he is Inhabitant of South-linne and that time out of mind c. every Inhabitant of South-linne having pastures in North-linne hath paid tythes in Kind for them unto the Vicars of South-linne where he is not resident and the Vicar hath also time out of mind payed to the Parson of North-linne for the time being two pence for every acre Lewis This surmise is not sufficient to have a prohibition for upon that matter Modus Decimandi shall never come in question but only the right of tythes if they belong to the Parson of North-linne or to the Vicar of South-linne and he might have pleaded this matter in the spiritual Court because it toucheth the right of tythes as it was certified in the Case of Bashly by the Doctors of the Civil Law. Gawdy This prescription doth stand with reason for such benefit hath the Parson of North-linne if any Inhabitant there hath any Pastures in South-linne And afterwards the whole Court was against the prohibition for Modus Decimandi shall never come in debate upon this matter but who shall have the tythes the Vicar of South-linne or the Parson of North-linne and also the prescription is not reasonable CLXXV Gomersal and Bishops Case Hill. 31 Eliz. Rot. 175. Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 136. BIshop libelled in the Spiritual Court for tythe Hay the Plaintiff Gomersal made a surmise that there was an agreement betwixt the said parties and for the yearly sum of seven shillings to be paid by Gomersal unto Bishop Bishop faithfully promised to Gomersal that Gomersal should have the tythes of the said Land during his life And upon an Attachment upon a Prohibition Gomersal declared that for the said annual sum Bishop leased to the Plaintiff the said tythes for his life And upon the Declaration Bishop did demur in Law for the variance between the Surmise and the Declaration for in the Surmise a promise is supposed for which Gomersal might have an Action upon the Case and in the Declaration a Lease But note that the Surmise was not entred in the Roll but was recorded
and that he would name in it one B. for special Bailiff and promised the Plaintiff that if B. arrested A. by force of the said Capias and suffered him to escape That he would not sue the Plaintiff for the escape and shewed further That he made a Warrant according to the said Capias and therein named and appointed the said B. his special Bailiff who arrested A. accordingly and afterwards suffered him to escape and the Defendant notwithstanding his promise aforesaid sued the Plaintiff for the said escape And it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in arrest of Iudgment That the promise is against the Law to prevent the punishment inflicted by the Statute of 23 H. 6. upon the Sheriff and it is meerly within the Statute and so the promise void Cooke The same is not any Bond or promise taken of the Prisoner nor of any for him and therefore it is not within the Statute as it was in Danvers Case Wray A promise is within the Statute as well as a Bond but the Statute doth not extend but where the Bond or promise is made by the Prisoner or by any for him And after Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXXXI Mounson and Wests Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass by Mounson against West the Iury was charged and evidence given and the Iurours being retired into a house for to consider of their evidence Owen 38. Plowd 520. Co. 1 Inst 227. Dyer 37. they remained there a long time without concluding any thing and the officers of the Court who attended them seeing their delay searched the Iurours if they had any thing about them to eat upon which search it was found that some of them had figs and others pippins for which the next day the matter was moved to the Court and the Iurours were examined upon it upon Oath And two of them did confess that they had eaten figs before they had agreed of their verdict and three other of them confessed That they had Pippins but did not eat of them Where Jurors shall be fined for eating before verdict but it shall not make void the verdict and that they did it without the knowledge or Will of any of the Parties And afterwards the Court set a fine of five pound upon each of them which had eaten and upon the others who had not eaten forty shillings And they would advise if the verdict was good or not for the Iury found for the Plaintiff And afterwards at another day the matter was moved and Anderson was of opinion That notwithstanding the said Misdemeanor of the Iury the verdict was good enough for these victuals were not given to them by any of the Parties to the action nor by their means or procurement Rhodes thought the contrary because some of the Iurors had eaten and some not contrary if all of them had eaten See 14 H. 7. 1. A Iury was charged and before their verdict they did eat and drink and it was holden that upon that Misdemeanor their verdict was void for which cause a venire facias de novo was awarded And it was prayed by the Counsel of the Defendant West That the said Misdemeanor so found by examination might be entred of Record which the Court granted And afterwards at another day the matter was moved again And upon great advice and deliberation and conference with the other Iudges The verdict was holden to be good notwithstanding the Misdemeanor aforesaid See 24 E. 3 24. 15 H. 7. 1. 2 H. 7. 3. 29 H. 8. 37. and 35 H. 8. 55. where it was holden where the eating and drinking of the Iury at their own costs is but fineable but if it be at the costs of the parties the verdict is void And see Book of Entries 251. The Iurors after they went from the Bar ad seipsos of their verdict to be advised comederunt quasdam species sci raisins dates c. at their own costs as well before as after they agreed of their verdict And the Iurors were committed to prison but their verdict was good although the verdict was given against the King. CLXXXII Hunt and Gilborns Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Dower brought by Hunt and his Wife against Gilborn The Defendant pleaded That the Land of which Dower is demanded Dower of Gavelkind by Custom Ante. 62 63. 1 Cro. 825. is of the nature of Gavelkind and that the custom is That in Dower of Land of such nature The Wife ought to be endowed of the moity of such Land Tenendum quam diu non maritata remanserit non aliter upon which plea in Bar the Demandants did demur in Law and the Lord Anderson was of opinion That the Custom is strongly pleaded against the Dower in the affirmative with a Negative non aliter and that is confessed by the Demurrer That Dower out of such Land ought to be so allowed and so demanded and in no other manner And by Periam If those words non aliter had not been in the Plea yet the Demandants should not have Iudgment For Dower by moiety non maritatis is as proper in case of Gavelkind as Dower of the third part of Land at the Common Law and as the descent in such case of Lands to all the Sons And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Demandants CLXXXIII The Case of the Provost and Scholars of Queens Colledge in Oxford Hill. 30. Eliz. THe Provost Fellows and Scholars of Queens Colledge in Oxford are Guardians of the Hospital or Meason de Dieu in Southampton And they make a Lease of the Land parcel of the said Hospital to one Hazel for Term of years by the name Praepositus Socii Scholares Collegii reginalis in Oxonia Gardianus Hospitalis c. And in an Ejectione firmae upon that lease It was found for the Plaintiffs and it was objected in arrest of Iudgment That the word Gardianus ought to be Gardiani for the Colledge doth consist of many persons and every person is capable and it is not like unto Abbot and Covent But the whole Court was of opinion that the Exception was not good but that as well the Lease as also the Declaration was good for the Colledge is one body and as one person And so it is good enough Gardianus CLXXXIV Wooden and Hazels Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione betwixt Wooden and Hazel they were at issue upon Not Guilty and a Venire facias awarded returnable Tres Trinit And the Essoin adjudged and adjorned by the Plaintiff until Michaelmas Term Nisi Prips And at next Assises the Plaintiff not withstanding that Essoin and the adjorning of it procured a Nisi Prius by which it was found for the Plaintiff And now it was moved in Court for the stay of Iudgment because no Nisi Prius ought to issue in the Case Essoin For the Essoin was adjudged and adjorned
construe terras Dominicales omnes terras Dominicales for the Lands not excepted are terrae Dominicales and so the Count is satisfied by that Evidence c. CXCIII Chamberlain and Stauntons Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CHamberlain brought Debt upon an Obligation against Staunton and upon non est factum Deeds and sealing of them Owen 95. the Iury found this special matter that the Defendant subscribed and sealed the said Obligation and cast it upon a certain Table and the Plaintiff took it without any other delivery or any other thing amounting to a delivery And the Court was clear of opinion that upon that matter the Iury had found against the Plaintiff and it is not like the case which was here lately adjudged that the Obligor subscribed and sealed the Obligation and cast it upon a Table saying these words this will serve the same was held to be a good delivery for here is a circumstance the speaking of these words by which the Will of the Obligor appeareth that it shall be his deed CXCIV Oldfield and Wilmers Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Arbitrament Postea 304. IN Debt upon an Obligation the Defendant pleaded that the Obligation was endorced with condition that the Defendant should stand to the Award of I.S. c. who awarded that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff at such a day 100 l. or should find two sufficient Sureties to be bound with him to the Plaintiff to pay the said 100 l. to the Plaintiff by twenty pound a year until the whole sum be paid And pleads further that he had performed the said Award The Plaintiff by Replication saith that the Defendant hath not paid unto him the said one hundred pounds and so in that assigned the breach of the Award and upon the Replication the Defendant doth demur in Law because by the pretence of the Award the Defendant had election either to pay the one hundred pounds at the day or to find two Sureties for the payment of it by twenty pounds per annum c. for so is the Award in the disjunctive But the Court was clear of opinion that the Replication was good for although that the Award be set down and conceived in words disjunctive yet in Law and in substance it is single for as to the finding of Suretis the Award is void and so nothing is awarded but the payment of the one hundred pounds at the day 1 Cro. 4. to which the Plaintiff in his Replication hath fully answered And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXCV. The Lord Dudley and Lacyes Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Audita querela THe Lord Dudley brought an Audita querela against Lacy and upon it a Scire facias against the same party And at the day it was moved by the Counsel of Lacy that in as much as no execution was sued against the person of the Lord upon the Statute Merchant in which the said Lord was bound to the said Lacy so as he was not in prison a Scire facias ought not to issue but a Venire facias And the Court was clear of opinion That it is at the election of the party grieved which of them he will sue scil a Scire facias or a Venire facias See 15 E. 4. 5. by Cooke Scire facias and Venire facias are all one in effect Another matter was moved on the part of Lacy 1 Cro. 208 384. That this Audita Querela ought to be sued in the Chancery and not in the Common Pleas. But the Court was clear of opinion that the party might sue in which of the Courts he would See 16 Eliz. Dyer 332. An Audita Querela upon a Statute Merchant directed to the Iustices of the Common Pleas but upon a Statute Staple the Suit shall be in the Chancery by Audita Querela directed to the Chancellor or by Scire facias directed to the Sheriff quod sit in Cancellaria c. CXCVI. Askew and the Earl of Lincolns Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. ASkew was bound to the Earl of Lincoln in a Statute Staple Audita querela the Earl sued execution by which Askew was put in prison and now the friends of Askew offered the mony in Court and cast an Audita Querela for Askew and prayed he might be bailed and the mony remain in Court till the Audita Querela determined But the Earl presently demanded the mony to be delivered to him but the Court denied it and commanded the Prothonotaries to keep the mony until the Audita Querela were determined And let Askew to bail for the costs of suit CXCVII Ward and Blunts Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. WArd brought an Action of Trover and Conversion against Blunt of forty loads of Corn Trover and Conversion as unto twenty loads the Defendant pleaded not guilty and as to the residue a special plea upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law and it was adjudged for the Plaintiff upon which issued a Writ of Enquiry of Damages which is returned It was moved that the Writ of Enquiry of Damages ought not to have issued forth for the Issue doth yet depend untryed and the Book of 34 H. 6. 1. was vouched and there the case was that in Trespass against many one of them made default after a plea pleaded Now a Writ of Enquiry of Damages shall be awarded but shall not issue forth until the plea of the others be tryed and if the Issue be tryed for the Plaintiff then the Enquest who tryed the Issue shall assess damages for the whole and if for the Defendant against the Plaintiff then the Writ which was awarded to issue forth See 44 E. 3. 7. Cook It is in the discretion of the Court to award such Writ or not which Wray granted but it is usual here to grant the Writ presently Gawdy The case in 39 H. 6. is not like this case for in this case the Trespass is divided and as it were apportioned in twenty loads and twenty loads but in the other case not CXCVIII. Smith and Bustards Case Trin. 31 Eliz. Rot. 666. IN an Ejectione firmae it was found by special verdict that one S. was seised of Lands and leased the same to F. for 31 years 10 Co. 129. yeilding and paying twenty pounds per annum at the Font-stone in the Temple Church the Land it self lying in Essex upon the Feasts of the Annunciation of our Lady and St Michael or within twelve days after either of the said Feasts by even portions upon condition that if the said Rent or any part thereof be unpaid by the said space of twelve days Proxime post aliquod festorum vel dierum solutionis inde that then it should be lawful for the Lessor to re-enter T. assigned his interest to Bustard the Defendant at Michaelmas the Rent is behind and the twelfth day after the Lessor
and God forbid that Bread and the baking of it should be restrained to any special person especially in a Market Town And as to the case of the Prior of Dunstable that is not to the purpose for there he prescribed to have a Market and the correction of it and the fault there is not in the usurping of a Market in Nusance of the Plaintiff but because the Defendant sold meat there secretly so as the Plaintiff could not have the correction of it See 22 H. 6. 14. And it is not reasonable that such profits be restrained and drawn from the publick good to the private commodity of any person And he cited a case which was ruled in the Exchequer 9 Eliz. upon an Information exhibited there by the Burgesses of Southampton that the King had granted to the Burgesses of Southam that all the sweet Wines brought within the Realm should be unladen at Southam only Grant of the King void And it was agreed by Wray that such a grant was not good to deprive the Common-wealth of such a benefit and to appropriate it to one which might be profitable to many And it was further said by the Lord Wray that if the King will grant by his Letters Patents that A.B. shall be of Counsel only with the Defendant in the Chancery and C.B. with the Plaintiffs in the Exchequer Chamber the same is no good grant c. CC. Park against Moss and How. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Intrat Hill. 31 Rot. 31. Trover and Conversion 1 Cro. 181. More 352. 1 Roll. 893. IN an Action upon the Case upon Trover and Conversion The Defendant pleaded that one A. recovered in Debt against I. P. Executor of E. P. one hundred pounds and twenty pounds in Damages The Debt of the goods of the Testator and the Damages of the goods of the Testator si quae fuerint and if not of the goods of the Executor Vpon which A. procured a Fieri facias directed to the Sheriff of N. who made his Warrant to the Defendants to execute the said Writ And before Execution I. P. died intestate and administration was committed to the Plaintiff and the Defendants afterwards did execution of the proper goods of I. P. and sold them and deliver'd the mony to the Sheriff which is the same Trover and Conversion and averred that E. P. had no other goods The Plaintiff by Replication said that the Sheriff upon return of the said Writ of Execution returned as to the principal Debt That the goods of the Testator were wasted and as to the Damages that he could not execute the Writ quia tarde Tanfield I conceive that the false return of the Sheriff shall not make the Defendant punishable for they did execution secundum exigentiam brevis and delivered the monies coming thereby to the Sheriff and if they should not be excused it should be a great inconvenience for it is necessary that the Sheriff have inferiour Officers under him As 37 H. 6. an Executor named in the Will named one to take the goods of the Testator in such a place who did accordingly and afterwards the Executor doth refuse yet the servant shall not be punished for that medling 13 H. 7. 2. 21 H. 7. 23. Where it is said by Read chief Iustice that if the Baily delivereth the body of one who he hath taken in Execution to the Sheriff he shall be excused although that the Sheriff doth not return the Capias And we have pleaded in this case that we have delivered the mony to the Sheriff and that is confessed by the demurrer Altham I conceive that this Execution after the death of the party is not good For an Administrator is another person wherefore new process shall issue against him as in all cases where the person is changed 18 E. 3. If one sueth a Certificate out of a Statute and before execution had he dieth his Executors shall not have execution upon that Certificate but first they ought to have a Scire facias And 28 H. 8. Dyer 29. Transcript of a Fine is removed by the Ancestor out of the Treasury into the Chancery and comes in by Mittimus to have execution and the Ancestor dieth before Execution Now the Heir cannot proceed without a new Mittimus for he is another person See 36 H. 8. Br. Statute Merchant 43. and in our case here at the time of the Execution these are not the goods of the Executor for he is not in esse and it ought to appear whose goods they are which are taken in Execution If Lands be recovered against the Father who dieth and the Heir be ousted by Execution without a Scire facias against the Heir he shall have an Assise And 6 E. 6. Dyer 76. is our case A. is condemned in Debt and a Fieri facias is awarded and before execution A. dieth intestate The Sheriff levyed the Debt upon the goods of the Intestate in the hands of the Administrators upon which the Administrators brought Error and reversed the Execution Tanfield The Execution is erronious but is not void but shall stand until it be reversed by Error And it was holden by the whole Court that the false return of the Sheriff should not prejudice the Defendants At another day it was moved again and it was holden that the averment that the goods put in Execution were the goods of the Testator the day of the Writ of Execution sued was a good averment without saying Execution against an Administrator after the death of the Intestate of the Intestates goods good Execution shall relate to the date of the Writ 3 Cro. 106 330 1 Roll. 893. The day of Execution done for the award of the Writ of Execution shall bind all his goods against whom the Iudgment was given which he had at the day of the Writ of Execution awarded And it was also holden That notwithstanding the death of the party against whom c. The Sheriff might do execution of the goods of the dead in the hands of his Executors according to the opinion of Bryan 16 H. 7. 6. and afterwards in the principal Case Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff CCI. Carie and Denis Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was Vpon a Latitat the Sheriff returned Retorn of the Sheriff That by vertue of the said process he had arrested the Body of the Defendant and that such a day after and before the Return of the Latitat a Habeas Corpus came to him to bring the body immediately into the Chancery which was done accordingly and there the Prisoner was discharged by the Order of the said Court And the same was holden a good Return for the Sheriff is bound to obey the Kings Writs and to execute them and he cannot compel the party to put in Sureties to appear here And the truth was That the party was brought before the Master of the Rolls and he did discharge him And per
Curiam the same is no offence in the Court but it was an ill act of the Master of the Rolls For we oftentimes have persons here upon Habeas Corpus who are also arrested by Process out of the Exchequer or of the Common Pleas but we will not discharge them before they have found Sureties for their appearance c. and so the said Courts use to do reciprocally and we cannot punish the Sheriff for the Hebas Corpus was first returnable before the Latitat but the party may have an action against the Sheriff but we will speak with the Master of the Rolls c. and afterwards Baill was put in But afterwards another Exception was taken to the Return scil a custodia nostra exoneratus fuit which might be intended as to the Cause in the Chancery only and not for the Cause here for he hath not alledged that he hath not alledged That he was committed to any other in custody and for that cause day was given to the Sheriff to amend his Return CCII. Upton and Wells Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Ejectione firmae by Upton against Wells Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and upon the habere facias possessionem The Sheriff retuned that in the Execution of the said Writ he took the Plaintiff with him and came to the house recovered and removed thereout a woman and two children which were all the persons which upon diligent search he could find in the said house and delivered to the Plaintiff peaceable possession to his thinking and afterwards departed and immediately after three other persons which were secretly lodged in the said house expulsed the Plaintiff again 2 Len. 12 13. Latch 165. upon notice of which he returned again to the said house to put the Plaintiff in full possession but the other did resist him so as without peril of his life and of them that were with him in company he could not do it And upon this Return the Court awarded a new Writ of execution for that the same was no Execution of the first Writ and also awarded an Attachment against the parties CCIII Marsh and Astreys Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 175. MArsh brought an Action upon the Case against Astrey and declared That he had procured a Writ of Entry sur disseisin against one A. and thereupon had a summons for Lands in London and delivered the said Summons to Astrey being Vnder-Sheriff of the same County virtute cujus the said Astrey summoned the said A. upon the Land but notwithstanding that did not return the said Summons Astrey pleaded Not guilty And it was tryed in London where the action was brought for the Plaintiff and it was moved by Cook in arrest of Iudgment That here is a mis-trial for this issue ought to be tryed in the County where the Land is because that the cause is local but the Exception was not allowed for the action is well layed in London and so the trial there also is good Trial. Another Exception was moved because the action ought to be against the Sheriff himself and not against the Vnder-Sheriff for the Sheriff is the Officer to the Court and all Returns are in his Name and I grant that an action for any falsity or deceit lyeth against the Vnder-Sheriff as for embesseling rasing of Writs c. but upon Non feasans as the Case is here the not Retorn of the Summons it ought to be brought against the Sheriff himself See 41 E. 3. 12. And if the Vnder-Sheriff take one in Execution and suffereth him to escape debt lyeth against the Sheriff himself Another Exception was taken because the Declaration is that the said Astrey Intendens machinans ipsum querent in actione sua praedict prosequend impedire c. did not retorn the said Summons but doth not say tunc exist Vnder-Sheriff Snag contrary If a Baily Errant of the Sheriff take one in Execution and he suffer him to escape an action lieth against the Baily himself And that was agreed in the Case of a Baily of Middlesex and Sir Richard Dyer Sheriff of Huntington and his Vnder-Sheriff who suffered a Prisoner to escape the action was brought against the Vnder-Sheriff for it may be the Sheriff himself had not notice of the matter because the Writ was delivered to the Vnder-Sheriff and he took a Fee for it and therefore it is reason that he shall be punished As if a Clerk in an Office mis-enter any thing he himself shall be punished and not the Master of the Office because he takes a fee for it But if the Retorn made by the Baily be insufficient Then the Sheriff himself shall be amerced but in the principal case it is clear That the action lieth against the Vnder-Sheriff if the party will and such was the opinion of Gawdy and Clench As to the other matter because it is not alledged in the Declaration That the Defendant was Vnder-Sheriff at the time the Declaration is good enough notwithstanding that for so are all the Presidents and if the Defendant were not Vnder-Sheriff the same shall come in of the other side See 21 E. 4. 23. And afterwards in the principal Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCIV. Hedd and Chaloners Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Cro. 176. 2 Roll. 42. 176. IN an Ejectione firmae by Hedd against Chaloner upon a Demise for years of Jane Berd It was found by especial Verdict That William Berd was seised in fee made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life afterward to the use of his two Daughters Joan Alice in fee and died and Joan entred into the Land and by Indenture by the name of Jane Berd leased the same to the Plaintiff for three years And it was further found That Joan intended in the Feoffment and Jane who leased are one and the same person Wray It hath been agreed here upon good advice and Conference with Grammarians that Joan and Jane are but one Name And Women because Joan seems to them a homely name would not be called Joan but Jane But admit that they were several Names Then he and Gawdy were of opinion it should not be good But afterwards it was said by Gawdy That this action is not grounded meerly upon the Indenture but upon the Demise and that is the substance and the Indenture is but to enforce it sci the lease 44 E. 3. 42. Another matter was moved here the remainder was limited to Joan and Alice in fee by which they are Ioint Tenants and then when one of them enters the same vests the possession in them both Then by the demise of Joan a moyety passeth only to the Plaintiff Wray Here the Term is incurred and the Plaintiff is to recover damages only and no title at all is found for the Defendant and so there is no cause but that Iudgment should be given for
the Plaintiff and thereupon Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCV Read and Nashes Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an action of Trespass by Read and his Wife against Nash for entring into a house called the Dayry-house upon Not guilty pleaded The Iury found this special matter Sir Richard Gresham Knight was seised in Fee of the Mannours of I. and S. and of diverse other Lands mentioned in his Will and 3 Edw. 6. devised the same to Sir Thomas Gresham his Son for life the Remainder to the first son of the said Sir Thomas Gresham in tail the Remainder to the second son c. the Remainder to the third son c. The Remainder to Sir John Gresham his brother Proviso That if his Son go about or made any Alienations or discontinuance c. whereby the premisses cannot remain descend and come in the form as was appointed by the said Will otherwise than for Ioyntures for any of their Wives for her life only or leases for 21. years whereupon the old and accustomed Rent shall be reserved That then such person shall forfeit his estate Sir John Gresham dyed Sir Thomas Gresham his son built a new House upon the Land and 4 Mariae leased to Bellingford for one and twenty years rendring the antient Rent And afterwards 2 Eliz. he levyed a fine of the said Manours and of all his Lands and 5 Eliz. he made a Iointure to his Wife in this manner sci He covenanted with certain persons to stand seised to the use of himself and his Wife for their lives and afterwards to the use of his Right Heirs and afterwards 18 Eliz. he leased unto Read and his wife for one and twenty years to begin presently which was a year before the expiration of the said Lease made unto Bellingford which Lease being expired Read entred It was argued by Cook That here upon the words contained in the Proviso Sir Thomas had power and authority not being but Tenant for life to make a Lease for years or Iointure and that upon implication of the Will which ought to be taken construed according to the intent of the parties for his meaning was to give a power as well as an estate otherwise the word otherwise should be void and it is to be observed That the parties interessed in the said conveyance were Knights and it is not very likely That the said Sir Richard Gresham did intend that they should keep the Lands in their own manurance as Husbandmen but set the same to Farm for Rent And it is great Reason although he willeâ— that the order of his Inheritance should be preserved yet to make a Provision for Iointure and it is great reason and cause to his family to enable and make them capable of great Matches which should be a strengthning to his posterity which could not be without great Iointures wherefore I conceive it reasonable to construe it so That here they have power to make Iointures for their Wives It hath been said That no grant can be taken by implication as 12 E. 3. Tit. Avow 77. Land was given to I. and A. his wife and to the heirs of the body of I. begotten and if I. A. dy without heir of their bodies betwixt them begotten that then it remain to the right heirs of I. and it was holden that the second clause did not give an estate tail to the wife by implication being in a grant but otherwise it is in Case of a devise as 13 H. 7. 17. and there is no difference as some conceive when the devise is to the heir and when to a stranger but these cases concern matter of Interest but our case concerns an Authority And admit that Sir Thomas hath power and authority to make this lease Then we are to consider if the Iointure be good for if it be Then being made before the Lease Use cannot rise out of a power it shall take effect before and the woman Iointress is found to be alive But I conceive That this Iointure is void and then the Lease shall stand for an use cannot rise out of a power but may rise out of an estate of the Testator and out of his Will 19 H. 6. A man deviseth That his Executors shall sell his reversion and they sell by Word it is a good Sale for now the Reversion passeth by the Will. But an use cannot be raised out of an use and a man cannot bargain and sell Land to another use than of the Bargainee And it is like unto the case of 10 E. 4 5. The disseisee doth release unto the disseisor rendring Rent the render is void for a rent cannot issue out of a right so an use cannot be out of a Release by the disseisee for such release to such purpose shall not enure as an Entry and Feoffment Also here after that conveyance Sir Thomas hath built and erected a New house and no new Rent is reserved upon it and therefore here it is not the ancient Rent for part of the sum is going out of the new house But as to that It was said by the Iustices do not speak to that for it appears that the Rent is well enough reserved Another matter was moved for that That a year before the Expiration of the Lease made to Billington this Lease was made to Reâ—d for 21 years to begin presently from the date of it although by the same authority he cannot make Leases in Reversion for then he might charge the Inheritance in infinitum But yet such a Lease as here is he might make well enough for this Lease is to begin presently and so no charge to him in the Reversion as in the Case betwixt Fox and Colliers upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. A Bishop makes a Lease for three years before the Expiration of a former Lease to begin presently It was holden a good Lease to bind the Successor for the Inheritance of the Bishop is not charged above one and twenty years in toto But if a Bishop make a Lease for years and afterwards makes a Lease for three lives the same is not good 8 Eliz. Dy. 246. Tenant in tail leaseth to begin at Michaelmas next ensuing for twenty years it is a good Lease by the Statute of 32 H. 8. so is a lease for 10 years and after for eleven years and yet the Statutes are in the Negative but this power in our Case is in the Affirmative and the Inheritance is not charged in the whole with more than one and twenty years CCVI. Kinnersly and Smarts Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 〈◊〉 upon a usurious Contract 1 Cro 155. IN Debt upon a Bond The Plaintiff declared That the Bond was made in London The Defendant pleaded That an usurious Contract was made betwixt the parties at D. in Stafford-shire that the Obligation was made for the same contract The Plaintiff by Replication saith that the Bond was made bona
Executor of an Administrator 1 Cro. 121. Yel 20. 9 Co. 87. Administratrix of Joan Webb and declared of a Contract without specialty The Defendant pleaded That she had fully administred and it was found against her And now it was moved for the Defendant That upon the matter an action of Debt doth not lye against the Executor or Administratrix which was granted by the Court. But the doubt was If now forasmuch as the Defendant by pleading the plea above hath admitted the action she shall now take advantage of the Law in that point For the reason why this action doth not lye against an Executor or Administrator is because the Testator himself might have waged his Law if he had been impleaded upon it and by intendment of Law the Executor or Administrator cannot have notice of such a Debt or of the discharge of it But now by answering to the Declaration as above the Defendant hath taken notice of the Debt and in manner confessed it And by Rhodes and Anderson Iudgment shall be given against the the Plaintiff because it is apparent to the Court that the action doth not lye And by Anderson If Iudgment be entred against the Administratrix in such an action upon Nihil dicit the Court ex officio shall give judgment against the Plaintiff Periam and Windham doubted at the first that the Defendant by her plea had admitted the whole matter upon the specially administred pleaded and had taken notice of the Debt 41 E. 3. 13. 46 E. 3. 10 11. 13 E. 4. 25. 13 H. 8. Fitz. Execut. 21. And afterwards Anderson ex assensu of the other Iudges caused to be entred Querens capiat nihil per breve CCXXX Hambleden and Hambledens Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intrat Mich. 29. 30 Eliz Devises 1 Cro. 163. 1 And. 381. THe case was William Hambleden the Father of the Plaintiff and the. Defendant was seised of the Lands c. And by his Will devised to his Eldest Son Black Acre to his second Son White Acre and to his third Green Acre in tail And by his said Will further willed That in Case any of my said Sons do dye without issue that then the Survivor be each others heir The Eldest son dieth without issue c It was moved by Gawdy Serjeant That the second Son shall have Black Acre in tail and he cited the Case 30 E. 3. 28. propinquioribus haeredibus de sanguine puerorum for the construction of such devises Walmesley argued That both the surviving Brothers should have the said Black Acre for the words of the devise are quilibet supervivens which amounts to uterque and the Court was in great doubt of this point And they conceived That the estate limited in Remainder to the Survivor c. is a fee-simple by reason of the words Each others heir And also they conceived That both the Survivors should not have the Land for the same is contrary to the express words of the devise The Survivor shall be each others heir in the singular number see 7 E. 6. Br. Devise 38. A man seised of Land hath issue three Sons and deviseth part of his Lands to his second Son in tail Heb. 75. and the residue to his third son in tail and willeth That none of them shall sell the Land but that each shall be heir to the other The second son dieth without issue the same Land shall not revert to the eldest Son but shall remain to the third son 1 Len. 261. notwithstanding the words each shall be heir to the other CCXXXI Slywright and Pages Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Maintenance More 266. 1 And. 201. Golds 101 102. AN Information was in the Common Pleas by John Slywright against Page upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Maintenance and declared that the Defendant took a Lease of one Joan Wade of certain Lands whereas the said Joan was not seised nor possessed thereof according to the Statute and upon Not guilty the Iury found this special matter That Edmund Wade was seised and made a Feoffment in fee thereof unto the use of himself and of the said Joan who he then intended to marry and the heirs of the said Edmund The marriage took effect Edmund enfeoffed a Stranger who entred Edmund died Joan not having had possession of the said Land after the death of Ed. her husband nor bing now in possession by Indenture demised the said Land to the Defendant for years without any Entry or delivery of the Indenture upon the Land The said Defendant knowing the said Joan never had been in possession of the said Land and also the Defendant being Brother of the half blood to the said Joan. The first Question was If the Lease being made by one out of possession and not sealed or delivered upon the Land and so not good in Law as to pass any interest be within the Statute aforesaid And the whole Court was clear of opinion that it was for by colour of this pretended Lease such might be undertaken advanced to the trouble disquiet of the possession for amongst the vulgar people it is a Lease it is a Lease by Reputation Another matter was moved because that the entry of the wife is now made lawful by 32 H. 8. and then she might well dispose of the Land. But as to that It was said by the whole Court That the meaning of the Statute was to repress the practises of many That when they thought they had title or right unto any Land they for the furtherance of their pretended Right conveyed their interest in some part thereof to great persons and with their countenance did oppress the possessors And although here the Lease was made by the said Joan to her Brother of the half blood yet by the clear opinion of the Court the Lease is within the danger of the Statute and yet in some Case the Son may maintain his Father the Kinsman his Kinsman And note in this case it was holden by the Iustices That of necessity it ought to be found by verdict That the Defendant knowing that the Lessor never had been in possession And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCXXXII Brokesby against Wickham and the Bishop of Lincoln Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit the Plaintiff counted Quare Impedit 3 Len. 256. 1 Cro. 173. Owen 85 86. Popham 189. That Robert Brokesby was seise of the Advowson and granted the next Avoidance to the Plaintiff and Humphrey Brokesby and that afterwards the Church became void and after during the avoidance Humphrey released to the Plaintiff and so it belongs to him to present And upon this count the Defendant did demar in Law. For it appeareth upon the Plaintiffs own shewing that Humphrey ought to have joined with the Plaintiff in the action for the Release being made after the Church became void
is not of any effect but utterly void So is the grant of the presentment to the Church where the Church is void for it is a thing in action See the Lord Dyer 28 H. 6. 26. 3 Ma. Dyer 129. 11 Eliz. Dyer 283 Walmsley Serjeant put this Case Two Ioint-tenants of a Rent the one may release to the other but if the Rent be behind now the one cannot Release his Interest in the Arrearages to the other And afterwards in the Principal case Iudgment was given that the Release was void CCXXXIII Sammes and Paynes Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intr. Trin. 29 Eliz. Rot. 721. IN an Ejectione firmae the case was That the Mother being seised of certain Lands had issue two Daughters Tenant by the curtesie 1 And. 184. Goldsb 81. 82. 8 Co. 34. and by Indenture covenanted with diverse persons to stand seised to the use of Eliz. her eldest Daughter in tail upon condition that the said Eliz. should pay to her other Daughter within a year after the death of the Mother or within a year after the said other Daughter should come to the age of eighteen years 300 l. And if the said E. should fall in the payment of the sum aforesaid or should dye without issue before such payment then to the use of the said second Daughter in tail The Mother dieth E. taketh Husband hath issue afterwards dieth without issue before the day of payment And if the Husband shall be tenant by the curtesie or not was the Question And by the Court cleerly he shall be For as to the condition of payment of the said Sum the same is not determined for she died without issue before the day of payment scil before the second Daughter came of the age of eighteen years as to that there is no condition broken as to the point of dying without issue The same is not a condition but rather a Limitation of the Estate and the same is no more than what the Law saith and the estate tail in Elizabeth is spent and determined by the dying without issue and doth not cease or is cut off by any Limitation and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Tenant by the curtesie And by Anderson If a Feoffment be made to the use of I. S. and his heirs until I. D. hath done such a thing and then unto the use of I. D. and his heirs the thing is done and I. S. dieth his wife shall be endowed CCXXXIV Bowry and Popes Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Roll. 676. Plow Queries vers finem BOwry brought an Action upon the Case against Pope and declared that in the time of E. 6. the Dean and Chapter of Westminster leased two houses in Saint Martins in London to Mason for sixty years The which Mason leased one of the said Houses to one A. and covenanted by the Indenture of Lease with the said A. that it should be lawful for the said A. his Executors and assigns to make a window in the shop of the house so to him assigned and afterwards in the time of Queen Mary a window was made accordingly where no window was there before And afterwards A. assigned the said house to the Plaintiff And now Pope having a house adjoining had erected a new building super solum ipsius Pope ex opposito the said new Window Nusance so as the New Window is thereby stopped The Defendant pleaded Not guilty and it was found for the Plaintiff and it was moved for the Defendant in arrest of Iudgment that here upon the Declaration appeareth no cause of action for the window in the stopping of which the wrong is assigned appears upon the Plaintiffs own shewing to be of late erected scil in the time of Queen Mary The stopping of which by any act upon my own Land was holden lawful and justifiable by the whole Court. But if it were an antient window time out of memory c. there the light or benefit of it ought not to be impaired by any Act whatsoever and such was the opinion of the whole Court. But if the case had been That the house soil upon which Pope had erected the said building had been under the estate of Mason who covenanted as abovesaid Then Pope could not have justified the nusance which was granted by the whole Court. CCXXXV Lee and Maddoxes Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intrat Mich. 29 30 Eliz. Rot. 1737. Covenant WIlliam Lee brought a Writ of Covenant against Richard Maddox Isabel his Wife and declared That one Errington the first husband of the said Isabel was endebted to the Plaintiff in 20 l. and that one Georgy Ashley was also endebted to the said Errington in the like sum of 20 l. And also that the said Errington made and constituted the said Isabel his Executrix and died and afterwards the said Isabel by Indenture dum ipsa sola fuit reciting that whereas her said late husband was endebted to the Plaintiff in the sum aforesaid and whereas the said George Ashley was also endebted unto her said late Husband in the like sum Now for the better satisfaction of the Plaintiff for his said Debt she appointed and constituted the Plaintiff atturnatum suum irrevocabilem ad petendum levandum recuperand recipiend ad usum suum proprium in nomine dict Isabellae de dicto Georgio the said twenty pounds And the said Isabel covenanted quod ipsa ad requis dict quer de tempore in tempus adjuvaret manu teneret quamlibet omnes sectam sectas quam vel quas dictus querens commensaret prosequeretur in nomine dictae Isabellae against the said George to the use of the Plaintiff Non existendo Non-suit voluntarie or making any Discontinuance Release Revocations Anglice Countermand without the assent of the Plaintiff And declared further that the Plaintiff had brought a Suit against the said George for the said Debt and shewed all in certain And that the said Isabel depending the said Suit Countermand had taken to Husband the Defendant without the assent of the Plaintiff And if by this Marriage the said Suit be countermanded was the Question And first it seemed to the Court that the Declaration was insufficient Request because there is not any request surmised in the Declaration for the words of the Covenant are Quod ipsa ad requisitionem c. So as it seemed to the Iustices that the Plaintiff ought to have notified to Isabel that he had commenced such Suit otherwise the Action will not lye And also the Court was of opinion that here is not any Countermand for by the taking of the Husband the Writ is not abated but only abateable and therefore the Plaintiff ought to have shewed 1 Roll. 781. that by the taking of the Husband the Writ by Iudgment was abated otherwise it is not any Countermand and
issues the Iury might have assessed the damages severally scil for each issue several damages but here is but one issue and it was the folly of the Defendant that he would not demur in Law upon the Declaration for one part scil the not performance of the Award and traverse the other part scil The suing of the Execution or the Assumpsit of it And in our case it may be that the Iury did assess the damages for the suing of the Execution without any regard had to the performance of the Award And note that the verdict for assessing of the Damages was in these Terms scil Et assidunt damna occasione non performationis Assumpsionis praedict c. And Cook who was of Councel in this Case put this Case The late Earl of Lincoln Admiral of England brought his Action of Scandalis Magnatum and declared That the Defendant exhibited in the Star-chamber against him a Bill of Complaint containing diverse great and infamous slanders viz. That the said Earl was a great and outragious oppressour and used outragious oppression and violence against the Defendant and all the Country also The Defendant pleaded Not guilty and found for the Plaintiff and assessed damages and it was moved in stay of Iudgment first That the Plaintiff had declared upon matter of slander for part for which an Action lyeth and for part not For the oppression supposed to be made to himself no Action lieth because every subject may complain for wrong done unto him and although he cannot prove the wrong an Action will not lye But as for the oppression done to others by the supposal of the Bill an Action lieth for what is that to him he hath not to do with it for he is not pars gravata But because the Iury assessed Damages entirement the Iudgment was arrested for the cause aforesaid And afterwards in the principal case the last day of this term Iudgment was staied CCXXXIX Palmer and Thorps Case Hill. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. BEtwixt Palmer and Thorpe the Case was this 1 Cro. 152 A man demised his Manour of M. for thirty two years and the day after let the same Manour for forty years to begin from Michaelmas after the date of the first Lease and the Tenant attorned And by Cook the same is a good grant although to begin at a day to come for it is but a Chattel and so was the opinion of Wray Chief Iustice for a Lease for years may expect its commencement as a man seised of a Rent in Fee grants the same for twenty years from Mich. following and good for no estate passeth presently but only an Interest See 28 H. 8. 26. Dyer CCXL Sir Anthony Shirley and Albanyes Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Rot. 668. IN an Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit by Sir Anthony Shirley against Albany Assumpsit 1 Cro. 150. The Plaintiff declared That he was seised of the Manor of Whittington for the term of his life the Reversion to the Earl of Arrundel in Fee and so seised surrendered all his Estate to the said Earl who afterwards by his Deed granted a Rent-charge of 40 l. per annum out of the said Mannor to him and afterwards conveyed the Manor to the Defendant in Fee. And afterwards 27 Maii 22. Eliz. upon a Communication betwixt the Plaintiff and the Defendant concerning the said Rent the Defendant did promise to the Plaintiff that if the Plaintiff would shew unto the Defendant any Deed by which it might appear that he ought to pay to the Plaintiff such a Rent he would pay that which is due and that which should be due from time to time And further declared that 27 April 27 Eliz. he shewed unto the Defendant a Deed by which it appeared that such a Rent was granted and due And for eighty pounds due for the two last years he brought the Action The Defendant pleaded that after the said promise and before the shewing of the said Deed scil 14 Jan. 22 Eliz. the Plaintiff entred into the said Land and leased the same for three years The Plaintiff Replicando said that 1 Decem. 27 Eliz. the Defendant did re-enter upon which they were at Issue and it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved by Glanvil Serjeant that by the entry the Promise was suspended and being a personal thing once suspended it is always extinct Wray The Action is brought for the Arrerages due the two last years and so at the time of his re-entry the Plaintiff had not cause of Action and therefore it could not be suspended Suspension of Rent Ante. 110. Gawdy When the Plaintiff sheweth the Deed the Defendant is chargable to arrerages due before and after the promise wherefore if the entry maketh a suspending of the Rent the suspension doth continue but I conceive here is not any suspension for this promise is a meer collateral thing and so not discharged by the entry into the Land for it is not issuing out of the Land. But if the Plaintiff before the Deed shewed had released all Actions the same had been a good Bar and I conceive that the Deed was not shewed in time for it ought to be shewn before any arrerages due after the promise but here it is shewn five years after But that was not denied by all ther other Iustices Another exception was taken that where the promise was that if the Plaintiff shewed any Deed by which it might appear that the Defendant should be charged with the said Rent and the Declaration is by which it might appear that the Plaintiff ought to have the Rent c. so as the Declaration doth not agree in the whole See 1 Ma. 143. in Browning and Bestons Case the Condition of the Lease was if the Rent should be arrear not paid by two Months after the Feast c. and the Rejoynder was by the space of two months c. And the pleading holden insufficient for per duos menses doth not affirm directly post duos menses but by Implication and Argument And here it was holden that the Condition was a good consideration Another exception was taken because the promise is layed All the Rent ad tunc debitum aut deinceps debend It was holden that this word ad tunc doth refer to the time of the shewing of the Deed and not to the promise And as to the last exception but one it was resolved that the Declaration notwithstanding the same was good enough scil ostendit factum per quod apparet quod redditus praedict solvi deberet in forma praedict Another exception was taken because here no breach of the promise is alledged for it is pleaded thath eight pounds de annuali redditu arrer fuer but it is not said de redditu praedict 8 l. ergo it may be another Rent and then the promise as to this Rent is not broken Wray Although the word praedict be wanting yet the Declaration is well enough
and it shall be intended the Rent mentioned before See 21 H. 7. 30. b. Where Villa West shall be intended Villa praedict 19 E. 4. 1. In a Quare Impedit the Plaintiff doth entitle himself by grant of the next Avoydance cum acciderit and doth not shew in his Count that the same was the next Avoydance and yet the Count was holden to be good for so it shall be intended so here And he said It is not necessary that a Declaration be exactly certain in every point but if one part of it expound the other it is well enough And although the Identity of the Rent doth not appear by the word praedict yet it appeareth by other circumstances as by the days of payment c. and no other Rent can be intended And now this Exception is after Verdict and therefore favourably to be taken And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCXLI. Musted and Hoppers Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared Assumsit p 1 Cro. 149. That where he and one Atkinsal were joyntly and severally bounden by Obligation in fifty pounds to a stranger for the only Debt of the said Atkinsal which Atkinsal died and the Defendant married afterwards his Wife and so the Goods of Atkinsal came to his hands yet the Plaintiff the first day of May after which was the day of payment of the money paid five and twenty pounds for avoiding the Forfeiture of the penalty The Defendant as well in consideration of the Premisses as in consideration that he might peaceably enjoy the Goods of the Testator promised to pay the said sum cum inde requisitus fuer And upon Non Assumpsit the Iury found the payment of the said sum and all the precedent matter And that the Defendant in consideration praemissiorum promised to pay the said sum if he might peaceably enjoy the Goods of the said Testator It was moved in arrest of Iudgment that although here the Iury have found sufficient cause of Action yet if the Declaration be not accordingly the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment Verdict And here the Plaintiff hath declared upon two Considerations and the Iury hath found but one scil if he peaceably enjoy the Goods of the Testator Also the Plaintiff declared of a simple promise and the Iury have found a Conditional Si gaudere potest c. And so the promise set forth in the Declaration is not found in the Verdict Gawdy was of opinion That the first consideration is good Consideration for the Plaintiff entred into Bond at the request of the Defendant and then the promise following is good But the second consideration is void scil That the Defendant shall enjoy the goods of the Testator c. as if it had been that he should enjoy his own goods And all the Iustices were clear of opinion That the Promise found by the Iury is not the promise alledged in the Declaration and so the issue is not found for the Plaintiff and so the judgment was stayed CCXLII. Creckmere and Pattersons Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Rot. 568. Devise conditional 1 Cro. 146. 1 Roll. 410. 1 Inst 236. b. UPon a special Verdict the Case was this Robert Dookin was seised of certain Lands in Fee and having issue two Daughters devised the same to Alice his Eldest Daughter that she should pay forty pound to Ann her Sister at such a Day the money is not paid whereupon Ann entreth into the moiety of the Land And it was holden by the whole Court that the same is a good Condition and that the Entry of Ann was lawful It hath been adjudged That where a man devised his Land to his wife Proviso My will is That she shall keep my house in good Reparations that the same is a good Condition Wray A man deviseth his Lands to B. paying 40 l. to C. it is a good condition for C. hath no other remedy and a Will ought to be expounded according to the intent of the Devisor CCXLIII Dove and Williots and others Case .. Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 160. IN an Ejectione firmae upon a special Verdict the case was That W. was seised of the Land where c. and held the same by Copy c. and surrendred the same unto the use of E. for life the Remainder to Robert and A. in Fee Robert made a Lease to the Defendant E. Robert A. surrendred the said Land scil a third part to the use of Robert for the life of E. the Remainder to the Right heirs of Robert and of another third part to the use of Robert for life the Remainder to E. the Remainder to Richard c. and of another third part to the use of A. and his Heirs After which Partition was made betwixt them and the Land where c. was allotted to Richard who afterwards surrendred to the use of the Plaintiff It was holden That Iudgment upon this verdict ought not to be given for the Plaintiff For the Lessee of Robert had the first possession and that Lease is to begin after the death of E. who was Tenant for life and when E. and he in the Reversion joyn in a surrender thereby the estate for life in that third part is extinct in Robert who hath the Inheritance and then his Lease took effect for a third Part. So that the Parties here are Tenants in Common 1 Inst 200. betwixt whom Trespass doth not lye CCXLIV Bulleyn and Graunts Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Copyhold UPon Evidence to a Iury the Case was That Henry Bulleyn the Father was seised of the Land being Copyhold and had Issue three Sons Gregory Henry andy Thomas and afterwards surrendred to the use of the last Will Devise 1 Cro. 148. and thereby devised the said Land to Joan his Wife for life the remainder to the said Henry and the Heirs of his body begotten Joan died after admittance Henry died without Issue and afterwards the Lord granted it to Thomas and his Heirs who surrendred to the use of the Defendant then his Wife for life and afterwards died without Issue Gregory eldest Son of Henry Bulleyn entred c. Coke When the Father surrendreth to the use of his last Will thereby all passeth out of him so as nothing accrueth to the Heir nor can he have and demand any thing before admittance Wray The entry of Gregory is lawful and admittance for him is not necessary for if a Copyholder surrendereth to the use of one for life who is admitted and dieth he in the Reversion may enter without a new Admittance It was moved by Coke if this Estate limited to Henry be an Estate tail or a Fee conditional For if it be a Fee-simple conditional then there cannot be another Estate over but yet in case of a Devise an Estate may depend upon a Fee-simple precedent but not
Godfrey in arrest of Iudgment That it is apparent upon the Declaration That the Trespass was done in the time of their Predecessors of which the Successor cannot have action and actio personalis moritur cum persona See 19 H. 6. 66. But the old Church-wardens shall have the action Cook contrary and that the present Church-wardens shall have the action and that in respect of their office which the Court granted And by Gawdy Church-wardens are a Corporation by the Common Law. See 12 H. 7. 28. by Frowick That the New Church-wardens shall not have an action upon such a Trespass done to their Predecessors contrary by Yaxley See by Newton and Paston That the Executors of the Guardian in whose time the Trespass was done shall have Trespass CCXLIX Hauxwood and Husbands Case Pasch 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared for disturbing of him to use his common c. and shewed that A. was seised of certain Lands to which this Common was appendant Prescription 1 Cro. 153. for the term of his Life the Remainder to B. in tail and that the said A. and B. did demise unto him the said Lands for years c. Pepper The Declaration is not good for it is not shewed how these particular estates did commence See 20 E. 4. 10. By Piggot Lessee for life and he in the Remainder cannot prescribe together and he in the Remainder cannot have common Also he declares That Tenant for life and he in Remainder demised to him whereas in truth it is the demise of Tenant for life and the Confirmation of him in the Remainder also he doth not aver the life of Tenant for life Popham He needs not to shew the commencement of the particular estates for we are a stranger to them the Prescription in them both is well enough for all is but one estate and the Lease of both See 27 H. 8. 13. The Lessee for life and he in the Reversion made a Lease for life and joyned in an action of wast and there needs no averment of the life of the Tenant for life for he in the Reversion hath joyned which Gawdy granted as to all And said the particular estates are but as conveyance unto the action Wray conceived the first Exception to be material c. CCL Sweeper and Randals Case Rot. 770. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass for breaking of his Close and carrying away his goods by Sweeper against Randal upon Not guilty pleaded i Cro. 156. The Iury found That one John Gilbert was seised of the Land where c. and leased the same to the Plaintiff at Will who sowed the Land and afterwards the Plaintiff agreed with the said Gilbert to surrender to him the said Land and his interest in the same and the said Gilbert entred and leased to the Defendant who took the Corn. It was moved if these words I agree to surrender my Lands be a present and express surrender Gawdy It is not any surrender for Tenant at will cannot surrender but it is but a relinquishing of the estate if it be any thing Surrender but in truth it is not any thing in present but an act to be done in future Wray I agree A. demiseth the Manor of D. at will it is no Lease no more shall it be here any Surrender or any relinquishing of the estate Clench conceived That the intent of the Party was to leave his estate at the time of the speaking otherwise those words were void for he might leave it at any time without those words Gawdy If such was his intent the Iury ought to find it expressly and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCLI Ward and Blunts Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Trover and Conversion 1 Cro. 146. IN an Action upon the Case of Trover of certain Loads of Corn at Henden in Middlesex and the conversion of them The Defendant pleaded That before the conversion he was seised of certain Lands called Harminglow in the County of Stafford and that the Corn whereof c. was there growing and that he did sever it by force of which he was possessed and the same casually lost and that the same came to the hands of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff casually lost the same and the same came to the hands of the Defendant at Henden aforesaid and he did convert the same to his own use as it was lawful for him to do upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law. Atkinson The Plea is good for the conversion is the point of the action and the effect of it For if a man take the same and do not convert he is not guilty And here the Defendant doth justifie the conversion wherefore he cannot plead Not guilty The general issue is to be taken where a man hath not any colour but here the Defendant hath colour because the Corn whereof c. was growing upon his Land which might enveigle the Lay people and therefore it is safest to plead the special matter But admit that it doth amount but to the general issue yet there is not any cause of Demurrer but the Plaintiff ought to shew the same to the Court and pray that the general issue be entred and the Court ex officio ought to do it Egerton the Queens Solicitor contrary The Plea in Bar is not good The Plaintiff declares of a Trover of his goods ut de bonis suis propriis and the Defendant pleads That he took his own goods which is not any answer to the Plaintiff See 22 E. 3. 18. In Trespass of taking and carrying away his Trees The Defendant pleads That they were our Trees growing in our own soil and we cut them and carryed them away and the plea was challenged wherefore the Defendant pleaded over without that that he took the Trees of the Plaintiff So 26 Ass 22. and 30 E. 3. 22. Another matter was The Plea in Bar is That before the time of the Conversion the Defendant was seised of the Land and sowed it and that after the Corn was severed but he doth not say that he was seised at the time of the severance and then it might be that he had severed the Corn of the Plaintiff c. and that was holden by the Court to be a material exception wherefore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff But as to the first Exception the same was disallowed For the Court ex Officio in such case ought to cause the general issue to be entred but the Plaintiff ought not to demur upon it CCLIV Cheiny and Langleys Case Hill. 31. Eliz. Rott 638. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe case was That Tenant for life of certain Lands leased the same for years by Indenture with these words I give grant 1 Cro. 157. Leases bargain and sell my interest in such Lands for twenty years To have and to hold
in such manner and form as I my self did hold the same and no otherwise Tenant for life died within the Term and he in the Reversion entred and the Lessee brought an action of Covenant Godfrey The action doth not ly for here is not any warranty for the Plaintiff is not Lessee but Assignee to whom this Warranty in Law cannot extend but admit that the Warranty doth extend to the Plaintiff yet it is now determined with the estate of the Tenant for life and so the Covenant ended with the estate See 32 H. 6. 32. by Littleton 9. Eliz. Dyer 257. Covenant And if Tenant in tail make a Lease for years ut supra and afterwards dieth without issue the Covenant is gone and after Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff CCLV. Fish Brown and Sadlers Case Intrat Mich. 29 Eliz. Rot. 606. Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN action upon the Case was brought by Fish and Brown against Sadler Hill. 29 Eliz. rot 606. and they declared Action upon the Case That they were proprietaries of certain goods which were in the possession of one A. against which A. Sadler one of the Defendants had commenced a feigned and covenous suit in the Ecclesiastical Court in the Name of one Collison to the intent to get the said goods into his possession of which the Plaintiffs having notice and to the intent that the said Plaintiffs should suffer the Defendant to recover and obtain the said goods by the said suit the Defendant did promise to the Plaintiffs to render to them a true accompt of the said goods and shewed further That by the said suit the Defend did obtain the said goods by sufferance of the Plaintiff Tanfeild It is a good consideration the Plaintiffs were not parties or Privies at the beginning of the suit it is not like Onlies Case in 19 Eliz. Dyer 355. Where in an action upon the Case Onlie declared Assumpsit and consideration That the Defendant Countess c. being a Widow had divers suits and businesses and that the Plaintiff at her request had bestowed great labour and travail and had expended circa the affairs of the said Countess 1500 l. Whereupon she promised to the Plaintiff to pay all the said expences and such a sum above for that matter which is the ground of the action is maintenance and malum prohibitum but such matter is not here for it is lawful for a man to use means to get his goods Gawdy All covins are abhorred in Law and here the Plaintiffs are privies to the wrong and therefore it cannot be any consideration Wray Although that the suit at the beginning was wrongful and covenous yet when the Plaintiffs who were owners of the said goods do assent to such proceedings now the suit is become just and lawful ab initio Corin. and so no wrong in the consideration but all the wrong is purged by the agreement If any covin be the same is between Sadler and him who is sued to whom the Plaintiffs are not privies Clench If this privity betwixt the Plaintiffs and Sadler had been before the said suit then the consideration is without any fraud Cooper Serjeant conceived here is not any good consideration upon which the Promise of the Defendant may be grounded for the Defendant hath not any benefit by it and he cited the case between Smith and Smith 25 Eliz. Egerton Here the consideration is good enough for the Plaintiffs forbear their own suit which was a hinderance unto them Clench was of opinion that the Plaintiff should not have Iudgment for that suit was begun by Sadler in the Name of Collison without his privity and therefor it was unlawful and the same was for the goods of another man which is unlawful also and then when the unlawful act is begun the illegal agreement afterwards that they shall proceed is unlawful also and therefore there cannot be any consideration and as to the covin it is not material for without that the matter is illegal enough Also the Declaration is not good in this because it is not shewed in what Court the suit did depend so as it might appear unto us that they had power to hold plea of it Gawdy agreed with Clench in the first point and also in the last and by him in the assumpsit the Plaintiff declares that a suit was depending betwixt the Defendant and another and where the Plaintiffs if they were produced might have given strong witness against the Defendant the said Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiffs would not give Testimony against him promised to give to the Plaintiff 20 l. the same consideration will not maintain this action because it is unlawful for any man to suppress testimony in any cause 1 Cro. 337. Wray Here is a consideration good enough For where Sadler should lose costs upon the first suit now upon this promise upon his account he shall be allowed the same the which is a benefit unto him and as to the shewing in what Court the suit doth depend that needs not by way of Declaration but the same shall be shewed by way of Evidence and it is not traversable and it is but inducement to the action And as to the covin that is not here for covin is always to the prejudice of a third person but so it is not here But in truth this suit was unlawful for Sadler so to sue in the Name of another and therefore it cannot be a good consideration And for that cause it was awarded Quod querens nihil capiat per billam CCLIV How and Conneys Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Trespass 1 Cro. 159. IN an action of Trespass by How against Conney the case was That one Smith was seised of two houses and leased one of them to his Brother for life and afterwards by his Will devised viz. I give to my Executors All my Lands and Tenements free and copy to hold to them and they to take the profits of them for ten years and afterwards to sell the said Lands and Tenements and afterwards died his Brother died before the quarter of a year after and it was found That the Executors entred into the house undemised and took the profits but not into the other and that at the end of the said ten years they sold the whole Godfrey The house only which was in possession shall pass by the Will. To hold unto them doth imply matter of possession so as nothing passeth but that whereof they may take the profits the which cannot be of a bare Reversion also by this devise the Executors have not interest in the thing devised but for ten years Plow 66. Shop 437. whereas the Brother of the Testator had an estate for life which by possibility might continue above twenty years and to prove that the meaning of the devisor to be collected upon the words of the Will ought to direct the construction of the
of the Contract and being made at the time of the Communication and contract should charge the Defendant but if the promise were at another time it should be otherwise There was a Case lately betwixt Smith and Edmunds Two Merchants being reciprocally endebted the one to the other agreed betwixt themselves to deliver all their Bills and Bonds into the hands of one Smith who promised that he would not deliver them to the parties until all accounts were ended betwixt them and yet he did deliver them and for that an Action brought against him was adjudged maintainable yet there was not any consideration nor was it material for the action is grounded upon the Deceit and so is it here upon the Warranty And of that opinion were Clench and Wray Iustices but Gawdy was of a contrary opinion CCLXII Woodshaw and Fulmerstones Case Hill. 30. Eliz. Rot. 699 In the Kings Bench. WOodshaw Executor of Heywood brought Debt upon a Bond against Richard Fulmerstone and the Writ was dated October Mich. 29 30 Eliz. and the Condition of the Bond was That if Fulmerstone died before his Age of one and twenty years and before that he had made a Ioynture to A. his Wife Daughter of the Testator Heywood Then if the said Defendant caused one hundred pounds to be payed to the said Heywood within three months after the death of the said William that then the Bond should be void and the said William Fulmerstone died 30 September 30 Eliz. which matter he is ready c. The Plaintiff doth traverse absque hoc that the said Heywood died intestate Tanfield It appeareth of Record that the Plaintiff hath not cause of action for this one hundred pounds was to be paid within three Months after the death of William Fulmerstone 1 Cro. 271 325 565. as the Defendant hath alledged which is also confessed by the Plaintiff and this Action is entred Mich. October 30 Eliz. scil within a month after the death of William Fulmerstone and so before the Plaintiff hath cause of action and therefore he shall be barred Gawdy Where it appeareth to the Court that the Plaintiff hath not cause of Action he shall never have Iudgment as in the Case betwixt Tilly and Wordy 7 E. 4. But here it doth appear that the Plaintiff hath cause of Action for where a man is bound in an obligation the same is a duty presently Obligation and the condition is but in defeazance of it which the Defendant may plead in his discharge CCLXIII Windham and Sir Edward Cleers Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ROger Windham brought an Action upon the Case against Sir Ed. C. declared that the said Ed. being a Iustice of Peace in the County of N. and where the Plaintiff was a loyal subject Action upon the Case of sclander 1 Cro. 130. and of good fame all his life time nor ever touched or reproched with any offence of Roâ—ery c. the Defendant malitiose invide machinams ipsum Rogerum de bonis nomine fama et vita deprivare directed his warrant to divers Baylifs and Constables of the said County to arrest the said Plaintiff And it was alledged in the said Warrant That the Plaintiff was accused before him of the stealing of the horse of A. B. by reason of which the Plaintiff was arrested and so detained until he had entred into a Bond for his appearance c. whereas in truth he was never accused thereof nor ever stole such horse and whereas the Defendant himself knew that the Plaintiff was guiltless by reason of which he was greatly discredited c. And it was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved that upon this matter an Action doth not lye for a Iustice of Peace if he suspect any person of Felony or other such Offence may direct his Warrant to arrest him 14. H. 8. 16 Gaudy and Clench If a man be accused to a Iustice of Peace for Felony for which he directs his Warrant to arrest him although the accusation be false the Iustice of Peace is excused but if the party in truth was not accused before the Iustice it is otherwise It was a Case lately betwixt the Lord Lumley and Foord where Foord in a letter written by him had written It is reported That my Lord Lumley seeketh my life If it was not Reported an Action upon the Case lieth but if reported no Action lieth So here if he was accused no Action lieth but if not an Action lieth And afterwards in the principal Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCLXIV Isleys Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ISley and others were Plaintiffs in an Ejectione firmae and upon the general Issue it was found for the Plaintiffs and 4 days after the verdict given was moved in stay of judgment a special maâ—ter in Law whereof the Iustices were not resolved for the law but took advisement and gave day over and in the mean time one of the Plaintiffs died which matter the Defendant shewed to the Court in further stay of the Iudgment But by Coke the same is not any cause for the Postea came in Quindena Pasch which was 16 Aprilis at which day the Court ought to have given Iudgment presently but took time to be advised and the 19 of April one of the Plaintiffs died And the favour of the Court ought not to prejudice us for the Iudgment here shall have Relation to the 16 of April at which time he was alive and it was so of late adjudged in the Case of Derick James who died the day after the verdict and yet Iudgment was not stayed for the Court after verdict cannot examine surmises and they have not a day in Court to plead and in our case It was but a day of Grace and no entry is made of it Although no plea can be now pleaded after verdict yet as amicus curiae one may inform us of such matter And sometimes in such case Iudgment hath been stayed as 9 Eliz. and sometimes notwithstanding such Exception as 2 Eliz. So as I conceive the matter is much in the discretion of the Iustices And because the same was a hard verdict and much against the Evidence It is good discretion upon this matter to stay Iudgment and such was the opinion of the Court. CCLXV. Steed and Courtneys Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Error 1 Cro. 116. Owen 93. More 691. Prescription to levy a fine not good ERror was brought upon a Fine levied upon a Plaint in a writ of Covenant in the City of Exceter And two Errors were assigned First The Plaint was quod teneat convent de duobus tenementis Whereas in truth the word Tenement doth not comprehend any certainty for in the Word Tenement is understood Messuage Land Meadow Pasture c. and whatsoever syeth in tenure And 11 H. 6. 18. by grant of Lands and Tenements Rent or Common shall pass And an Ejectione firmae
upon a Deed. Hutt 102. Dy. 91. 2 Co. 61. 1 Ma. Dyer 91. and also the wife by her disagreement to it and the occupation of the Land after the death of her Husband hath made it the Lease of the Husband only CCLXXV Rockwood and Rockwoods Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Assumpsit 1 Cro. 163. IN an Action upon the case the case was this The Father of the Plaintiff and Defendant being sick and in danger of death and incending to make his Will In the presence of both his Sons the Plaintiff and Defendant declared his meaning to be To devise to the Plaintiff his younger Son a Rent of 4 l. per annum for the term of his life out of his Lands and the Defendant being the eldest Son the intention of his Father being to charge the Land with the said Rent offered to his Father and Brother That if the Father would forbear to charge the Land with the said Rent he promised he would pay the 4 l. yearly to his Brother during the life of his Brother according to the intention of his said Father Whereupon the Father asked the Plaintiff if he would accept of the offer and promised of his Brother who answered he would whereupon the Father relying upon the promise of his said eldest Son forbore to devise the said Rent c. so as the Land descended to the Eldest Son discharged of the Rent and the opinion of the whole Court in this case was clear that upon the whole matter the action did well lye CCLXXVI Petty and Trivilians Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Livery of seisin HUmphrey Petty brought Second Deliverance against William Trivilian and upon especial verdict the case was That A. was seised of certain Land and Leased the same for years and afterwards made a Deed of Feoffment unto B. and a Letter of Attorney to the Lessee C. and D. conjunctim vel divisim in omnia singula terras et Tenementa intrate et seisinam inde c. secundum formam Chartae c. Lessee for years by himself makes Livery and seisin in one part of the Land and C. in another part and D. by himself in another part It was first agreed by the Iustices that by that Livery by Lessee for years his Interest and Term is not determined for whatsoever he doth he doth it as an Officer or Servant to the Lessor Secondly It was agreed That these several Liveries were good and warranted by the Letter of Attorney especially by reason of these words In omnia singula c. So as all of them and every of them might enter and make Livery in any and every part And so it was adjudged CCLXXVII Rigden and Palmers Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. RIgden brought a Replevin against Palmer who avowed for damage feasant in his Freehold The Plaintiff said Replevin That long time before that Palmer had any thing he himself was seised until by A. B. and C disseissed against whom he brought an Assise and recovered Avowry and the estate of the Plaintiff was mean between the Assise and the recovery in it The Defendant said That long time before the Plaintiff had any thing One Griffith was seised and did enfeoff him absque hoc that the said A. B. and C. vel eorum aliquis aliquid habuere in the Lands at the time of the Recovery Walmsley Iustice was of opinion That the Bar unto the Avowry was not good for that the Plaintiff hath not alledged That A.B. and C. Ter-Tenants tempore recuperationis and that ought to be shewed in every recovery where it is pleaded And then when the Defendant traverseth that which is not alledged it is not good Windham contrary For the Assise might be brought against others as well as the Tenants as against disseisors But other real actions ought to be brought against the Ter-Tenants only and therefore it needs not to shew that they were Ter-Tenants at the time of the Recovery and also the traverse here is well enough Another Exception was taken because the Avowry is That the place in which conteineth an 100 Acres of Land The Plaintiff in bar of the Avowry saith that the place in which c. conteins 35 Acres c. but that Exception was not allowed for it is but matter of form is helped by the Statute of 27 Eliz. Another Exception was taken as to the hundred of Cattel and doth not shew in certain if they were Ewes Sty 71. 264. or Lambs or how many of each which also was dissallowed for the Sheriff upon Returno habendo may enquire what cattel they were in certain and so by such means the Avowry shall be reduced to certainty CCLXXVIII RUssell and Prats Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber RUsell brought an action upon the case against Prat and declared That certain goods of the Testator casually came to the Defendants hands and upon matter in Law Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff sed quia nescitur quae damna Error c. Ideo a writ of Enquiry of Damages issued and now Prat brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber upon the Statute of 27 Eliz. cap. 8. But note That the Iudgment was given before the said Statute but the Writ of Enquiry of Damages was retorned after the said Statute Writ of Enquiry of Damages the said Statute doth not extend but to Iudgments given after the making of it And it was moved That the said Iudgment is not to be examined here but by the clear opinion of Anderson Manwood Windham Walmesley Gent and Clark Iustices of the Common Pleas and Barons of the Exchequer the Writ of Error lyeth here by the Statute 1 Cro. 235. for in an action of Trespass as this case is full judgment is not given until the Writ of damages be retorned And if before the Retorn of it any of the parties dieth the Writ shall abate and the first Iudgâ—ent which is given before Award of the Writ is not properly a Iudgment but rather a Rule and order and so in a Writ of accompt where Iudgment is given that the Defendant computet cum querente he shall not have Error upon that matter for it is not a full Iudgment See 21 E. 3. 9. So as to the Iudgment in a Writ of Trespass scil That no Writ of Error lyeth before the second Iudgment after the Return of the Writ of Enquiry of Damages are given And also it was holden by all the said Iustices and Barons That an Executor shall have an action upon the case de bonis testatoris casually come to the hands and possession of another Action de bonis Testatoris and by him converted to his own use in the life of the Testator and that by the Equity of the Statute of 4 E. 3. 7. de bonis asportatis in vita Testatoris
and made partition of the Demeans only but the Services of the Free-holders and Copy-holders did remain in Common One of the Daughters took Husband the Husband and the Wife make a Lease of the moyety of the Manor to the Plaintiff for years by word rendring Rent the Lessee entred into the Demeans allotted to the Wife of the Lessor Partition The Husband died and the Wife brought an Action of Wast Anderson By the partition the Demeans are now become in gross and severed from the Manor And if partition be made of a Manor so as the Demeans be allotted to one Sister and the Services to the other now the Mannor is dissolved yet if the other Sister dieth without issue and her part descendeth to the other now it is become a Manor again which Windham and Periam granted 6 Co. 64. See 12. H. 4. 271. And Anderson was of opinion that the moyety of the Demeans did not pass by the words of the moyety of the Manor as if one seised of a Manor maketh a Feoffment in Fee of part of the Demeans and afterwards re-purchaseth them and then makes a Feoffment of the whole Manor the Demeans repurchased will not pass thereby for they were once severed from the Manor and not re-united by the purchase Periam Although that in truth it is not a Manor nor any part of a Manor yet if it hath beeen reputed the moyety of the Manor it shall pass by such name which Anderson grant ed but it is not like to our Case Periam This is an ancient partition as appeareth by the Verdict ten years past and also it hath been reputed the moyety of the Manor therefore it shall pass Windham concessit Periam The intent of the Grantor is the best Interpreter of these words without relying strictly upon the words Anderson If we shall take the intents of men for Law we shall fall into many confusions in our proceedings but the Law is to judge of the meanings of men by their words Ever in the constructions of Wills the intent of the Testators have not had further favour than the words have given leave As to the other point It was argued by Walmsley that the Lease made by the Husband and Wife without Deed was void See 1 Ma. Dyer 91. And if the Wife after the death of her Husband accepts the Rent upon such a Lease reserved it shall not bind her for the consent of the Wife ought to be at the beginning of it which cannot be without Deed. Anderson conceived that the Lease is not meerly void See 15 Eliz. Smith Stapletons Case Plowd 431. Periam The matter is clear for although the Plaintiff declares generally of a Lease made by the Husband Wife yet the Iury hath found that it was by Indenture and that is pursuant enough And if the Husband and Wife make a Feoffment of the Wives Land it is the Feoffment of doth of them which Walmesley granted It was adjorned CCLXXXIV Smalwood amd others against the Bishop of Lichfeild and others Quare Impedit Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HUmphrey Smalwood Richard Say and Thomas Say Executors of VVilliam Say Quare Impedit 1 Cro. 241. brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfeild and M. Incumbent quod permittat praesentare ad Archidiaconatum de Derby which was void Et ad praesentationem Testatoris in vita sua nunc in retardationem executionis Testamenti did belong to the Executors Exception was taken because these words In retardationem executionis Testament could not be applied to a disturbance in the life of the Testator Windham There is not any Writ in the Register of Quare Impedit upon a disturbance made to the Testator Anderson What then therefore no remedy because no Writ according to his special matter 25 E. 3. 25. Goods are taken out of the possession of the Testator upon which the Executors brought Trespass In retardationem executionis Testamenti Writ abated for it ought to be where the Executors themselves were possessed Periam The Advowson it self is valuable not the presentment therefore it cannot be said in retardationem Periam Before the Statute of 4 E. 3. 73. In Case were damages were only to be recovered the Action moritur cum persona but where the thing it self was to be recovered there the Action accrued to the Executors Anderson 7 H. 4. 73. Ejectione firmae of an Ejectment made unto the Testator was maintained by the Executors be equity of the Statute of 4 E. 3 cap. 6. And by the opinion of the whole Court the Executors might have a Quare Impedit upon a disturbance made to the Presentment It was objected also that a Quare Impedit doth not lye of an Archdeaconry-ship for it is not local nor any Indenture made of it but is only a matter of function but it was not allowed for â—iii Archdeacon hath Locum in Coro And by the Statute a Quare Impedit lyeth of a Chappel and by the equity of it of a Prebend c. See the Statute of West 2. Quare Impedit of a Chappel Prebend c. It was moved if the Executors had presented after the death of the Testator whether the Archdeacon ought to receive the Clark of the Testator or of the Executors and the opinion of the Court was That the Bishop should have election therein And afterwards Iudgment was given that the Writ should abate for the disturbance to the Testator cannot be supposed new matter In retardationem executionis Testamenti But yet it was agreed that the Executors might have their special Writ upon their Case for the said disturbance Trin. 31 Eliz. In Communi Banco IN an Action brought against one as Executor who pleaded that he refused upon which the parties were at Issue The Bishop did certifie 1 Cro. 81. 3â—â— 2 Len. 180. quod non recusavit whereas in truth he had refused before the Commissary Tenner Serjeant moved to have the advice of the Court upon that matter and argued that the Court ought to write to the Commissary Which was denyed by the whole Court for he is not the Officer unto the Court to that purpose but the Bishop himself is the Officer And the party cannot aver against the Certificate of the Bishop no more than against the Retorn of the Sheriff The Court was also of opinion that the only remedy for the Defendant was by Action upon the Case against the Bishop for his false Certificate But it was moved That the Issue joyned upon the refusal ought to be tryed by Iury and not by the Certificate of the Bishop and so was the opinion of Windham and Walmesley Periam Where the Issue is whether the Executor did refuse before such a day or after there the tryal shall be by Iury contrary where the Issue is upon refusal generally because the refusal is before him as a Iudge as also is Resignation CCLXXXVII Sutton and Holloway and Dickons Case
And after four and twenty years after the death of the said Sir Anthony the said Edward entred into the Land to him devised by the said Devise and leased the same to the Plaintiff Descent where tokes away entire c. And it was moved here if this dying seised of Henry of the Lands in Hertford and descent to his Heir should take away the Entry of Edward the Devisee And by Anderson cleerly If here upon the whole matter be a descent in the Case then the Entry of Edward the Devisee is taken away although that the Devisee at the time of the descent had not any Action or other remedy for it shall be accounted his folly that he would not enter and prevent the descent But VVindham Periam and VValmesly Iustices 2 Len. 147. 1 Cro. 920. 3 Cro. 145. Owen 96. were of a contrary opinion For a Devisee by a Devise hath but a Title of Entry which shall not be bound by any Descent as Entry for Mortmain for Condition broken And after long deliberation they all agreed that there was not any Descent in the Case for by the Devise and death of the Devisor the Frank-tenement in Law and the Fee was vested in the Devisee Edward And then when the Queen seised and leased the same during the Nonage of Henry and the Lessee entred he did wrong to Edward and by his Entry had gained a tortions Estate in fee although he could not be said properly a Disseisor nor an Abator And afterwards when Henry after his full age when by his Indenture he leased without any special Entry ut supra and by colour thereof the Lessee entred now he is a wrong-doer to Edward the Devisee and by his Entry had gained a wrongful Possession in Fee and then the paying of the Rent to Henry nor the walking of Henry upon the Land without any special claim did not gain any Seisin to him and so he was never seised of the Land and could never dye seised and then no Descent and then the Entry of Edward was lawful and the Lease by him made to the Plaintiff was good And so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCXCIV. Greenwood and Weldens Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Common Bench. Replevin IN a Replevin between Greenwood and VVelden The Defendant made Conusans as Bayliff to John Cornwallis shewed how that seven acres of Land called Pilles is locus in quo and at the time of the taking were holden of the said Cornwallis by certain Rent and other Services And for Rent arrear he made Conusans as Bayliff to Cornwallis The Plaintiff pleaded out of the Fee of Cornwallis upon which they were at Issue And it was found that the Plaintiff is seised of seven acres called Pilles hoden of Cornwallis ut supra But the Iury say That locus in quo doth contain two acres which is called Pilles and these two acres are and then were holden of Agmondesham of the Middle-Temple And if upon the whole matter videbitur Curiae c. And by the opinion of the whole Court out of his Fee upon that matter is not found for although it be found that the two acres be holden of Agmondesham yet it may be that they are within the Fee of Cornwallis for it may be that Cornwallis is Lord Paramount and Agmondesham Mesne and then within the Fee of Cornwallis And therefore for the incertainty of the Verdict a Venire facias de novo was awarded CCXCV. Bishop and Harecourts Case Mich. 32 33. Eliz. In the Common Bench. Assumpsit 1 Cro. 210. IN an Action upon the Case The Plaintiff declared that the 5 Junij 30 Eliz. the Defend in consideration that the Plaintiff the same day and year sold and delivered to the Defend a Horse did promise to pay the Plaintiff a hundred pounds in Trinity Term then next ensuing and shewed that the Term began 7 Junij after And upon Non assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in arrest of Iudgment That it appeareth upon the Declaration that the Plaintiff hath not cause of Action for the Trinity Term intended is not yet come for the day of the Assumpsit is the fifth of June and the fourth day was the first day of the said Term scil the day of Essoins and the seventh day 4. die post and then the promise being made at the day aforesaid after the Commencement of the said Term the same is not the Term intended but the Plaintiff must expect the performance of the promise until a year after And of that opinion was Anderson but the three other Iustices were strongly against him to the contrary for by common intendment amongst the people the Term shall not begin until 4. die post and so it is set down usually in the Almanack And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCICVI Mich. 32 33. Eliz. In the Common-Bench COoper Serjeant came to the Bar and shewed that A. Tenant in tail the Remainder over to B. in Fee. Co. 2 Inst 483. 484. 1 Cro. 323. 471. 567. Hob. 496. 3 Cro. 224. A. for a great sum of mony sold the Land to I. S. and his Heirs and for assurance made a Feoffment in Fee and levied a Fine to the said I. S. to the use of the said I. S. and his Heirs And note that by the Indenture of Bargain and Sale A. covenanted to make such further Assurance within seven days as the said I. S. or his Heirs or their Council should devise And shewed that before any further assurance was made the said I. S. died his Son and Heir being within age And now by advise of Council and of the Friends of the Infant it was devised that for such further assurance and cutting off the Remainder a common Recovery should be suffered in which the said Infant should be Tenant to the Praecipe and should vouch the Vendor Common Recovery suffered by an Infant by his Guardian and because that the said Term of seven years is almost expired and that the said Recovery is intended to be unto the use of the said Infant and his Heirs it was prayed that such a Recovery might be received and allowed And two Presidents in such Case were shewed in the time of this Queen one the Case of the Earl of Shrewsbury and the other one VVisemans Case But the Iustices were very doubtful what to do But at last upon good assurance of people of good Credit that it was unto the use of the Infant and upon the appearance of a good and sufficient Guardian for the Infant in the Recovery who was of ability to answer to the Infant if he should be deceived in the passing of that Recovery and upon consideration had of the two Presidents and upon Affidavit made by two Witnesses that the said intended Recovery was to the use of the Infant the Recovery was received and allowed CCICVII Cottons Case Mich. 32
Disseisor as well to Robert as to the Infant Then if the Defendant be Disseisor and hath no title by the Infant Robert who hath Right in a moyety may well enter into the whole for he hath the possession per my per tout by his Entry and then when the Defendant doth eject him he hath good cause of Action And after at another day the Case was moved and it was agreed That for one moyety the Infant is bound for Sir Thomas had an estate tail in a moyety for he was Issue of the body of the Comisor But for the other moyety the Fine levyed by Tenant for life William the Father being then Tenant beyond the Sea It was holden by Anderson Windham and Walmesly that the Infant was not barred notwithstanding the objection abovesaid That William the Father never returned into England and notwithstanding the words of the Statute of 4 H. 7. And by Walmesley If an infant make his claim within age it is sufficient to avoid the Fine and yet the said Statute seems to appoint to him time within five years after his full age so that according to the very words a claim made before or after should be vain yet in Equity although he be not compelsable to make his claim until the time allowed by the Statute yet if he make it before it is good enough And by Anderson Although that VVilliam the Father did not return yet if he makes not his claim within five years after the death of his Father being of full age and without any impediment c. he shall be barred If in such case a man hath many impediments he is not compellable to make his claim when one of the impediments is removed but when they are all removed So if the Ancestor hath one of the said impediments and dieth before it be removed and his Heir is within age or hath other impediment he is not bound to make is claim till five years after his impediment is removed And Somes case cited before was holden and agreed to be good Law for the Forfeiture may not be known unto him And as to the objection against the Lease at Will because it was made by an Infant and no Rent reserved upon it nor the Lease made upon the Land and therefore the Lessee should be a Disseisor To that it was answered Be the Defendant a Disseisor or not it is not material here for if the Plaintiff had not title according to his Declaration he cannot recover 1 Cro. 220. 1 Cro. 438. whether the Defendant hath title or not for it is not like unto Trespass where the very possession without other title is good contrary in Actions against all who gave not title but in Ejectione firmae if the title of the Plaintiff be not good and sufficient be the title of the Defendant good or not he shall not recover And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Defendant Hill. 33. Eliz. CCXCVIII Cheny and Smiths Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In Communi Banco IN an Ejectione firmae by Cheny and his Wife against Smith The Plaintiffs declared upon a Lease made by the Master of the House or Colledge of S. Thomas of Acons in London to I.S. who assigned it over to Knevit who by his Will devised the same to his Wife whom he made also his Executrix and dyed and afterwards she took to Husband one VVaters and died VVaters took Letters of Administration of the Goods and Chattells of his Wife and afterwards leased to the Plaintiffs And upon not guilty they were at Issue And it was given in Evidence That the Lease given in Evidence was not the Lease whereof the Plaintiffs have declared for the oriâ—inal Lease shewed in Court is Master of the House or Hospital where the Lease specified in the Declaration is Master of the House or Colledge 38 E. 3. 28. And some of the Iustices conceived that there is not any material Variance but if the parties would it might be found by special Verdict For by them Colledge and Hospital are all one And afterwards the Court moved the Plaintiffs to prove if the wife were in as Executrix or as Legatee for by Anderson and Periam until election be made he shall not be said to have it as Legatee especially if it be not alledged in fact that all the debts of the Testator are paid And Anderson doubted although that it be alledged that the debts be paid If the Executor shall be said to have the said Lease as a Legacy before she hath made Election vid. Weldens Case and Paramours Case in Plowd And afterwards it was given in Evidence That the wife after the death of the Husband had repaired the Banks of the Land and produced Witnesses to prove it as if the same should amount to claim it as a Legacy and the Court said that that matter should de referred to the Iury 1 Roll. 620. And it was further shewed in Evidence that the said Wife Executrix and her said Husband Waters formerly made a Lease by Deed reciting thereby that where the Husband was possessed in the right of his said Wife as Executrix of her first Husband c. And by the opinion of the whole Court the same was an express claim as Executrix and then when the Wife died if the Husband would have advantage of it he ought to take Letters of Administration of the Goods of her first Husband and not of the Wife but if she had claimed the Land and the Term in it as Legatee and had not been in possession Administration taken of the Rights and Debts of the Wife had been good as to that intent that his Wife was not actually possessed of it but only had a Right unto it and of such things in Action the Husband might be Executor or Administrator to his Wife but here they have failed of their title The Administration being taken of the goods of the Wife where it should be of the Goods of the Testator the first Husband And for this cause the Plaintiffs were non-suit and the Iury discharged And it was agreed by all the Iustices that if the Wife before Election had taken Husband that the Husband might have made the Election in the Case aforesaid CCXCIX The Lord Cobham and Browns Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Common Bench. THe Case between the Lord Cobham and Brown was that the Abbot of Grace was seised of the Mannor of Gravesend in the County of Kent which Mannor doth extend to the Parishes of Gravesend and Milton and that the said Abbot and all his Predecessors c. time out of mind c. have had a Water-Court within the said Mannor which Court had been holden at Gravesend Bridge in the end of it and that all the Inhabitants within the said Parishes which have Boats either entirely or joyntly with others and have used to transport or carry passengers from Gravesend to London e contra and have used to fasten
his Manor by prescription which is not a Court-baron Anderson was of opinion that it is not a Court-baron for although it be appertaining to the Manor yet that is not any proof that it is a Court-baron For a Leet may be appertaining to a Manor It was adjourned CCC Green and Edwards Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In Communi Banco 1 Cro. 216. 217. BEtween Green and Edwards the Case was this Land is demised to A. for nine years if he shall so long live and if he die within the Term that B. his Wife shall have it durante toto residuo termini praedict The Husband dieth during the Term If the Wife shall have the residue of the Term was the Question And by Periam Walmesly Iustices by the death of the Husband the Term is determined thereupon nothing can remain especially by way of grant but by way of Devise it might be See 9 Eliz. 253. A Lease for forty years to A. if he shall live so long and if he die within the Term that E. his Wife shall have the residue of the years Where it was holden that by the death of A. the Term is determined and then there is no residue and so the Limitation is void vide 3 4 Phil. Mar. 150. Anderson If the Husband and Wife had been parties to the Deed of Demise then the residue of the Term should go to the Wife after the death of the Husband and this word Terminum shall not be taken for the Interest which is given to the Husband but for the time so it is as much as to say that if the Husband die before forty years expired that then his Wife shall have the residue for forty years and it is reason to make such construction rather than to construe the said part of the Deed to be void For if in the construction of this Grant the Term shall be taken for the Interest then the Limitation shall be void And in all Grants the Deeds shall be taken most beneficially for the Grantee and most strongly against the Grantor especially ut res magis valeat quam pereat And here are several Grants and several Terms But if such matter be limited to the Wife not named in the Deed all is void for it is incertain when the Term shall begin it cannot vest during the particular Estate and it is not certain whether the Husband shall survive the Term or not And by Walmesly Windham the said Limitation is meerly void As if a Termer grants all his Term for so many years as shall be behind after his death the same is a void Grant for the Lessee may over-live all the Term and then it is incertain when it shall begin And in this Case this word Term shall be taken for the Interest and not for time vide 35 H. 8. Br. Conditions 203. vide Co. 1. part in the Rector of Chedingtons Case this Case vouched CCCI. Gawton and the Lord Dacres Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Common Bench. IN Debt upon Surplusage of an Accompt by Gawton against George Lord Dacres It was said by Periam Iustice and not denied by any that if I make J. S. my Auditor generally to take Accompts of all my Bayliffs and Receivors that he is not a sufficient Auditor without a Patent for when a man is made an Auditor generally he is an Officer and an Officer cannot be without a Deed. But if a Bayliff or Receiver be accomptable to me it is as cleer on the other side that I may appoint one to be my Auditor to take the accompt of him pro hac vice by word which Anderson granted But if he afterwards takes an accompt of any by force or colour of the said Warrant without my Commandment he is not a sufficient Auditor to such intent either to take the accompt or to assess the arrerages if the accomptant be found in arrear or to make allowance if he be found in Surplusage And by him If one become my Bayliff of his own wrong without my appointment he is accomptable to me but I am not compellable to make him any allowance for his Expences about my business And if I assign to such Bayliff of his own wrong an Auditor he cannot make allowance of such Expences Anderson If my Auditor make allowance to my Bayliff for any collateral Expences which he hath expended in my affairs which do not concern my Manor whereof he is Bayliff such allowance shall not bind me And note that in this Action the Plaintiff declared that he was Bayliff to the Defendant of certain Manors Receiver of certain monies and so retained ad diversa negotia procurandum And upon accompt the allowance was made unto him for his Board-wages and other Expences in riding Circa negotia And by Anderson 3 Len. 149. these allowances shall not bind the Defendant for as Bayliff of a Manor no Expences shall be allowed unto him but those which the Bayliff hath expended within the Manor And if I retain one to go about my business he is not accomptable Windham If I retain one to follow my business and deliver to him mony to disburse in such business he is accomptable Anderson It is so truly but it is not in respect of the said Retainer Devises but as he was Receiver and if he expend more than he hath received he doth it without Warrant and no allowance shall be made unto him If the Bayliff be found in Surplusage in the conclusion of the accompt the Auditor ought to enter Allocatur super determinationem Compt. in surplusagiis so much for such and such Expences allocatis allocandis upon the next accompt But in this Case it appeared upon the Evidence that the Entry upon the foot of the accompt was And so he is in Surplusage upon the determination of this accompt twenty six pounds But the Auditor being examined said that it was not his meaning to allow unto him so much but only to find and express the certainty of the whole accompt and so refer the allowance of it to the Defendant to whom he was Auditor and upon that the Court said to the Iury if they believed the Auditor that they should find against the Plaintiff for upon the matter here is not any accompt and so no allowance for the allowance if it had been according to Law ought to be entred before Allocatur c. and such allowance is as a Iudgment but here is not any allowance for the Auditor did refer the same to the Defendant But if the Iury doth not give credit to the Auditor then the Court moved the Iury to find it specially that the party was Auditor without Deed and the finding of the accompt as it is set down in the Declaration and the manner of the conclusion of it viz. That the Plaintiff was in Surplusage upon the determination of the accompt for his Expences in riding Circa negotia defendentis
of her Dower of all his Lands and dyed and the said A. took to Husband the Defendant And that after betwixt the Plaintiff and Defendant colloquium quoddam habebatur c. upon which conference and communication the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff promised to pay to him the said one hundred pounds promised to make to him a discharge of the said one hundred pounds and also of the Dower of his Wife and shewed further that notwithstanding that the said Pett was ready and offered the said one hundred pounds and Dower also yet c. Vpon which there was a Demurrer in Law It was moved by Tan. that here is not any cause to have a prohibition for the agreement upon the communication is not any cause for it doth not appear that it was performed Coke A Prohibition lieth for the Wife cannot have both money and Dower for that was not the meaning of the Devisor and therefore it hath been holden that if a man deviseth a Term for years to his Wife in satisfaction and recompence of her Dower if she recovereth Dower she hath lost her Term Also here is modus and conventio which alters the Law scil mutual agreement So if the Parson and one of the Parishioners agree betwixt them that for forty shillings per annum he shall retain his Tithes for three years c. as it was in the Case betwixt Green and Pendleton c. it is good CCCXIX. Martingdall and Andrews Case Mich. 32 33. Eliz. In Banco Regis Action upon the case for Wast IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that one Mildmay was seised of a House in A. and that he and all those whose estate c. time out of mind c. have had a way over certain Lands of the Defendants called C. pro quibusdam averiis suis and shewed that the said Mildmay enfeoffed him of the said House and that the Defendant stopt the said way to his damage c. And it was found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the title to the way is not certainly set forth i.e. pro quibusdam averiis suis quod omnes Justiciarii concesserunt But Gawdy Iustice conceived that the same was no cause to stay Iudgment For it appeareth to us that the Plaintiff hath cause of Action although that the matter be incertainly alleadged and of this incertainty the Defendant hath lost the advantage having surceased his time by pleading to it as 20 E. 3. Trespass for taking and carrying away of Charters the Defendant pleaded Not guilty and it was found for the Plaintiff to the damage c. And Error was brought because the Plaintiff had not set down in his Declaration the certainty of the Lands comprized in the Charters But non allocatur for the Defendant ought to have challenged that before and also 47 E. 3. 3. In a Writ of Covenant the Plaintiff declared of a Covenant by which the Defendant covenanted with the Plaintiff to assure to him all his Lands and Tenements which he had in the Counties of Gloucester and Lincoln and declared that at a certain day he required the Defendant to make him assurance of all the Lands c. And the Writ of Covenant was general quod teneat conventionem de omnibus terris quas habeat in c. And it was objected as here that the Writ wanted certainty as how many Acres or such a Mannor but non allocatur for here the Plaintiff is not to recover Land but only Damages and the Writ was awarded good Fenner Iustice the Cases are not like to the Case at Bar for in the said Cases the certainty is not needful but for the taxing of the Damages but here the certainty of the number of the Cattel is part of the title CCCXX Beale and Taylors Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. UPon Evidence to a Iury Leases 1 Cro. 222. it was holden by Gawdy and Clench Iustices that if a Lease for years be made and the Lessor covenants to repair during the Term if now the Lessor will not do it the Lessee himself may do it and pay himself by way of Retainer of so much out of the Rent which see 12 H. 8. 1. 14 H. 4. 316. Retainer of Rent A Lease for years by Indenture and the Lessor covenants to repair the Houses and afterwards the Lessor commands the Lessee to mend the Houses with the Rent who doth it accordingly and expends the Rent in the charges c. So 11 R. 2. Bar. 242. The Lessor covenants that the Lessee shall repair the Tenements when they are ruinous at the charge of the Lessor In debt for the Rent the Lessee pleaded that matter and that according to the Covenant he had repaired the Tenements being then ruinous with the Rent and demanded Iudgment if action Jones 242. Yelv. 43. c. and good Fenner Iustice contrary for each shall have action against the other if there be not an express Covenant to do it Quaere If the Lessor covenant to discharge the Land leased and the Lessee of all Rent-Charges issuing out of it If a Rent-charge be due if the Lessee may pay it out of his own Rent to the Lessor ad quod non fuit responsum CCCXXI. Offley and Saltingston and Paynes Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. OFfley and Saltingston late Sheriffs of London Escape 1 Cro. 237. brought an Action upon the Case against Payne because that he being in Execution under their custody for fifty three pounds in which he was condemned at the Suit of one Spicer made an escape the debt not satisfied by reason whereof they were compelled to pay the money The Defendant confessed all the matter but further pleaded that after the Escape Spicer had acknowledged satisfaction being after the Escape upon Record of the sum recovered upon which there was a Demurrer Owen Serjeant argued that the acknowleding of satisfaction being after the Escape was not any Plea for when the Plaintiffs Sheriffs have paid the money recovered there was no reason that Spicers acknowledging satisfaction should stop the Sheriffs of their Remedy against Payne It was holden by the Iustices that the Plaintiffs in this Action ought to shew that they had been impleaded by him who recovered for they cannot have this Action before they are sued For perhaps the Plaintiffs who recovered must be contented to hold themselves to the Defendant and to be satisfied by him It was said by Glanvil Serjeant that by the Escape the Debt was cast upon the Sheriffs and the Defendant discharged and that it was the Case of Sir Gervas Clyfton who being Sheriff suffered him who was in Execution and in his custody to go and see a Play and the same was adjudged an Escape and the party could not be in Execution again And then he said that this acknowledgment of satisfaction could not be any Bar to the
this Court is especially named Wray This Proviso begins with Iustices of the Peace therefore it doth not extend to offences which are Treason and the meaning of this Statute of 23 Eliz. was to enlarge the Statutes of 1 5 Eliz. for where the offence against the Statutes before was to be enquired at the next Session and the other within six Months now by this Statute it may be enquired at any time within the year and day but it doth not extend to restrain the proceedings against offences of Treason for the words of the Statute are That such offences shall be inquired before Iustices of Peace within a year c. But in the next clause the Iustices of Peace may punish all offences against this Act but Treason by which it appeareth that no offences are restrained to time but those which the Iustices of the Peace have authority to hear and determine and that is not Treason Gawdy to the same purpose For all the Proviso is but one sentence and there the whole shall be referred to spiritual offences as the not coming to Church c. CCCXXIII Filcocks and Holts Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Exchequer Error Assumpsit IN an Action by Filcocks against Holt Administrator of A. the Plaintiff declared how that the Husband of the Defendant who died intestate was indebted to the Plaintiff in ten pounds by Bill and that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would permit the Defendant to take Letters of Administration and give to her further day for the payment of the said ten pounds promised to pay the said ten pounds to the Plaintiff at the day And upon a Writ of Error brought in the Exchequer upon a Iudgment in the Kings Bench in that case It was assigned for Error that here is not any consideration for by the Law she is to have Administration being wife of the Intestate and as to the giving of further day for the payment of the ten pounds the same will not make it good for it doth not appear that she was Administratrix at the time of the promise made and then she is not chargeable and then c. And such was the opinion of the Court. And it was said by Periam Iustice and Manwood chief Baron That the Bishop might grant Letters of Administration to whom he pleased if he would forfeit the penalty limited by the Statute â—atch 67 68. Also it was said where an Executor or Administrator is charged upon his own promise Iudgment shall be given de boniâ— propriis for his promise is his own act CCCXXIV Adams and Bafealds Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Action upon the Case AN Action upon the Case was brought and the Plaintiff declared That where such an one his Servant departed his service without cause or license the Defendant knowing him to be his Servant did retain him in his Service and so kept him Tanfeild The Action doth not lye for if my Servant depart out of my service and another doth retain him an Action doth not lye at the Common Law if he do not procure him to leave my service and afterwards retain him or immediately taketh him out of my service And this Action is not grounded upon any Statute See 11 H. 4. 176. 47 E. 3. 14. 9 E. 4. 32. Gawdy The Action lieth for here is damage and wrong done to the Plaintiff Fenner contrary For the wrong is in the departure and not in the Retainer and upon the Statutes it is a good Plea to say for the Defendant that the party was vagrant at the time of the Retainer and the sciens doth not alter the matter CCCXXV Nash and Mollins Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Prohibition 1 Cro. 206. Tithes NAsh and Usher sued a Prohibition against Mollins for that the Defendant had libelled against them in the Spiritual Court for Tithes of Wood growing in Barking Park in Essex the other did surmise that the Lands were parcel of the possessions of the Prior and Covent of Cree Church and that the said Prior and his Successors time out of mind c. had held the said Lands discharged of Tithes and held them so at the time of the Dissolution c. and the other part traversed it whereupon they were at Issue if the Prior c. held the Land discharged tempore Dissolutionis c. And now on the part of the Plaintiff in the Prohibition certain old persons were produced who remembred the time of the Monasteries and that they did not pay any Tithes then or from thence Exception was taken to the suggestion by Coke that here is nothing else than a Prescription de non Decimando for here is not set forth any discharge as composition unity of possession priviledge of order as Templarii Hospitiarii c. â—enner Iustice Spiritual persons may prescribe in non Decimando for it is not any prejudice to the Church Wray Although it is not set down the special manner of discharge yet it is well enough for we ought to take it that it was by a lawful means as composition c. or otherwise For the Statute is that the King shall hold discharged as the Abbot c. and we ought to take it that it was a lawful discharge of Tithes tempore dissolutionis And afterwards the Iury found for the Plaintiffs in the Prohibition But no Evidence was given to prove that the Defendant did prosecute in the Spiritual Court contrary to the Prohibition CCCXXVI Sheldons Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. SHeldon Talbot and two other four persons in all Indictment upon the Statute of 23 Eliz. were Indicted upon the Statute of 23 Eliz. of Recusancy the words of the Indictment were Quod illi nec eorum uterque venerunt to any Parish Church c. It was moved by Atkinson That the Indictment is not good for uterque doth refer unto one of them and not where they are many as here and so is an insensible word and so upon the matter there is no offence laid to their charge And the Iustices doubting of it demanded the opinions of Grammarians who delivered their opinions that this word uterque doth aptly signifie one of them Exposition of words and in such signification it is used by all Writers Gawdy I conceive that the opinions of the Grammarians is not to be asked in this case But I agree that when an unusual word in our Law comes in question for the true construction of it then the opinion of Grammarians is necessary But uterque is no unusual word in our Law but hath had a reasonable Exposition heretofore which we ought to adhere unto which see 28 H. 8. 19. Three bound in an Obligation Obligamus nos utrumque nostrum and by the whole Court uterque doth amount to quilibet And see 16 Eliz. Dyer 337 338. Three Ioyntenants in Fee and by Indenture Tripartite each of them
covenanteth and granteth to the others eorum utrique to make assurance and there it was holden that the word uterque doth amount to quilibet Wray Admit it shall be so taken in a Bond yet it shall not be so taken in an Indictment As if a man make a Lease for years rendring Rent payable at the day of St. Martin although there be two days of St. Martin in the year yet the reservation is good and the Rent shall be taken payable at the most usual day of St. Martin there in the Country But in an Indictment if an offence he laid to be done on St. Martins day without shewing which in certain it is not good Fenner The word uterque is matter of surplusage and therefore shall not hurt the Indictment CCCXXVII Blunt and Whiteacres Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Error A Writ of Error was brought upon a Iudgment given in the Common Pleas in a Replevin where the Defendant did avow as Fermor of the Manor of F. in the County of Berks to St. Johns Colledge in Oxford and laid a Prescription there in him and his Fermors to distrain for all Amercements in the Court of the said Manor Amercement and shewed that the Plaintiff in the Replevin was presented by the Homage for not repairing of a House being a customary Tenant of the said Manor according to a pain imposed upon him at a former Court for which he was amerced by the Steward to ten shillings and was also presented for not ringing of his Swine for which he was amerced three shillings four pence and for these Amercements he distrained And upon Nihil dicit Iudgment was given for the Avowant to have return upon which a Writ of Error was brought And Error assigned in that there is not any Prescription laid in the Avowry for the Lord to amerce the Tenants and of common Right he cannot do it See 48 E. 3. And such Amercement is Extortion for the Lord cannot be his own Iudge and therefore he ought to enable himself to distrain by Prescription Another Error because the Fine is laid to be assessed by the Steward 1 Cro. 748. 886. whereas by the Law it ought to be by the Suitors for they are Iudges and not the Steward Another because that in the Avowry it is set down quod praesentatum fuit that he had not repaired a certain House but he doth not say in facto categorice c. that he had not repaired for that is matter traversable 4. Here is no offence for a Copy-holder is not bound to repair by the Common Law if it be not by Prescription for he cannot have House-boot upon the Land as a Termor may if it be not alledged a custom Fenner The Steward may assess Fines for a contempt but not Amercements if not by Prescription Gawdy The Lord of a Mannor cannot assess Amercements for a Trespass done to himself upon his own Lands but otherwise it is of a common Trespass or a Trespass done in the Land of another but for the Distress he ought to prescribe and the Iudgment was reversed CCCXXVIII Page and Fawcets Case Pasch 29 Eliz. Rot. 121. In the Kings Bench. Error 3 Cro. 227. ERror was brought upon a Iudgment given in Lyn where by the Record it appeareth that they prescribe to hold Plea every Wednesday and it appeared upon the said Record that the Court was holden 16 Feb. 26 Eliz. which was dies Dominicus and that was not assigned for Error in the Record but after in Nullo est erratum pleaded it was assigned at the Bar And Almanacks were shewed to the Court in proof of it and it was holden clearly to be Error but the doubt was if it should be tried by Iury or by the Almanacks and it was said that the Iustices might judicially take notice of Almanacks and be informed by them and that was the Case of one Robert in the time of the Lord Catline and by Coke so was the Case betwixt Galery and Bunbury and afterwards the Iudgment was reversed CCCXXIX Geofries and Coites Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IT was found by special Verdict 1 Cro. 25â— that one Avice Trivilian was Tenant for life the Remainder to her Son in tail the Remainder over Tenant for life and he in the Remainder in tail make a Lease for life the Remainder for life rendring Rent Tenant for life dieth he in the Remainder dieth and his Son accepteth of the Rent of the Tenant for life in possession who dieth The Issue in tail entreth he in the Remainder for life entreth c. And it was conceived that this acceptance of the Rent of the Lessee for life doth affirm also the Remainder See Litt. Sect. 521. and such was the opinion of Gawdy and Fenner Iustices CCCXXX The Lord Mordant and Vaux Case Pasch 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Lord Mordant brought an Action of Trespass against George Vaux and declared of a Trespass done in quodam loco 1 Inst 225. 1 Cro. 269. called N. parcel of the Manor of Hawarden The Case was William Lord Vaux was seised thereof and thereof levied a Fine to the use of the Lord Vaux which now is for life and after his decease to the use of Ann and Muriel Daughters of the Lord Vaux and their Assigns until Ambrose Vaux should return from the parts beyond the Seas and should come to the Age of 21 years or dye if they should so long live And after the return of Ambrose from beyond the Seas and the age of 21 years or death whichsoever of the said days or times should first happen to the use of the said Ambrose and the Heirs of his body begotten with divers Remainders over Ambrose returned Plow Com. 376. 2. Ante 18. 76. and 31 Eliz. before he came of full age for it is not pleaded that he was of full age levied a Fine to the use of George Vaux the Defendant in tail with divers Remainders over Afterwards the Lord Vaux being Tenant for life enfeoffed the Lord Mordant in Fee upon whom the said George Vaux entred for a forfeiture upon which Entry the Lord Mordant brought the Action Buck argued for the Plaintiff Amb. Vaux had nothing in the Lands in question until his return from beyond the Seas and his full age and the estate doth not begin until both be past and he said that no use did arise to Ambrose until the time incurred for the time of the beginning is uncertain and upon a Contingent as 13 Eliz. Dyer 301. A. makes a Feoffment in fee to the use of himself for life and after to the use of B. who he intendeth to marry until the Issue which he shall beget on her shall be of the age of 21 years and after the Issue shall come of such age then unto the use of the said B. during her Widowhood the Husband dieth without Issue the Wife entreth and her
was moved in arrest of Iudgment that it appeareth upon the Plaintiffs own shewing that the Plaintiff hath the Free-hold and therefore he ought to have an Assize but the same was not allowed and therefore the Plaintiff had Iudgment CCCXXXIV Kensam and Redings Case Trin. 33. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was Grants of the King 1 Cro. 244. Hob. 170. That the Queen by her Letters Patents granted the Site of the Manor of Brokeley lying in W. and all the Lands Pastures Woods Vnder-woods and Hereditaments parcel or appertaining to the said Site exceptis omnibus grossis arboribus boscis maremio and further in the said Letters Patents there was a Proviso that the Lessee should have sufficient House-boot and Hedge-boot c. And if notwithstanding the said Exception the Lessee should have the Vnderwoods was the question And it was argued that the Lessee should have subbois i. e. Vnderwoods for that is granted by express words and the exception extends only grossis arboribus for this word grossis in the exception extends to all that which follows Gawdy Iustice If it were in the case of a common person it is clear that upon such matter the Vnderwoods are not excepted 7 E. 6. Dyer 79. A Lease is made of a Mannor except Timber and great Woods the Vnderwoods shall pass Fenner Iustice The Proviso that the Lessee should have House-boot shews the Queens intent that the Vnder-woods should not pass Wray If this word bois in the exception should not extend to Vnder-woods it should be vain and signifie nothing which should be hard in the Case of the Queen CCCXXXV Trin. 33. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared of Trover and of a Bag of mony and the conversion of it Trover and Conversion 1 Cro. 97. 201 555 693. The Defendant pleaded that the Bag of mony was delivered to him as a pawn to keep until A. and B. were agreed which of them should have it and pleaded further that A. and B. were not yet agreed who of them should have it for which cause he kept it absque hoc that he converted it to his own use upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law It was moved that the Conversion is never traversable Wray Generally Conversion is not traversable but upon such special matter as is here Or if A. lend money to B. and B. delivereth a thing of the value to A. in pawn now the Conversion is traversable see the same case 4 E. 6. Br. Action upon the Case 113. so here Fenner agreed with Wray CCCXXXVI The Bishop of Lincoln and Cowpers Case Mich. 33. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Prohibition THe Bishop of Lincoln sued a Prohibition against Cowper who had libelled against him in the Spiritual Court for Tithes out of the Manor of D. Tithes 1 Cro. 216. Post 331 332. And the Bishop did suggest that he and all his Predecessors had been seised of the said Manor and that as long as it was in their possessions had been discharged of Tithes and shewed that in the time of E. 6. the said Manor was conveyed to the Duke of Somerset in Fee and afterwards was re-granted to the Bishop and his Successors It was moved That the Prescription was not good because de non decimando And admit that the Prescription be good that same is interrupted by the seisin of the Duke of Somerset and although that the Manor be re-assured to the Bishop of Lincoln yet the Prescription is not revived as Homage Ancestrel if it be once in a Forrain Seisin although it be re-assured yet it is not revived But by Wray Gawdy and Fenner The Prescription is good in the Case of a Spiritual person but not in the case of a common person And they all were clear of opinion that the Prescription is not gon by this Interruption for Tithes are not issuing out of the Lands neither can Vnity of possession extinguish them neither are they extinguished by a release of all right of Land c. See for this Case Co. 11. part of his Reports in the Case of Pridle and Napper CCCXXXVII Dethick King of Arms Case 33. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Indictment 1 Cro. 224. Yelv. 34. Noy 250. Misnosmer in an Indictment WIlliam Dethick against Garter King of Arms was indicted upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. for striking in the Church-yard For that the said Dethick in Pauls Church-yard in London struck I.S. It was moved If Cathedral Churches be within the meaning of the Statute The Court was clear of opinion that they were And afterwards the Defendant pleaded that before the Indictment found he was created and crowned by the Letters Patents of the Queen which he shewed chief and principal King of Arms and it was granted by the said Letters Patents that he should be called Garter and that that name is not in the Indictment and demanded Iudgment The Kings Attorney by Replication said That by the Law of Arms and Heraldry every one who is made King of Arms before he receives his Dignity ought to be led betwixt two Officers of Arms by the Arms before the Earl Marshal of England or his Deputy and before him are to go four Officers of Arms whereof the one is to bear his Patent another a Collar of Esses the third a Coronet of Brass double guilt fourthly a Cup of Wine and his Patent shall be read before the Earl Marshal and afterwards his Coronet shall be set upon his Head and the Collar of Esses about his neck and afterwards the Wine poured upon his Head And that the Defendant had not received these Ceremonies for which cause he is not King of Arms nor to be called upon to which the Defendant did demur in Law. Broughton argued for the Defendant and he took Exception to the Replication because it is pleaded there that secundum legem Heraldorum Garter upon his Creation ought to receive c. of which Law this Court cannot have Conusance and therefore the Replication ought to be scil Secundum legem Angliae If in Appeal the Defendant wage Battel although that belongs unto Arms and Heraldry yet it shall be pleaded according to the Law of the Land and shall not speak of the Law of Arms. So if an Infant be made a Knight and he be to plead in discharge of his Wardship he shall plead according to the Law of the Land and yet the degree of a Knight belongs to the Law of Arms 11 E. 3. Dower against the Earl of Richmond who was also Duke of Britain who pleaded to the Writ That he was Duke of Britain and not so named in the Writ but the Court did not regard it for they cannot have knowledge of it so not here of the Law of Heraldry Also this Court cannot write to the Heralds to certifie it as they may to the Marshal of the King or to the Bishop But we have sufficiently
chargeth the Defendant with cutting of Wood without the assent and assignment of the Lessor so he would compel us to prove more than we ought for if he did it with their assent only or by their assignment only it is sufficient but if the Covenant had been in the copulative both was necessary And for the nature of Copulatives he cited the Case where two Churchwardens bring an Action of Trespass the Defendant pleads That the Plaintiffs are not Churchwardens upon which they are at Issue The Iury find That the one was Church-warden and the other not and for that the Plaintiffs could not have Iudgment for if the one of them be not Churchwarden then the Plaintiffs are not Churchwardens for the copulatives ought not to be disjoyned And he cited the case lately ruled in the Common Pleas betwixt Ognel and Underwood concerning Crucifield Grange A. leased unto B. certain Lands for forty years B. leased part of the same to C. for ten years A. grants a Rent-charge out of the Lands in tenura occupatione B. It was resolved That the Lands leased to C. should not be charged with that Rent for although it was in tenura B. yet it was not in his occupation and both are exquisite because in the copulative So here the Lessee may cut Wood with the assent of the Lessor without any assignment Also here the substance of the covenant cannot charge the Defendant for although it be in the Negative yet it is not absolute in the Negative but doth refer unto the covenant precedent for the words are That the Lessee shall not cut Woods aliter quam according to the intent of the Indenture where the covenant precedent is not that the Lessee shall not cut Woods but in the Dole but that the Lessor might cut down any Trees in the Dole leaving sufficient for the Lessee which covenant in it self doth not restrain the Lessee to cut down any Trees in any part of the Lands demised nor abridgeth the power which the Law giveth to him by reason of the demise Then when this last covenant comes i. e. That the Lessee will not cut aliter then according to the meaning of the Indenture without the assent c. the same doth not restrain him from the power which the meaning of the Indenture gives and so no breach of covenant can be assigned in this For by virtue of the Lease the Lessee of common Right may take necessary Fuel upon any part of the Land leased Also this first covenant being in the Affirmative doth not abridge any Interest as 28 H. 8. 19. The Lessor covenants That the Lessee shall have sufficient Hedge-boot by assignment of the Baily It is holden by Baldwin and Shelley That the Lessee may take it without assignment because there are no Negative words non aliter So 8 E. 3. 10. A Rent of ten pounds was granted to Husband and Wife and if the Husband overlive his Wife that he shall have three pounds Rent and if the Wife do over-live the Husband she shall have forty shillings there it was holden that the Rent of ten pounds continued not restrained by the severance of any of them And although peradventure it appeareth here that the meaning of the parties was That the Lessee should not cut down any Wood but in the Dole yet forasmuch as such meaning doth not stand with the Law it shall be rejected as it was holden to be in the case betwixt Benet and French where a man seised of divers Lands devised parcel of it called Gages to the erecting of a School and another parcel unto B. in fee and all his other Lands unto one French in Fee The devise of Gages was holden void because too general for no person is named and it was further holden that it passed by the general devise to French and yet that was not the meaning of the Devisor Also the Plaintiff is not Assignee but of parcel of the Reversion for if the Reversion is granted to him for years Owen Rep. 152. 1 Co. 215. and such Assignee cannot have an Action of Covenant for a Covenant is a thing in Action and annexed to the Reversion so that if the Reversion doth not continue in its first course as it was at the time of the creation of the Covenant but be altered or divided the Covenant is destroyed and therefore it was holden 32 H. 8. betwixt Wiseman and Warringer where a Lease for years was made of one hundred Acres of Lands rendring ten pound Rent and afterwards the Lessor granted fifty Acres of it that the Grantee should not have any part of the Rent but all the Rent was destroyed So in our case here the Grantee hath but parcel of the estate a Term for years and so is not an Assignee intended as the case betwixt Randal and Brown in the Court of Wards â— Co 96â—â—â—â— Randal being seised of certain Lands covenanted with B. that if he pay unto him his Heirs and Assigns five hundred pounds that then he and his Heirs would stand seised to the use of the said B. and his Heirs Randal devised the Land to his Wife during the minority of his Son the Remainder to his Son in Fee and died having made his Wife his Executrix Brown at the day and place tendred the money generally the Wife having but an estate for years in the Land took the money It was holden that the same was not a sufficient tender for the Wife is not Assignee for she hath an Interest but for years and here the Son is to bear the loss for by a lawful Tender the Inheritance shall be devested out of him and therefore the Tender ought to be made to him and not to his Wife Also as the case is here he is no Assignee for although Charles Grice and his Wife hath the Reversion to them and the Heirs of the body of Charles and levy a Fine without Proclamations nothing passeth but his own estate and then the Conusee hath not any estate Raph. Rep. 91. â— Câ—o. 804. â—05 but during the life of Charles and then when a man is seised to him and his Heirs during the life of another he hath not such an estate as he can devise by the Statute and then when he deviseth it to his Wife for years it is void c. It was adjorned CCCXL Smith and Hitchcocks Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Assumpsit â— Câ—o. 201. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that whereas the Defendant was indebted to him 19 Maii 30 Eliz. The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would forbear to sue him until such a day after promised at the said day to pay the debt The Defendant pleaded how that 29 Maii 29 Eliz. he was indebted unto the Plaintiff in the said sum for assurance of which afterwards he acknowledged a Statute to the Plaintiff upon which he had Execution and had levied the money absque
barred but if the Wife enter after the death of her Husband and before the Proclamations pass the issue is not bound by the Fine And if Tenant in Tail granteth totum statum and after levieth a Fine thereof with Proclamations come ceo c. The Issue is barred contrary where the Fine is upon a Release c. CCCXLVI Henningham and Windhams Case 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ARthur Henningham brought a Writ of Error against Francis Windham upon a common Recovery had against Henry his Brother Error Owen Rep. 68. and the Case was That Land was given in special tail to Thomas Henningham Father of the said Henry and the said Arthur the Remainder in general tail the estate tail in possession was to him and the Heirs Mairs of his body Thomas had issue the said Henry and three Daughters by one woman and the said Arthur and two other Sons by another woman and dyed seised Henry entred and made a Feoffnent a common Recovery is had against the Feoffee in which Henry is vouched who vouched over the common Vouchee according to the usual course of common Recoveries Henry dyed without issue Error and Attaint by him to whom the Land is to descend and Arthur brought a Writ of Error being but of the half blood to Henry And it was resolved by the whole Court That Error and Attaint always descends to such person to whom the Land should descend If such Recovery or false oath had not been As if Lands be given to one and the Heirs Females of his body c. and suffers an erronious Recovery and dyeth the Heir female shall have the Writ of Error So upon Recovery of Lands in Borough English for such Action descends according to the Land quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam But it was objected on the Defendants part That because that the Feoffee being Tenant to the Praecipe is to recover in value a Fee-simple and so Henry is to yield a Fee-simple which should descend to the heir at the Common Law if this Recovery had not been therefore he to whom the same should descend should have the Writ of Error for he hath the loss But the said Exception was not allowed And it was said That Tenant in tail upon such a Recovery shall recover but an estate in tail scil such estate which he had at the time of the warranty made c. And afterwards Iudgment was given that the Action was maintainable So if a man hath Lands of the part of his mother and loseth it by erronious Iudgment and dyeth That the Heir of the part of the Mother shall have the Writ of Error CCCXLVII Foster and Pitfalls Case 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Ejectione firmae the Case was 1 Cro. â— Brook devised Lands to his Wife in general Tail the Remainder over to a stranger in Fee and dyed he took another Husband and had issue a Daughter The Husband and Wife levyed a Fine to a stranger The Daughter as next Heir by 11 H. 7. entred It was agreed by the whole Court That an estate devised to the wife is within the words but not within the meaning of the Statute Secondly It was resolved That no estate is within the meaning of the Statute unless it be for the Ioynture of the Wife Thirdly Resolved That the meaning of the Statute was That the wife so preferred by the Husband should not prejudice the issues or heirs of her Husband and here nothing is left in the Issues or heirs of the Husband so as the Wife could not prejudice them for the Remainder is limited over CCCLXVIII Greenes Case 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Acceptance of Rent 1 Cro. 3. 3 Co. 64. b. GReene made a Lease for years rendring Rent with clause of Re-entry and the Rent due at the Feast of the Annunciation was behind being demanded at the day which Rent the Lessor afterwards accepted and afterwards entred for the condition broken and his Entry holden lawful Entry Plow Com. in Browning and Bestons Case for the Rent was due before the condition broken but if the Lessor accepts the next Quarters Rent then he hath lost the benefit of Re-entry for thereby he admits the Lessee to be his Tenant And if the Lessor distrain for Rent due at the said Feast of the Annunciation after the forfeiture he cannot afterwards re-enter for the said forfeiture for by his Distress he hath affirmed the possession of the Lessee So if he make an Acquittance for the Rent as a Rent contrary if the Acquittance be but for a sum of mony and not expresly for the Rent all which tota Curia concessit CCCXLIX 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was Lessee for life the Remainder for life the Remainder in tail the Remainder in fee The two Tenants for life make a Feoffment in fee. Dyer A woman Tenant for life in Ioynture the Remainder for life the Remainder in fee the Tenants for life joyn in a Feoffment Entry for Forfeiture the Entry of him in the Remainder in fee is lawful by 11 H. 7. And if Tenant for life be impleaded and he in the Remainder for life will not pray to be received he in the last Remainder may and so in our case inasmuch as he in the Remainder for life was party to the wrong he in the Remainder in tail shall enter Which Harper and Munson granted Dyer 339. a. i. e. Manwood Although that this Feoffment be not a Disseisin to him in the Remainder in tail yet it is a wrong in a high degree as by Littleton A Disseisor leaseth for life to A. who aliens in fee the Disseisee releaseth to the Alienee it is a good Release and the Disseisor shall not enter although the Alienation was to his disinheritance Lit. 111. which Dyer granted And if Tenant for life alieneth in fee and the Alienee enfeoffeth his Father and dieth the same descent shall not avail him no more than in case of Disseisin Livery of Seism It hath been objected that this is the Livery of the first Tenant for life and the confirmation of him in the Remainder for life Dyer was of opinion That by this Livery the Remainder for life passeth and this Livery shall be as well the Livery of him in the Remainder as of the Tenant in possession and although where an estate is made lawfully by many it shall be said the Livery of him only who lawfully may make Livery Yet where an estate is wrongfully made it shall be accounted in Law the Livery of all who joyn in it And in this the Remainder for life is extinguished by the Livery in the Feoffee and the Livery of him in the Remainder for life shall be holden a void Livery especially when he joyns with such a person who hath not authority to make Livery As if the Lord and a Stranger Disseise the Tenant and make a Feoffment over the whole Seigniory is
extinct as if he solely had been seised so if he in the Reversion and a Stranger disseise for life and make a Feoffment over the Seigniory is gone and yet it is the Livery of the Lessee only And although it be but the confirmation of him in the Remainder for life yet thereby the Remainder is gone and extinct And afterwards Iudgment was given that the Entry of him in the Remainder in tail was lawful And it was said by the L. Dyer That if Tenant for life be the Remainder for life the Remainder in fee Tenant for life in possession alieneth in fee that he in the Remainder in fee cannot enter for it was not to his disinheriâ—in CCCL 20 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was That a Capias ad Satisfaciend was delivered to the Sheriff 5 Co. 88 89. and after the Sheriff did arrest the party against whom the Capias issued by force of a Capias Utlagatum and then the party in the Capias came to the Sheriff and prayed that the party remain in Execution for his debt also and notwithstanding that the Sheriff let the Prisoner go at large and upon both Writs returned Non est inventus It was the opinion of all the Iustices That the Sheriff was not bound in point of Escape to detain the Prisoner for the Debt of the Plaintiff and it is not like where one is in the Fleet in Execution there if other condemnations in other Courts be notified to the Warden of the Fleet he shall be chargeable with them all It was holden also per Curiam That if the Body had been returned by Capias Utlagatum that the Court at the prayer of the party would grant that the Prisoner might remain in Execution for the debt as in case of a Capias pro fine CCCLI The Lord Saint John and the Countess of Kents Case 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Evidence given to the Iury in an Action of Debt brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant Grants of Executors of omnia bona sua 1 Cro. 6. It was said by Dyer and Manwood Iustices That if Executors grant omnia bona sua that the goods which they have as Executors do not pass which see 10 E. 4. 1. b. by Danby but the contrary was holden by Wray chief Iustice of the Kings Bench and by Plowden in Bracebridges case P. 18 Eliz. and they denied the opinion of 10 E. 4. to be Law for by such Grant made by Executors the goods of the Testator do pass CCCLII. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was said by Dyer and Manwood Iustices That if one be condemned in an Action upon the Case Abatement of Writ 3 Len. 68. or Trespass upon Nihil dicit or demurrer c. And a Writ issueth forth to enquire of the Damages and before the return of it the Defendant dieth that the Writ shall not abate for the awarding of the said Writ is a Iudgment And it was said by Manwood Account In a Writ of Account the Defendant is awarded to account if the Defendant account and be found in Arrearages and dieth the Writ shall not abate but Iudgment shall be given that the Plaintiff shall recover and the Executor shall be charged with the Arrearages and yet account doth not lye against them CCCLIII 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A. Did recover in Debt against B. whereupon a Fieri facias issued to the Sheriff of Devon and the Defendant seeing the Writ of Execution in the Sheriffs hands Attachment of Goods after the Money is in the Sheriffs hand is void said to him that he would pay the Debt recovered at Exeter such a day to satisfie the Execution at which day the Defendant paid the mony accordingly and presently came an Officer of the City of Exeter and attached the mony in the Sheriffs hand supposing the said A. to be indebted so much to one C. in whose name he made the Attachment Antea 29. 1 Cro. 6â— and now on the behalf of the said A. a Certiorare was prayed to remove the Attachment hither and it was therefore holden by the whole Court that the Attachment was void and a Certiorare granted And Wray said If it can be proved by Oath that if the Defendant did procure or was assenting to the said Attachment that Process of Contempt should issue against him and the Sheriff demanded of the Court what return he should make because the monies were attached in his hands and taken from him by force to which Wray answered That the Sheriff ought to answer the monies to the Plaintiff which were once in his hands by force of the Execution and that it was his folly to suffer the mony to be taken from him by colour of the said Attachment and if the mony was taken by force the Sheriff had his remedy by an Action of Trespass for the Attachment was void but the Sheriff at the return of the Writ ought to answer for the Mony. CCCLIV. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant for life bargained and sold his Lands to A. and his Heirs and afterwards levied a Fine to the Bargainee Forfeiture 4 Len. 124. â— Len. 60 65. Sur conusans de droit come ceo c. It was holden by the Court that it was a forfeiture committed by the Bargainee not by the Bargainor who at the time of the Fine had nothing to forfeit and it was said by Manwood Iustice That if Tenant for life be disseised and takes a Fine ut supra of a Stranger it is a forfeiture and yet he in the Reversion hath but a right in Reversion so that if Tenant for life be disseised and the Disseisor commits Wast he in the Reversion shall have an Action of Wast against Tenant for life and if two Tenants for life be disseised by two A. and B. and one of the Tenants for life doth release unto A. and the other Tenant for life doth re-enter he hath the Moiety in common with the other to whom the Release was made and he hath revested the intire Reversion in him in whom the Reversion was before c. CCCLV. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Bracebridges Case THe Case was Thomas Bracebridge seised of a Manor in Fee leased a Messuage parcel of it to one Curtes for 21 years and afterwards 35 H. 8. leased the same to one Moore for 26 years to begin after the expiration of the former Lease and afterwards 5 E. 6. he enfeoffed Griffith and others to the use of the Feoffees themselves and their Heirs upon condition That if the Feoffees did not pay to the said Thomas Bracebridge 2000 l. within 15 days after that then immediately after the said 15 days the Feoffees should stand seised of the said Manor to the use of the said Thomas Bracebridge and Joyce his wife for their lives without impeachment of Wast and afterwards to the use of T. B. their second Son in tail with divers Remainders
afterwards that this murder is dispunishable notwithstanding the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. CCCLXIV The Queen and Braybrooks Case Pasch 25 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 3 Co. 1 2 c. THe Queen brought a Writ of Error against Braybrook The Case was this That King Ed. 4. was seised of the Manor of Marston and gave the same to Lionel Lord Norris and A.M. and the Heirs of the body of the Lord the Remainder to H. Norris in Tail L and A. entermarry L. suffered a common Recovery against himself only without naming the said A. Hen. Norris is attainted of high Treason by Act of Parliament and by the same Act all his Lands Tenements Hereditaments Rights Conditions c. the day of the Treason committed or ever after c. Hen. Norris is executed Lionel dieth without issue the Queen falsified the said Recovery for one moiety by Scire facias because Anne who was joint-tenant with Lionel was not named party to the said Recovery and afterwards the Queen granted to the Lord Norris Son of the said Hen. Norris Manerium suum de Merston omnia jura in eodem and now upon the said Recovery the Queen brought a Writ of Error and it was argued by Egerton the Queens Sollicitor that this right to a Writ of Error is such a right as is transferred to the Queen by the Act of Parliament for the words are omnia jura sua quaecunque and here is a right although not a present right yet a right although in futuro so it is a right of some quality as A. Tenant in Tail the Remainder in Tail to B.A. makes a Feoffment in Fee B. is attainted of high Treason and by such Act all his Lands c. given to the King. A. dieth without issue the Queen shall have a Formedon in the Remainder and although the Queen hath granted to the Lord Norris Manerium suum de Merston omnia jura in eodem yet by such general words a Writ of Error doth not pass which See 32 H. 8. Br. Patents 98. And also this Action rests in privity of record and cannot be displaced from thence but by Act of Parliament see Br. Chose in Action 14. 33 H. 8. for when the King will grant a thing in Action he ought in his Patent to recite all the circumstances of the matter as the Right and how it became a Right and because the Queen here doth not make mention of this Right as of the Entail the Recovery and the Attainder for that cause the Right doth not pass The Case betwixt Cromer and Cranmer 8 Eliz the Disseisee was attainted of Treason the Queen granted to the Heir of the Disseisee all the Right which came unto her by the Attainder of his Ancestor nothing passed Causa qua supra And always where the King grants any thing which he cannot grant but as King that such a grant without special words is to no purpose Coke contrary he agreed the Case put by Egerton for at the time of the Attainder B. had a Right of Remainder but in our Case Hen. Norris had not any Right but a possibility of a Right of Action i.e. a Writ of Error And he said that this Writ of Error is not forfeitable for it is an Action which rests in privity no more than a condition in gross as a Feoffment in Fee is made upon condition of the party of the Feoffor who is attainted ut supra This word Right in the Act of Attainder shall not transfer this Condition to the Queen and of the Act of Attainder to Hen. Norris it is to be conceived That the makers of the Act did not intend that by the word Right every right of any manner or quality whatsoever should pass to carry a Condition to the Queen and therefore we ought to conceive that the makers of the Act did not intend to touch Rights which rested in privity And as to the Grant of the Queen to the Lord Norris of the Mannor of Merston Et omnia jura sua in eodem he conceived that thereby the Right of the Writ of Error did pass for it is not like Cranmers Case but if in the said Case the Land it self had been set down in the Grant it had been good enough as that Cranmer being seised in Fee of the Manor of D. was there of disseised and so being disseised was attainted of high Treason now the Queen grants to his Heirs totum jus suum in his Manor of D c. and so in our Case the Queen hath granted to the Lord Norris Manerium suum de Merston omnia jura sua in eodem c. at another day it was moved by Plowden that this Right of Writ of Error was not transferred to the Queen by the Act but such Right might be saved to a stranger c. the words of the Act are omnia jura sua and this word sua is Pronomen possessionis by which it is to be conceived that no Right should pass but that which was a present Right as a Right in possession but this Right to a Writ of Error was not in Hen. Norris at the time of his Attainder but it was wholly in him against whom the erroneous Iudgment was had and therefore if in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant vouch and loseth and Iudgment is given and before Execution the Tenant is attainted by Act of Parliament by words ut supra and afterwards he is pardoned the Demandant sueth for Execution against the Tenant now notwithstanding this Attainder the Tenant may sue Execution against the Vouchee and afterwards Wray chief Iustice openly declared in Court the opinion of himself and all his companions Iustices and also of all the other Iustices to be That by this Act of Parliament by which all Lands Tenements Hereditaments and all Rights of any manner and quality whatsoever Henry Norris had the day of his Attainder or ever after Lionel then being alive and over-living the said Hen. Norris that this Writ of Error was not transferred to the Queen And that the said Act by the words aforesaid could not convey to the King this possibility of right for at the time of the Attainder the Right of the Writ of Error was in Lyonel and Hen. during the estate tail limited to Lyonell had not to do with the Land nor any matter concerning it And Iudgment was given accordingly And it was holden That he in the Reversion or Remainder upon an Estate tail might have a Writ of Error by the common Law upon a Recovery had against Tenant in tail in Reversion CCCLXV Mich. 25 26. Eliz. In the common Pleas. Copy-holder IN Trespass brought by a Copy-holder against the Lord for cutting down and carrying away his Trees c. It was found by special Verdict That the place where c. was Customary lands of the Plaintiffs holden of the Defendant and that the Trees whereof c. were Chery Trees de
magnitudine sufficienti essendi maremium and that the place where they growed was neither Orchard nor Garden It was said by the Court That by the Custom the Copyholder could not cut down such Trees but the Lord might and that the cutting down of such Trees which were not Wast the Copy-holder might justifie without punishment but because by the Verdict it did not appear that the Trees for which the Action was brought were Timber in facto but only de magnitudine effendi maremium the Plaintiff had Iudgment CCCLXVI The Lord Staffords Case Mich. 25 26. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Extent UPon Recovery in debt against the Lord Stafford certain Lands of the Lord were extended by Elegit The Queen because the Lord Stafford was endebted unto her by Prerogative ousted the Tenant by Elegit Fleetwood Serjeant moved the Court in the behalf of him who recovered and surmised to the Court that the Queen was satisfied and therefore prayed a Re-extent but the Court would not grant it because they were not certain of the matter but advised the party to sue a Scire facia against the said Lord Stafford to know and shew cause why a Re-extent should not issue forth the Queen being satisfied c. CCCLXVII Gibbs and Rowlies Case Mich. 25 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Tithes SYmon Gibbs Parson of Beddington Libelled in the Spiritual Court against Rowlie for Tithe Milk Rowlie upon surmise of a Prescription de modo Decimandi obtained a Prohibition which was against Symon Gibbs Rectorem Ecclesiae parochial de Nether Beddington and the parties were at Issue upon the Prescription Prohibition and it was found for Rowlie Egerton Solicitor moved against the Prohibition because the Libel is against Gibbs Rectorem Ecclesiae paroch de Beddington and the Prohibition was de Nether Beddington and it was not averred that Beddington in the Libel and Nether Beddington is unum idem non diversa It was said by the Court That upon the matter there is not any Prohibition against Rectorem Ecclesiae de Beddington only and therefore said to the Plaintiffs Counsel let the Parson proceed in the Spiritual Court at his peril CCCLXVIII Russell and Handfords Case Mich. 25 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. RUssell brought an Action upon the Case against Handford and declared Quod cum quoddam molendinum ab entiquo fuit erectum upon such a River Nusance de quo one Thomas Russell whose Heir the Plaintiff is was seised in his Demesn as of Fee and dyed thereof seised after whose death the same descended to the Plaintiff by force of which the Plaintiff was seised in his Demesn as of Fee and so seised The Defendant upon the same River had levyed a new Mill per quod cursus aquae praedict coarctatus est and upon Not guilty It was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That it is not layed in the Declaration that his Mill had been a Mill time out of mind c. And then if it be not an ancient Mill time out of mind Words of Prescription c. it was lawful for the Defendant to erect a new Mill And it was said That these words ab antiquo are not fit or significant words to set forth a Prescription but the words A tempore cujus contrarii memoria hominum non existit are the usual words for such a purpose See the Book of Entries 10 11. See 11 H. 4. 200. If I have a Mill and another levies another Mill there and the Miller hinders the Water to run to my Mill or doth any such Nusance Roll. 140. an Action lyeth without any Prescription as it seems by the Book in 22 H. 6. 14. The Plaintiff declared That he was Lord of such a Town and that he and all his Predecessors Priors of N. Lords of the same Town have had within the same Town four Mills time out of mind c. And that no other person had any Mill in the said Town but the Plaintiff and his Predecessors the said four Mills and that all the Tenants of the Plaintiff within the same Town and all other Resiants there c. ought and time out of mind c. had used to grind at the said Mills of the Plaintiff and that the Defendant one of the Tenants of the Plaintiff had erected and set up a Horse Mill within the said Town and there the Resiants grinded c. And it was holden That peradventure upon such matter an Action lyeth because the Defendant being one of the Tenants of the Plaintiff is bound by the Custom and Prescription so as he hath offended against the privity of the Custom and Prescription And as to the Case in question It was the opinion of all the Iustices Hob. 189. Ante 168. 1 Cro. 415. That if the Mill whereof the Plaintiff hath declared be not an ancient Mill that this Action doth not lye upon the matter eo quod cursus aquae coarctatur But yet at last it was holden by the Court to be good enough notwithstanding the Exception Another Exception was taken to the Declaration because that here is set forth the seisin of the Father of the Plaintiff and the Descent to the Plaintiff by force of which he was seised in his Demesn c. without shewing that after the death of the Father that he entred into the said Mill Seisin in fact and in Law. c. so as no seisin in fact is alleadged but only a seisin in Law and if the Plaintiff was not seised in fact he cannot punish this personal wrong but the Exception was disallowed for such a seisin in Law is sufficient for the maintenance of this Action And afterwards the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover his Damages See for the Action it self contained in the Declaration 8 Eliz. Dyer 248. CCCLXIX Cleypools Case Mich. 26. Eliz. In the Exchequer Informations upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. of Tillage INformation in the Exchequer against Cleypool upon the Statute of Tillage 5 Eliz. setting forth That the Defendant hath converted three hundred Acres of arable Lands of Tillage to pasture and the same conversion hath continued from 15 Eliz. unto the two and twentieth of Eliz The Defendant as to the Conversion pleaded Not guilty and as to the Continuance the general Pardon by Parliament 23 Eliz. upon which the Attorney general did demur in Law. It was argued That that pardon did not extend to the continuance of the said Conversion And first the Barons were clear of opinion That if A. be seised of Arable Lands and converts the same to pasture and so converted leaseth it to B. who continues it in pasture as he found it he shall be charged by that Statute And it is not any good Construction where the Exception in the pardon is excepting the converting of any Land from Tillage to Pasture made done committed or permitted that the Conversion excepted
out of the pardon shall be intended and construed the bare Act of Conversion but the whole offence i. the continuance and practise of it is understood As if by general pardon all intrusions are excepted now by that the instant Act of Intrusion i. the bare Entry is not only excepted but also the continuance of the Intrusion and the perception of the profits And note The words of the Statute are conversion permitted and Conversion continued is Conversion permitted And the said Statute doth not punish the Conversion but also the continuance of the Conversion for the penalty is appointed for each year in which the Conversion continues And Egerton Solicitor put this Case 11 H. 8. It was enacted by 3 H. 7. cap. 11. That upon Recovery in Debt if the Defendant in delay of Execution sues a Writ of Error and the Iudgment be affirmed he shall pay damages now the case was That one in Execution brought such a Writ of Error and the first Iudgment is affirmed he shall pay damages and yet here is not any delay of the Execution for the Defendant was in Execution before but here is an Interruption of the Execution and the Statute did intend the Execution it self i. the continuance in Execution ibidem moraturus quousque It was said on the other side That the conversion and continuance thereof are two several things each by it self and so the conversion only being excepted in the pardon the continuance thereof remains in the grace of the pardon And it appeareth by the Statute of 2 and 3. Ph. Ma. That conversion and continuance are not the same but alia atque diversa and distinct things in the consideration of the Law for there it is enacted That if any person shall have any Lands to be holden in Tillage according to the said Statute but converted to Pasture by any other person the Commissioners c. have authority by the said Statute to enjoyn such persons to convert such Lands to Tillage again c. And in all cases in the Law there is a great difference betwixt the beginning of a wrong and the continuance of it As if the Father levyeth a Nusance in his own Lands to the offence of another and dyeth an Assize of Nusance doth not lye against the Heir for the continuance of that wrong but a Quod permittat See F.N.B. 124. It was adjorned CCCLXX Powley and Siers Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. POwley brought Debt against Sier Executor of the Will of A Debt The Defendant demanded Iudgment of the Writ for he said That one B. was Executor of the said A. and that the said B. did constitute the Defendant his Executor so the Writ ought to be brought against the Defendant as Executor of the Executor and not as immediate Executor to the said A. The Plaintiff by Reply said That the said B. before any probate of the Will or any Administration dyed and so maintained his Writ Wray Iustice was against the Writ for although here be not any probate of the Will of A. or any other Administration yet when B. made his Will and the Defendant his Executor the same is a good acceptance in Law of the Administration and Execution of the first Will for the Defendant might have an Action of Debt due to the first Testator Gawdy and Ayliff Iustices The Writ is good See Dyer 1 Cro. 211. 212. 23 Eliz. 372. against Wray CCCLXXI Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was A seised of certain Lands Bargain and sale of Trees bargained and sold by Indenture all the Trees there growing Habendum succidendum exportandum within twenty years after the date of the said Indenture the twenty years expire The Bargainee cuts down the Trees A. brought an Action of Trespass for cutting down the Trees And by Wray Iustice The meer property of the Trees vests in the Bargainee Post 288. and the Limitation of time which cometh after is not to any purpose but to hasten the cutting of the Trees within a certain time within which if the Vendee doth not cut them he should be punished as a Trespassor as to the Land but not as to the Trees Gawdy contrary And that upon this Contract a conditional property vests in the Vendee which ought to be pursued according to the direction of the condition and because the condition is broken the property of the Trees is vested in A. CCCLXXII Curriton and Gadbarys Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN in Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared Leases That the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff should make a lease for life to the Defendant of certain Lands Habendum after the death of A. before the tenth of August next following promised to pay the Plaintiff ten pounds the first day of May next after the promise which was before the tenth of August And the truth was That the said ten pounds was not paid at the day ut supra nor the said Lease made And now both sides being in default the Plaintiff brought an Action It was said by Wray Iustice If the Plaintiff had made the Lease according to the consideration and in performance thereof the action would have lyen but now his own default had barred him of the Action But for another cause the Declaration was holden insufficient for here is not any Consideration for the promise is in consideration that the Plaintiff shall lease to the Defendant for life Habendum after the death of A. which cannot be good by way of lease but ought to enure by way of grant of the Reversion so as here is no lease therefore no consideration and notwithstanding that if a Lease be made for life Habendum after the death of A. the Habendum is void and the Lease shall be in possession according to the Premises yet the Law will not give such construction to the words of a Promise Contract or Assumpsit but all the words ought to be wholly respected according to the Letter so as because that no Lease can be made according to the words of the Consideration no supply thereof shall be by any favorable construction And so it was adjudged But before the same imperfection was espied Iudgment was entred and therefore the Court awarded that there should be a cesset executio entred upon the Roll for it is hard as it was said by Wray to drive the party to a Writ of Error in Parliament because Parliaments are not now so frequently holden as they have used to be holden and the Execution was staid accordingly CCCLXXIII Willis and Crosbys Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Error IN a Writ of Error It was assigned for Error That whereas in the first Action the parties were at issue and upon the Venire facias one Gâ—â—gory Tompson was returned But upon the Habeas Corpora George Tâ—â—â—â—son was returned and the Iury was taken and found for the
Plaintiffâ— and Iudgment given accordingly Amercement It was argued on the part of the Plaintiff in the first Action that the same is a thing amendable As 9 E. 4. 14. A Iury was impannelled by the name of I.B. and in the Habeas Corpora he was named W.B. and by such name sworn c. And upon Examination of the Sheriff it was found that he was the same person who was impannelled and it was amended and made according to the Pannel But the opinion of the whole Court was That as this case is it was not amendable and it is not like the case of 9 E. 4. For there the Examination was before the Verdict when the Sheriff was in Court but here it is after Verdict and the Sheriff is out of Court and cannot be examined and for these causes the Iudgment was reversed CCCLXXIV Ognell and the Sheriffs of Londons Case Pasch 26. Eliz. In the Exchequer OGnell brought Debt upon an Escape by Bill in the Exchequer against the Sheriffs of London Escape 1 Cro. 164. the Case was That one Crofts was bound to the now Plaintiff in a Recognisance and afterwards committed for Felony to the Prison of Newgate of which he was attainted and remained in Prison in the custody of the Sheriffs Afterwards Ognell sued a Sc. fac upon the said Recognisance against Crofts the Sheriffs returned a Cepi and the especial matter aforesaid and after Iudgment given against Crofts for Ognell Crofts got his pardon and escaped It was argued That notwithstanding this Attainder Crofts is subject to the Execution obtained upon the Recognizance See the case of Escape betwixt Maunser and Annesley 16 Eliz. in Bendloes case 2 E. 4. 1. It is said by Watman That a man out-lawed for Felony shall answer but shall not be answered See 6 E. 4. 4. One condemned in Redisseisin was taken by a Capias pro fine and committed to Prison and afterwards out-lawed of Felony the King pardons the Felony yet he shall remain in Execution for the party if he will But if the party be once in Execution for the party and then out-lawed of Felony it seems by 6 E. 4. Fitz. Execution 13. that the Execution is gone And all the Barons were clear of opinion in the principal case for the Plaintiff And they also said That if one who hath a Protection from the King be taken in Execution and Escape the Gaoler shall answer for the Escape and that was one Hales Case And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Hales Case and one of the causes of the Iudgment was because that the Sheriffs had returned Câ—pi upon the Process CCCLXXV Bishop and Redmans Case Hill. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. BIshop a Doctor of the Civil Law brought an Action of Covenant against Redman Archdeacon of Canterbury and declared upon an Indenture by which the Defendant did constitute the Plaintiff Officiâ—â—em suum of his Archdeaconcy for three years and gave to him by the said Indenture Authoritatem admittendi inducendi quoscunque Clericos ad quaecunque beneficia Ecclesiastica infra Archidiaconatum praedict ' and also Probate of Wills and further granted to him omnem omnimâ—dam Archidiaconatum Jurisdictionem suam praedict ' absque impetitione deâ—â—egatione restâ—ictione c. after which Doctor Young was created Bishop of Rochester which is in the Iurisdiction of the said Archdeaconry and the Defendant took upon him to enthronize the said Bishop in his said Church and took of him for his Fee twenty Nobles whereupon the Plaintiff brought this Action It was moved for the Defendant that upon the matter the Action doth lye for the Office of enthronizing or enstalling of a Bishop doth not pass by the said Indenture nor is there any word in the Indenture that doth extend unto it for the Bishop is not a Clark and the Plaintiff by the Indenture hath not to do but with Clarks not with Bishops and it appeareth by the Grant of Subsidies by the Clergy in Parliament that a Bishop and a Clark are distinct things See Instrumentum hereof Praelatus Clericus c. Also the Plaintiff hath not to do with a Bishoprick but with Benefices and a Bishoprick is not a Benefice but a higher thing And further the Plaintiff hath power to admit and induct which doth not extend to installing or inthronization for that belongs to a Bishop and the Court was clear of opinion That by this Grant there did not pass any power to instal or inthronize Bishops and the general words i.e. omnem omnimodam jurisdictionem Archidiaconatum praedictam Words which amount to Covenant did not mend the matter for the word Praedictam doth not restrain the words Omnem omnimodam c. but admitting that It was moved If upon this Indenture Covenant lieth for there is not any express Covenant yet the words absque impetitione denegatione restrictione do amount to so much to make the Defendant subject to his Action if the matter in it self would have served for him and so was the opinion of the Court. CCCLXXVI Lady Lodges Case Hill. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Lady Laxton of London by her Will bequeathed to Matthew Luddington and Andrew Luddington Prohibition Poph. 11. Dyer 59. several Legacies in monies to be paid to them respectively at their several ages c. and made the Lady Lodge her Daughter her Executrix and died Andrew died before his full age Matthew took Letters of Administration of the goods of Andrew and sued the Lady Lodge in the Spiritual Court for the Legacy bequeathed to Andrew before which Suit begins the Lady Lodge with Sir Thomas her Husband gave all the goods which she had as Executor of the said Lady Laxton to Sir William Cordel Master of the Rolls and to William Lodge Son of the said Sir Thomas and his Lady depending which Suit the Lady Lodge died after which sentence was given against her being dead and now a Citation was out of the Spiritual Court against William Lodge Executor of the said Lady Lodge to shew cause why the sentence given against the said Lady Lodge should not be put in Execution against him and sentence was given against the said William Lodge who appealed to the Delegates and there the sentence was affirmed And now came William Lodge into the Kings Bench and set forth the grant of the said Lady Lodge as aforesaid and that the same was not examinable in the Spiritual Court and thereupon prayed a Prohibition And Awbrey Doctor of the Civil Law came into Court to inform the Iustices what their Law was in certain points touching the Case in question and as to the sentence given against the Lady Lodge after her death he said That if the Defendant died before issue joyned which is called Litis contestationem the Suit shall cease but if he dieth after Litis contestationem it is otherwise for in such Case the Suit shall proceed for after
commanded a Court Baron to be holden there which was holden accordingly by the sufferance of the Executors and the said Executors were also present at which time the Executors in the presence of the said Lord said these words viz. We have nothing to do with this Manor Return of the Sheriff 4 Co. 67. And upon this Verdict two things were moved If because the Liberate was not returned the Execution was good And as to that divers Books were cited 21 H. 6. 8. 18 E. 3. 25. And it was said that there was a difference betwixt a Liberate and a Capias ad Satisfaciendum and a Fieri facias for these Writs are conditional Ita quod Habeas Corpus c. Ita quod habeas denarios hic in Curia 3 H. 7. 3. 16 H. 7. 14. But contrary in the Writ of Liberate Habere facias seisinam for in such Writs there is not such clause and therefore if such Writs be not returned the Execution done by virtue of them is good enough And see 11 H. 4. 121. If the Sheriff by force of an Elegit delivers to the party the moiety of the Land of the Defendant and doth not return the Writ if now the Plaintiff will bring an Action of Debt de Novo the Defendant may plead in Bar the Execution aforesaid although the Writ of Execution were not returned and yet the Execution is not upon the Record And see the case there put by Hankford And it is not like to the case of Partition made by the Sheriff the same ought to be returned because that after the return thereof a new and secondary Iudgment is to be given i. Quod partitio praedicta firma stabilis maneat in perpetuum firma stabilis in perpetuum teneatur see the Book of Entries 114. And Egerton Solicitor cited a case lately adjudged betwixt the Earl of Leicester and the Widow Tanfeild Earl of Leicester and Tanfeilds Case That such Execution without return was good enough Another matter was moved Admit that here be a good Execution if now the Executors being in possession of the said Manor by force of that Execution and permitting and suffering the Conusor to hold a Court there in the Manor-house and saying in his presence the words aforesaid if the same doth amount to a Surrender by the Executors to the said Conusor Surrender or not And Wray chief Iustice said That here upon this matter is not any Surrender for here the words are not addressed to the said Conusor who is capable of a Surrender nor to any person certain And it is not like to the case of 40 E. 3. 23 24. Chamberlains Assize where Tenant for life saith to him in the Reversion That his will is that he enter the same is a good Surrender for there is a person certain who can take it but contrary in this case for here it is but a general speech It was adjorned CCCLXXIX Baskervile and the Bishop of Herefords Case Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Quare Impedit IN a Quare Impedit by Walter Baskervile against the Bishop of Hereford c. The Plaintiff counted That Sir Nicholas Arnold was seised of the Advowson as in gross and granted the same to the said Baskervile and others to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of Richard Arnold his Son in tail Proviso That if the said Nicholas die the said Richard being within age of twenty three years that then the Grantees and their Heirs shall be seised to them and their Heirs until the said Richard hath accomplished the said age Nicholas dieth Richard being of the age of fourteen years by force of which the Grantees were possessed of the said Advowson and afterwards the Church became void and so it belonged to them to present And Exception was taken to the Count because the Plaintiff had not averred the life of Richard upon whose life the Interest of the Plaintiffs doth depend Averment And Gawdy Serjeant likened it to the Case of the Parson which hath been adjudged That where the Lessee of a Parson brought an Ejectione firmae and it was found for him and in arrest of Iudgment exception was taken to the Declaration because that the life of the Parson was not averred and for that cause Iudgment was stayed Anderson chief Iustice Vpon the dying of Sir Nicholas Rich being but of the age of fourteen years an absolute Interest for nine years vests determinable upon the death of Richard or rather they are seised in fee determinable upon the coming of Richard to the age of twenty three years Rhodes and Windham contrary That here is an Interest in the Grantees determinable upon the death of Richard within the Term for if Richard dieth without issue within the Term the Remainder is limited over to a stranger And as to the Exception to the Count Dyer 304. â— 2 Cro. 622 637. 10 Co. 59. it was argued by Puckering Serjeant that the Count was good enough for although the life of Richard be not expresly averred yet such averment is strongly implied and so supplied For the Count is That dictus Nicholas obiit dicto Ric. being of the age of fourteen years non amplius by force of which the Plaintiff was possessed of the said Advowson quo quidem sic possessionato existente the Church became void and possessed he could not be if the said Richard had not been then alive and the same is as strong as an Averment See 10 E. 4. 18. In Trespass for breaking his Close the Defendant pleads That A. was seised and did enfeoff him to which the Plaintiff said That long time before A. had any thing B. was seised and leased to the said A. at will who enfeoffed the Defendant upon which B. did re-enter and leased to the Plaintiff at will by force of which he was possessed until the Defendant did the Trespass and the same was allowed to be a good Replication without averring the life of B. who leased to the Plaintiff at will for that is implied by the words i. Virtute cujus 1 Cro. 766. the Plaintiff was possessed until the Defendant did the Trespass And see also 10 H. 7. 12. in an Assize of Common The Plaintiff makes title that he was seised of a Messuage and of a Carve of Land to which he and all those whose estate c. have had Common appendant c. And doth not say that he is now seised of the Messuage But this Exception was disallowed by the Court for seisin shall be intended to continue until the contrary be shewed It was adjorned CCCLXXX Caries Case Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN an Information in the Exchequer by the Queen against Cary Tithes More Rep. 222. the Case was this A man grants situm Rectoriae cum decimis eidem pertinent Habend situm praedict cum suis pertinentiis for twenty years the first Grantee dieth within the Term.
If now because the Tithes are not expresly named in the Habendum the Grantee shall have them for life only was the Question It was moved by Popham Attorney General That the Grantee had the Tithes but for life and to that purpose he cited a Case adjudged 6 Eliz. in the Common Pleas A man grants black Acre and white Acre Habendum black Acre for life nothing of white Acre shall pass but at will and in the argument of that case Anthony Browne put this case Queen Mary granted to Rochester such several Offices and shewed them specially Habendum two of them and shewed which in certain for forty years It was adjudged that the two Offices which were not mentioned in the Habendum were to Rochester but for life and determined by his death And so he said in this Case The Tithes not mentioned in the Habendum shall be to the Grantee for life and then he dying his Executors taking the Tithes are Intrudors But as to that It was said by Manwood chief Baron That the cases are not alike for the Grants in the cases cited are several intire and distinct things which do not depend the one upon the other but are in gross by themselves But in our Cases The Tithes are parcel of the Rectory and therefore for the nearness betwixt them i. the Rectory and the Tithes the Tithes upon the matter pass together with the site of the Rectory for the term of twenty years and Iudgment was afterwards given accordingly CCCLXXXI The Lord Darcy and Sharpes Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas Mich. 27 28 Rot. 2432. Debt THomas Lord Darcy Executor of John Lord Darcy brought Debt upon a Bond against Sharpe who pleaded that the Condition of the Bond was That if the said Sharpe did perform all the Covenants c. contained within a pair of Indentures c. By which Indentures the said John Lord Darcy had sold to the said Sharpe certain Trees growing c. And by the same Indentures Sharpe had covenanted to cut down the said Trees before the seventh of August 1684. and shewed further That after the sealing and delivery of the said Indenture the said Lord Darcy now Plaintiff Razure of Deeds 11 Co. 27. caused and procured I. S. to raze the Indenture quod penes praedict Querentem remanebat and of 1684. to make it 1685. and so the said Indenture become void And the opinion of the whole Court was clear against the Defendant for the razure is in a place not material and also the razure trencheth to the advantage of the Defendant himself who pleads it and if the Indenture had become void by the razure the Obligation had been single and without Defeasance CCCLXXXII Rollston and Chambers Case Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Costs where Damages are given 2 Len. 52. ROllston brought an Action of Trespass upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. of forcible Entry against Chambers and upon Issue joyned it was found for the Plaintiff and Damages assessed by the Iury and costs of suit also and costs also de incremento were adjudged And all were trebled in the Iudgment with this purclose quae quidem damna in toto se attingunt ad c. and all by the name of Damages It was objected against this Iudgment that where damages are trebled no costs shall be given as in Wast c. But it was clearly agreed by the whole Court That not only the costs assessed by the Iury but also those which were adjudged de incremento should be trebled and so were all the Presidents as was affirmed by all the Prothonotaries and so are many Books 19 H. 6. 32. 14 H. 6. 13. 22 H. 6. 57. 12 E. 4. 1. And Book of Entries 334. and Iudgment was given accordingly And in this case it was agreed by all the Iustices That the party so convicted of the force at the suit of the party should be fined notwithstanding that he was fined before upon Indictment for the same force CCCLXXXIII Jennor and Hardies Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Intrat Trin. 27 Eliz. Rot. 1606. THe Case was Lands were devised to one Edith for life upon condition that she should not marry and if she died or married Devises that then the Land should remain to A. in tail and if A. died without Issue of his body in the life of Edith that then the Land should remain to the said Edith to dispose thereof at her pleasure And if the said A. did survive the said Edith that then the Lands should be divided betwixt the Sisters of the Devisor A. died without Issue living Edith Shutleworth Serjeant Edith hath but for life and yet he granted That if Lands be devised to one to dispose at his will and pleasure without more saying That the Devisee hath a Fee-simple but otherwise it is when those words are qualified and restrained by special Limitation As 15 H. 7. 12. A man deviseth that A. Goldsb 135. Shepherds Touch-stone 439. shall have his Lands in perpetuum during his life he hath but an estate for life for the words During his life do abridge the Interest given before And 22 Eliz. one deviseth Lands to another for life to dispose at his will and pleasure he hath but an estate for life And these words If A. dieth without Issue in the life of Edith That then the Lands should remain to Edith to dispose at her pleasure shall not be construed to give to Edith a Fee-simple but to discharge the particular estate of the danger penalty and loss which after might come by her marriage so as now it is in her liberty And also he said That by the Limitation of the latter Remainder i. That the Lands should be divided betwixt the Daughters of his Sister the meaning of the Devisor was not that Edith should have a Fee-simple for the Remainder is not limited to her Heirs c. if A. dieth in the life of the said Edith for the Devisor goeth further That if A. overlives Edith and afterwards dieth without Issue that the said Land should be divided c. Walmesley contrary And he relyed much upon the words of the Limitation of the Remainder to Edith Quod integra remaneat dictae Edithae and that she might dispose thereof at her pleasure Ante 156. for the said division is limited to be upon a Contingent i. if A. survive Edith but if Edith survive A. then his intent is not that the Lands should be divided c. but that they shall wholly remain to Edith which was granted by the whole Court and the Iustices did rely much upon the same reason and they were very clear of opinion That by those words Edith had a Fee-simple And Iudgment was given accordingly Anderson conceived That it was a Condition but although that it be a Condition so as it may be doubted if a Remainder might be limited upon a Condition yet this devise is as
word Children a good name of purchase But the whole Court was against that conceit for these words in the case At the Assignment of Friendship are not void but shew what person should take if the intent of the party should take effect i. he who the Father by Assignment should enable for no Child shall take but he who the Father shall assign that is part of the contract and although by such Assignment no title accrues to the Child assigned yet without Assignment no Child is capable for by the Lease the Father hath such Liberty that he may assign what Child he will And by Wray If the words of the Lease had been at the assignment of the Father within one month and the Father surcease his month Antea 275. the Interest should not vest in any of the Children And by Ayliff Iustice If the words of the Lease had been to the Husband and wife and their Son John where his name is William nothing should vest And peradventure in this case at the Bar if the Father had assigned his Son then born and had assigned him before or at the time of the Lease i. the delivery of the Lease it had been well enough Note that this Action was brought by Cole Lessee of the Son of the Husband and VVife born at the time of the Lease made And afterwards Wray with the assent of all the rest of the Iustices gave Iudgment that the Plaintiff Nihil capiat per Billam CCCXCII Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Execution where joynt where several NOte It was agreed by the whole Court and affirmed by the Clerks That if Debt be brought upon an Obligation against two upon a joynt Praecipe and the Plaintiff hath judgment to recover that a joynt Execution ought to be sued against them both But if the suit were by one Original and several Praecipes execution might be sued against any of them CCCXCIII Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Replevin IN a Replevin The Defendant doth avow for Damage Feasant and shewed that the Lady Jermingham was seised of such a Mannor whereof c. and leased the same to the Defendant for years c. The Plaintiff said That long befor King H. 8. was seised of the said Manor and that the place where is parcel of the said Manor demised and demisable by copy c. and the said King by his Steward demised and granted the said parcel to the Ancestor of the Plaintiff whose Heir he is by copy in fee c. upon which it was demurred because by this Bar to the Avowry the Lease set forth in the Avowry is not answered for the Plaintiff in the Bar to the Avowry ought to have concluded and so was seised by the custom until the Avowant praetextu of the said Term for years entred And so it was adjudged CCCXCIV The Lord Dacres Case Trin. 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Ante 227. Stewardship of a Manor Office of Trust Grants per Copy Deputy Steward IN Ejectione firmae the case was That the Lord Dacres was seised of the Manor of Eversham and that I.S. held the place where of the said Manor by copy for term of his life and the said Lord granted the Stewardship of the said Manor to the now Marquess of Winchester who appointed one Chedle to be his Deputy to keep a court ad traden dum the said Lands I.S. being now dead to one Wilkins by copy for life afterwards the said Chedle commanded one Hardy his Servant to keep the said court and grant the said Land by copy ut supra which was done accordingly the copy was entred and the Lord Dacres subsigned it confirmed it It was further found That Hardy had many times kept the said court both before and after and that the custom of the Manor was that the Steward of the said Manor for the time being or his Deputy might take Surrenders 1 Co. 48. 49. and grant estates by copy And if this estate so granted by Hardy were good or not was the question because by the Servant of the Deputy whereas the custom found did not extend further than the Deputy It was argued that the estate granted ut supra was void for a Deputy cannot transfer his authority over for it is an office of trust See 39 H. 6. 33 34. 14 E. 4. 1. and 6 Eliz. it was adjudged That the Duke of Somerset had divers Stewards of his Lands and they in the name of the said Duke made diverse Leases of the Lands of the said Duke rendring Rent and the Duke afterwards assented to the said Leases and received the Rents reserved upon them and yet after the death of the said Duke the Earl of Hertford his Son and Heir avoided them So here the assent and the subsignment of the copy by the Lord Dacres doth not give any strength to the copy which was void at the beginning against which it was said That to take a Surrender and to grant an Estate by copy is not any judicial Act but meerly an Act of service and no matter of trust is transferred to Hardy for trust is reposed in him who may deceive which can't be in our Case for here is an express commandment which if Hardy transgress it is absolute void for nothing is left to his discretion And the admitting of a Copy-holder is not any judicial Act for there need not be any of the Suitors there who are the Iudges And such a Court may be holden out of the Precinct of the Manor for no Pleas are holden which was concessum per totam Curiam And by Ayliff Iustice If the Lord of such a Manor makes a Feoffment of a parcel of his Manor which is holden by copy for life and afterwards the Copy-holder dyeth although now the Lord hath not any Court yet the Feoffee may grant over the Land by copy again And the whole Court was clear of opinion That the grant for the manner of it was good especially because the Lord Dacres agreed to it And Iudgment was given accordingly CCCXCV Burgesse and Fosters Case Trin. 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Ejectione firmae the case was 1 Cro. 48 49. That the Dean and Chapter of Ely were seised of the Manor of Sutton whereof the place where c. is parcel demised and demisable by copy according to the custom and by their Deed granted the Stewardship of the said Manor to one Adams to execute the said office per se vel legitimum suum Deputatum eis acceptabilem Surrenders Afterwards Adams made a Letter of Deputation to one Mariot ad capiendum unum sursum redditionem of one I. W. and I. his Wife and to examine the said I. aforesaid ea intentione that the said I.W. and A. might take back an estate for their lives the Remainder over to one John Buck in Fee Note the Surrender ought be de duobus Messuagiis Mariot took two several
Recovery against Massey Error And in the said Recovery four Husbands and their VVives were vouched and now the Plaintiff brought this Writ of Error as heir to one of the Husbands and Exception was taken to his Writ because the Plaintiff doth not make himself heir to the Survivor of the four Husbands Egerton The Writ is good enough for there is a difference betwixt a Covenant personal and a Covenant real for if two be bound to warranty and the one dyeth the Survivor and the heir of the other shall be vouched and he said each of the four and their heirs are charged and then the heir of each of them being chargeable the heir of any of them may have a Writ of Error And afterwards the Writ of Error was adjudged good Ante 86. And Error was assigned because the Vouchees appeared the same day that they were vouched by Attorney which they ought not to do by Law but they might appear gratis the first day without Proces in their proper persons and so at the sequatur sub suo periculo See 13 E. 3. Attorn 74. and 8 E. 2. ib. 101. Another Error was assigned Because the Entry of the warrant of Attorney for one of the Vouchees is po lo. suo I.D. against the Tenant where it should be against the Demandant for presently when the Vouchee entreth into the warranty he is Tenant in Law to the Demandant Coke As to the first Error Although he cannot appear by Attorney yet when the Court hath admitted his appearance by Attorney the same is well enough and is not Error As to the other Error I confess it to be Error but we hope that the Court will have great consideration of this case as to that Error for there are one hundred Recoveries erronious in this point if it may be called an Error And then we hope to avoid such a general mischief that the Court will consider and dispense with the rigor of the Law As their Predecessors did 39 H. 6. 30. In the Writ of Mesne But I conceive That the Writ of Error is not well brought for the Voucher in the said Recovery is of four Husbands and their Wives and when Voucher shall be intended to be in the right of their Wives which see 20 H. 7. 1. b. 46 E. 3. 28. 29 E. 3. 49. And so by common intendment the Voucher shall be construed in respect of the Wife So also the Plaintiff here ought to entitle himself to this Writ of Error as heir to the Wife And for this cause The Plaintiff relinquished his VVrit of Error And afterwards he brought a new VVrit and entituled himself as heir to the wife CCCXCIX The Queen and the Dean of Christchurch Case Mich. 26 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Praemunire 3 Len. 139. THe Queens Attorney General brought and prosecuted a Praemunire for the Queen and Parret against Doctor Matthew Dean of Christ-church in Oxford and others because they did procure the said Parret to be sued in the City of Oxford before the Commissary there in an Action of Trespass by Libel according to the Ecclesiastical Law in which suit Parret pleaded Son Franktenement and so to the Iurisdiction of the Court and yet they did proceed and Parret was condemned and imprisoned And after that suit depended The Queens Attorney withdrew the suit for the Queen And it was moved If notwithstanding that the party grieved might proceed See 7 E. 4. 2. b. The King shall have Praemuire and the party grieved his Action See Br. Praemunire 13. And by Brook none can have Praemunire but the King Coke There is a President in the Book of Entries 427. In a Praemunire the words are ad respondendum tam Domino Regi quam R.F. and that upon the Statute of 16 R. 2. and ib. 428 429. Ad respondendum tam Domino Regi de contemptu quam dict A. B. de damnis But it was holden by the whole Court That if the Kings Attorney will not further prosecute the party grieved cannot maintain this suit for the principal matter in the Praemunire is The conviction and the putting of the party out of the protection of the King and the damages are but accessary and then the principal being released the damages are gone And also it was holden by the Court That the Presidents in the Book of Entries are not to be regarded and there is not any Iudgment upon any of the pleadings there but are good directions for pleadings and not otherwise CCCC Mich. 26 27. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Fines levied 1 Cro. 35. THe Case was A. gave Lands in tail to B. upon condition That if the Donee or any of his heirs alien or discontinue c. the Land or any part of it that then the Donor do re-enter The Donee hath issue two Daughters and dieth One of the two Daughters levieth a Fine Sur Conusans de droit come ceo Forfeiture to her Sister Heale Serjeant the Donor may enter for although the Sisters to many intents are but one Heir yet in truth they are several Heirs and each of them shall sue Livery 17 E. 3. If one of the Sisters be discharged by the Lord the Lord shall lose the Wardship of her and yet the Heir is not discharged And if every Sister be heir to diverse respects then the Fine by the one Sister is a cause of Forfeiture Harris contrary For conditions which go in defeating of estates shall be taken shortly Conditions and here both the Sisters are one Heir and therefore the discontinuance by the one is not the Act of the other Clench Iustice The words are Or any of his heirs therefore it is a forfeiture quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam And Iudgment was given accordingly CCCCI Mich. 26 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was Assumpsit Hutt Rep. 34. Hob. 284. A Woman seised of a Rent-charge for life took Husband the Rent was arrear the wife died the Tenant of the Land charged promised to pay the Rent in consideration that the Rent was behind c and some were of opinion Because that this Rent is due and payable by a Deed that this Action of the Case upon Assumpsit will not lye no more than if the Obligor will promise to the Obligee to pay the mony due by the Obligation 3 Cro. 5. an Action doth not lye upon the Promise but upon the Obligation But it was holden by the whole Court That the Action did well lye for here the Husband had remedy by the Statute of 32 H. 8. And then the consideration is sufficient and so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCCII. Williams and Blowers Case Hill. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. REignold Williams and John Powell brought a Writ of Error against the Bishop of Hereford and Blower Error upon a Recovery had in a Writ of Disceit by the said Bishop and Blower against the said
Southcotes case Southcotes case So a Title of Cessavit in the Feoffees shall be executed by the Statute So if the King grants to the Feoffees in use a Fair Market or Warren these things shall be executed by the Statute Clerentius case as it was holden in the Case of Clarentius As to the Condition they conceived That it is broken for where the Devisor had allowed to the Devisee to discontinue for life to make a Ioynture to his Wife now he hath exceeded his allowance for he might have made a Ioynture to his wife indefeisable by Fine upon a Grant upon a Render for life c. But this Fine with the Proclamations is a Bar to the former entail which was created by the Devise and hath created a new entail and the former tail was barred by the Fine against the intent of the Devisor Also by this Fine he hath created a new Remainder so as his Issue inheritable to his new entail might alien and be unpunished which was against the meaning of the Devisor And as to the Lease for lives to the Defendants the same is not any breach of the Condition for that is warranted by the Statute of 32 H. 8. which enables Tenant in tail to make such a Lease so as it cannot be said Discontinuance which Anderson and Periam granted But the Fine levied after is a breach of the Condition and then the Re-entry upon the Lessees who have their estates under the Condition is lawful As where the wife of the Feoffee upon Condition is endowed and afterwards the Condition is broken now by the Re-entry of the Feoffor the Dower is defeated And Shutleworth put this case A Feoffment is made upon Condition that the Feoffee shall lease the Lands to A. for life and afterwards grant the Reversion to B. in Fee the Feoffor may re-enter for by this Conveyance he in the Reversion is immediate Tenant to the Lord where by the intended assurance the particular Tenant ought to be Puckering Fenner and Walmesley contrary And by Walmesley By this devise the use only passeth and not the Land it self for the Statute of 1 R. 3. extends only to Acts executed in the life of Cestuy que use and not to devises which are not executed till after the death of the Devisor which see 4 Ma. Dyer 143. Trivilians case See also 6 E. 6. Dyer 74. The Lord Bourchiers case but 10 H. 7. Cestuy que use deviseth That his Executors shall sell the Land now by the sale of the Land in possession for the same is in a manner an Act in his life for the Vendee is in by Cestuy que use and here is a Condition and not a Limitation for the nature of a Condition is to draw back the estate to the Feoffor Donor or Lessor but a Limitation carrieth the estate further And he conceived That the Condition is not broken by this Act for the intent of the Devisor is pursued for his meaning was That the wife should have a Ioynture indefeisable against the issue in tail and that the inheritance should be preserved that both should be observed And he said that this Fine being levied by him in the Reversion upon an estate for life is not any discontinuance but yet shall bar the estate Tail. And the Iustices were clear of opinion that the Condition is broken and also that the intent of the Condition is broken for it might be that Charles had issue by a former wife which by this Fine should be disinherited and a new Entail set on foot against the meaning of the Devisor c. and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCCX Simmes and Wescots Case Hill. 31 Eliz. Rot. 355. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 147. That in consideration that he would marry the Defendants Daughter the Defendant promised to give him 20 l. and also to procure him all the Corn growing upon such Lands and to provide necessaries for the wedding dinner the Defendant did confess the communication betwixt them and that he promised to give the Plaintiff 20 l. so as he would procure a Lease of certain Lands to his Daughter for her life absque hoc that he promised modo forma The Iury found the promise of the 20 l. but not any other thing it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Assumpsit whereof the Plaintiff hath declared although it consist of divers things yet it is entire and if the whole is not found nothing is found and the Case of 21 E. 4. 22. was cited touching variance of Contract as where an Action of Debt is brought upon a Contract of a Horse and the Iury found a Contract for two Horses the Plaintiff shall never have Iudgment On the other side it was said That the Plaintiff shall recouer damages for the whole that is found i. for the 20 l. See 32 H. 8. Br. Issue 90. In an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant did promise to deliver four Woollen-cloaths the Defendant pleaded That he did promise to deliver four Linnen-cloaths absque hoc that he promised c. the Iury found That the Defendant did promise to deliver two Woollen-cloaths and the Plaintiff did recover damages for the two So in Wast the Wast is assigned in succidendo 20 Oaks upon which they are at Issue the Iury find but ten Oaks the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment for so much and shall be amerced for the residue Gawdy Iustice Here are several Assumpstis in Law as Br. 5. Ma. Action sur le Case 108. a man in consideration of a Marriage assumes to pay 20 l. per Annum for four years two years incur the party brings an Action upon the Case for the arrearages of the two years Wray In an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff ought not to vary from his Case as if a promise be grounded upon two considerations Ragula and in an action upon it the Plaintiff declares upon one only he shall never have Iudgment and here the Iury have not found the same promise Clench If promise be made to deliver a Horse and a Cow and the Horse is delivered but not the Cow the party shall have an Action for the Cow but he shall declare upon the whole matter and afterwards Iudgment was given quod querens nihil capiat per billam CCCCXI Stile and Millers Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Tithes 1 Cro. 161 578. 11 Co 13. A Parson Leased all his Glebe Lands for years with all the profits and commodities rendring 13 s. 4 d. pro omnibus exaction ibus demandis and afterwards libelled in the Spiritual Court against his Lessees for the Tithes thereof the Lessee obtained a Prohibition See 32 H. 8. Br. Dis 17. 8 E. 2. Avowry 212. Wray Tithes are not things issuing out of Lands nor any secular duty but spiritual and if the Parson doth release to
his Parishioner all demands in his Lands his Tithes thereby are not extinct and afterwards a Consultation was granted CCCCXII Lee and Curetons Case Trin. 31 Eliz. Rot. 902. In the Kings Bench. Debt 1 Cro. 153. IN Debt upon an Obligation the Defendant pleaded Non est factum and it was found for the Plaintiff and Iudgment given and afterwards the Defendant brought Error and assigned for Error that the Declaration was per scriptum suum obligat Error without saying hic in Guria prolat to which it was answered by Coke that the same was but matter of form for which a Iudgment ought not to be reversed for that the Clark ought to put in without instruction of the party and so it was holden in a case betwixt Barras and King 1 Cro. 768. 778. 3 Cro. 22. M. 29 30 Eliz. Another Error was assigned because the Iudgment is entred de fine nihil quia perdonat where it should be quod capiatur although the Plea were pleaded after the General pardon and for that cause the Iudgment was reversed for if the pardon be not specially pleaded the Court cannot take notice of it as it was holden in Serjeant Harris Case CCCCXIII Lacy and Fishers Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN a Replevin the taking is supposed in S. which Land is holden of the Manor of Esthall the Defendant made Conusans as Bailiff of the Lord of the Manor aforesaid and issue was taken upon the Tenure Trial. and it was tryed by a Iury out of the Visne of Esthall only Tanfield The trial is good for the issue ought not to have been tried by both Visnes S. and Esthall for two things are in issue If it be holden or not 2. If it be holden of the Manor of Esthall for which cause the Visne ought to be from both places and the opinion of the Court was That for the manner of it it was not good as if an issue be joyned upon common for cause of vicinage it shall be tried by both Towns See 39 H. 6. 31. by Littleton and Danby and the case in 21 E. 3. 12. was cited in a per quae servitia the Mannor was in one county and the Lands holden in another county the Tenant pleaded that he did not hold of the Conusor and that he was tried by a Iury of the County where the Land was See 2 H. 4. Gawdy denied the Book cited of 21 E. 3. to be Law and the reason wherefore the Visne shall come from both places is because it is most likely that both the Visnes may better know the truth of the matter than the one only Another Exception was taken Exposition of Stat. 21. H. 8. cap. 19. because the Conusans as it seems is made according to the Statute of 21 H. 8. 19. and yet the party doth not pursue the said Statute through the whole Conusans for by the Statute in Avowry or Conusans the party needs not to name any person certain to be Tenant to the Land c. nor to make Avowty or Conusans upon any person certain and now in this Conusans he hath not made Conusance upon any person certain but yet he hath named a person certain to be Tenant c. and in as much as this Conusans is not made either according to the Common-Law or according to the Statute it cannot be good But that Exception was dissallowed by the Court for if the Statute remedieth two things it remedieth one and the Conusance made in form as above was well enough by the opinion of the whole Court. CCCCXIV Diersly and Nevels Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass the Defendant pleaded Not-guilty 2 Roll. 682. and if he might give in evidence That at the time of the Trespass the Freehold was to such an one and he as his servant and by his Commandment entred was the question and it was said by Coke That the same might so be well enough and so it was adjudged in Trivilians Case for if he by whose commandment he entreth hath Right at the same instant that the Defendant entreth the Right is in the other by reason whereof he is not guilty as to the Defendant and Iudgment was given accordingly CCCCXV. Savage and Knights Case Mich. 29 and 30 Eliz. Rot. 546. In the Kings Bench. Error Ante 185. 1 Cro. 106. 2 Cro. 109. 654. Sty 91. Yelv. 164. Sty 115. A Writ of Error was brought upon a Iudgment given in Leicester in Debt Tanfield assigned for Error because in that suit there was not any Plaint for in all inferior Courts the Plaint is as the Original at the Common Law and without that no Process can issue and here upon this Record nothing is entred but only that the Defendant summonitus fuit c. and the first Entrie ought to be A. B. queritur versus C c. Clench Iustice a Plaint ought to be entred before Process issueth forth and this Summons which is entred here is not any Plaint and for that Cause the Iudgment was reversed CCCCXVI Rawlins Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trespass for breaking his Close by Rawlins with a continuando It was moved by Coke that the Plaintiff needed not to shew a Regress to have Damages for the continuance of the first Entry scil for the mean profits and that appears by common experience at this day Gawdy Iustice whatsoever the experience be I well know that our books are contrary and that without an Entry he shall not have damages for the continuance if not in case where the Term or estate of the Plaintiff in the Land be determined and to such opinion of Gawdy the whole Court did incline but they did not resolve the point because a Regress was proved See 20 H. 6. 15. 38 H. 6. 27. CCCCXVII Harris and Bakers Case Trin. 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Accompt Damages 3 Len. 192. Collet and Andrews Case 2 Len. 118. 3 Len 149. IN an accompt damages were given by the Iury and it was moved that damages ought not to have been given by way of damages but the damages of the Plaintiff shall be considered by way of Arrearages but see the Case H. 29 Eliz. in the Common Pleas betwixt Collet and Andrews and see 10 H. 6 18. In Accompt the Plaintiff shall count to his damage but shall not recover damages vide 2. H. 7. 13. 21 H. 6. 26. The Plaintiff shall not recover damages expresly but the Court shall adâ— quoddam incromentum to the Arrearages Coke It hath been adjudged that the Plaintiff shall recover damages ratione implicationis non Retentionis CCCCXVIII Mich. 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe words of the Statute 32 H. 8. cap. 37. of Rents are that the Executor of a Grantee of a Rent-charge may distrain for the arrearages of the said Rent incurred in the life of the Testator so long as the Land charged doth continue in
the Seisin or possession of the Tenant in Demesn who ought immediately to have paid the said Rent so behind to the Testator in his life or in the Seisin or possession of any other person or persons claiming the said Lands only by and from the said Tenant by Purchase Gift or Discent in like manner as the Testator might or ought to have done in his life time And now it was moved to the Court. If A. grant a Rent-charge to B. the Rent is behind B. dyeth A. infeoffeth C. of the Lands in Fee who diverse years after infeoffeth D. who divers years after infeoffeth E. It was holden by Walmesey Periam and Windham Iustice against Anderson Lord chief Iustice that E. should be chargeable with the said arrearages to the Executors of A. But they all agreed That the Lord by Escheat Tenant in Dower or by the curtesie should not be charged for they do not claim in by the party only but also by the Law. CCCCXIX Wigot and Clarks Case Hill. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Writ of Right by Wigot against Clark for the Mannor of D. in the County of Glocester the four Knights gladiis cincti did appear Writ of Right and took their corporal Oath that they would choose 12 c. ad faciendum magnam Assisam and by direction of the court they withdrew themselves into the Exchequer chamber and there did return in Parchment the names of the Recognitors and also their own names and at the day of the return of the Pannel by them made the 4 Knights and 12 others were sworn to try the issue and it was ordered by the Court That both the parties scil the Demandant and the Tenant or their Attornies attend the said 4 Knights in the Exchequer chamber and to be present at the making of the Pannel so as each of them might have their challenges for after the return of the Pannel no challenge lieth and thereupon the said 4 Knights went from the Bar and within a short time after sitting the Court they returned the Pannel written in Parchment in this form Nomina Recognitorum c. inter A. petentem B. tenentem and so set down their names six other Knights ten Esquires and four Gentlemen and the Iustices did commend them for their good and sufficient Pannel and thereupon a Venire facias was awarded against the said parties CCCCXX Pory and Allens Case Trin. 30 Eliz. Rot. 611. In the Common Pleas. THe case was That Lessee for 30 years leased for 19 years 1 Cro. 173. Owen 97. Post 322 323. Surrender 1 Cro. 302. and then the first Lessee and one B. by Articles in writing made betwixt them did conclude and agree That the Lessee for 19 years should have a Lease for three years in the said Lands and others and that the same should not be any surrender of his first Term to which Articles the said Lessee for 19 years did after agree and assent unto and it was the opinion of all the Iustices of the Court that the same was not any surrender and they also were of opinion That one Termor could not surrender to another Termor CCCCXXI Glanvil ane Mallarys Case Trin. 31 Eliz. Rot. 321. In the Common Pleas. GLanvil was Plaintiff in Audita Querela Audita Querâ—la 1 Cro. 2â—8 against Mallary upon a Statute Staple for that the conusor was within age at the time of the acknowledging of it it was moved for the Defendant that the Court ought not to hold Plea of this matter because there was no Record of the Statute remaining here and therefore by Law he was not compellable to answer it c. and a President was disallowed 5 H. 8. where such a pleading was allowed and judgment given that the Defendant eat sine die Loves Case Dudley and Skinners Case vide 16 Eliz. Dier 332. But on the other side divers presidents were shewed that divers such Writs had been shewed in the Common Pleas as 30 Eliz. Loves case and the Lord Dudley and Skinners case and thereupon it was adjudged that the Action did well lye in this Court. CCCCXXII Pet and Callys Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt IN Debt upon a Bond for performance of covenants the case was I. S. by Indenture covenanted with I.D. that such a woman viz. R.S. at all times at the request and charges of I.D. should make execute and suffer such reasonable assurances of such Lands to the said I.D. or his heirs as the said I. D. or his heirs should reasonably devise or require I.D. devised a Fine to be levied by the said Woman and required her to come before the Iustices of Assise to acknowledge it and the woman came before the said Iustices to that intent and because the said woman at that time was not compos mentis the said Iustices did refuse to take the Conusans of the said Fine and this was averred in the pleading in an Action brought upon the said Bond for performance of Covenants where the breach was assigned in not acknowledging of the said Fine and upon the special matter the party did demur in Law and the opinion of the whole Court was that the condition was not broken for the words are general to make such reasonable assurances which c. but if the words had been special to acknowledge a Fine there if the Iustice doth refuse to take such acknowledgment the Bond is forfeited for the party hath taken upon him that it should be done Wangford and Sextons Case Mich. 22 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Cro. 174. Kel 87. a. THe Plaintiff had recovered against the Defendant in an Action of Debt and had execution The Defendant after the day of the Teste of the Fierifacias and before the Sheriff had medled with the execution of the Writ bona fide for money sold certain goods and chattels and delivered them to the buyers it was holden by the Court that notwithstanding the said Sale that the Sheriff might do execution of those goods in the hands of the buyers Executions for that they are liable to the execution and execution once granted or made shall have relation to the Test of the Writ CCCCXXIV Wilmer and Oldfields Case Trin. 29 Eliz. Rot. 2715. In the Common Pleas. Award IN Debt upon a Bond the Condition was to perform the Award of I. S Antea 140. c. the Arbitrators make Award That the Defendant before such a day shall pay to the Plaintiff 1000 l. or otherwise procure one A. being a stranger to the Bond to be bound to the Obligee for the payment of 12 l. per annum to the Plaintiff for his life the Defendant pleaded the performance of the Award generally the Plaintiff assigned the breach of the Award in this That the said A. had not paid the said 100 l. without speaking of the cause of the award of the 12 l. per annum upon which the
Defendant did demur in Law it was holden by the whole Court that the Replication was good for the Award as to the second point was meerly void as if no such Award at all had been because A. was a stranger to the Award and the submission 1 Cro. 4. but as to the point of the 100 l. the same is good and shall bind the parties and the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover vide 21 E. 475. 18 E. 4. 22 23. CCCCXXV Fabian and Windsors Case Mich. 31 and 32. Eliz. Rot. 814. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass for entring into his house or Inn at Uxbridge Leases 1 Cro. 209. it was found by special verdict That the Plaintiff leased to the Defendant the said house for seven years rendring Rent at the Feasts of the Annunciation of our Lady and Saint Michael c. with condition that if the said Rent shall be behind by the space of ten days c. that it shall be lawful to the Lessor to re-enter And afterward at the Feast of the Annunciation 31 Eliz. the Rent was behind and the tenth day after the Lessor came to the said House a quarter of an hour before the sun setting and demanded the rent in these words I demand three pound ten shillings for a half years rent of this House now due and there continued till the Sun was set but no Rent was paid But note that the Issue was If he came to the House half an hour before Sun set and there continued demanding the half years Rent of the Premises due at the Feast of the Annunciation of our Lady then last past It was moved by Fenner That upon this Verdict the Issue is not found for the Plaintiff i. the Issue was upon the half hour and the quarter part of the hour was found 2. the Issue was If the demand were of the Rent due at the Feast of the Annunciation passed and the Verdict is for Rent due at the time of the demand c. And it was the opinion of Anderson Periam and Walmesley Demand of Rent That as to the first point the Verdict was good enough for the Plaintiff Windham contrary But it was agreed by them all That if in demand of Rent ut supra the Lessor or any on his part doth demand one penny more or less than is due or in his demand doth not shew the certainty of the Rent and the day of payment of it and when it was due the demand is not good Conditions taken strictly for a condition which goes in defeazance of an estate is odious in Law and no re-entry in such Case shall be given unless the demand be precisely and strictly followed CCCCXXV Elmes and Meldcalfes Case Mich. 32. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT was holden for Law by the whole Court 1 Cro. 189. That if one of the witnesses after the Iury are departed from the Bar doth repeat unto the Iury the same Evidence which he gave before and no more That that doth make the Verdict to be void CCCCXXVII Carter and Claycoles Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Leases More 593. 4 Co 76. IN Ejectione firmae by Carter against Claycole the Plaintiff declared upon a Lease made by the Wardens and Fellows of All-souls Colledge 1. July 10 Eliz. And it was found by special Verdict That Overden Warden of the said Colledge and the Fellows c. leased unto the Plaintiff To have and to hold from the Feast of the Annunciation next following to the end of twenty years and made a letter of Attorney to one to enter into the said Manor and to seal and deliver the Deed of the said Lease in their names to the Plaintiff who by force thereof entred into part of the demised Premises and there did seal and deliver the same c. But it was not found that any rent was reserved thereupon And if this Lease were gooâ— Then the Iury found for the Plaintiff but if not then for the Defendant Cooper Serjeant It hath been objected That this Lease being but for twenty years is not warranted by the Statute of 13 Eliz. Cap. 10. For the words of the Statute are Other than for the term of 21 years 5 Cr. 6. as to that It was not the intent of the Statute but only to abridge the great and long Leases heretofore made by Colledges and to limit such Leases to a certain measure of time ut supra for twenty one years or three lives non ultra but on this side as much as they would which was granted by the whole Court Another matter was because it is not found That the due rent was reserved upon the said Lease accustomed yearly rent or more and yet the same is good enough 1 Cro. 707. 708. Post 333. for if the other party will take advantage of such defect he ought to shew the same otherwise it shall be intended because it is found that such Lease was made that it was made according to the Statute For if a man is to make title to himself by a conditional Lease he is not to plead the condition but only the Lease and if the other party will defeat the Lease by the Condition he shall shew the same And in this Case The Defendant also ought to have shewed the Statute by which such defective Leases are made void Also it hath been objected That by the Statute of 18 Eliz. the third part of the Rent ought to be reserved in Corn and here is not found any Corn as to that It is to be considered that the said Statute is not a general Law Special Statutes ought to be pleaded whereof the Iudges are bounden to take notice but it ought to be pleaded for it extends but to four places viz. Cambridge Oxford Winchester and Eaton and therefore such a Statute ought to be pleaded or given in Evidence and found by Verdict As where a man pleads a general pardon in which divers persons are excepted he ought to plead it specially and shew that he is not any of the persons excepted 8 E. 4. 7. 28 H. 7. So special customs ought to be pleaded Gavelkind Borough-English 21 E. 4. 55. 36. The King grants to the Citizens of Norwich c. And afterwards by Act of Parliament all their Liberties c. are confirmed by a general confirmation to all Cities and Boroughs this is a special Act and ought to be pleaded by Brian 59 13 E. 4. 8. The Lord Saies case an Act of Parliament That all Corporations made by the King H. 6. shall be void is a special Act and ought to be pleaded And see 28 H. 8. 27. 28. Dyer If the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. Of Lands taken to Form by Ecclesiastical persons be a special Law Yelverton contrary The Statute of 13 Eliz. is a special Law and ought to be pleaded but the Statute of 13 Eliz. is now a general Law which see Hollands
the other side there the Descent is traversable and not the dying seised and that was the Case betwixt Vernon and Gray Vernon and Grays Case In an Avowry Vernon conveyed the Lands from the Lord Powes to him as next Heir to him because the Lord Powes died seised in his Demesn as of Fee without issue and the Plaintiff conveyed from the said Lord Powes by Devise and traversed the Descent to the Avowant for the dying seised was confessed and avoided by the Devise 22 Eliz. Dyer 366. See 21 H. 7. 31. In Trespass the Defendant saith That T. was seised and died seised and that the Lands descended to him as Son and Heir and that he entred the Plaintiff said That T. was seised and took to wife K. and they had issue the Plaintiff and died seised and the Land descended to him and teaversed the descent to the Defendant and see Sir William Merings Case 14 H. 8. 22 23. But if the parties do not claim by one and the same person or the dying seised be not confessed and avoided there the dying seised shall be traversed and not the descent Glanvil Serjeant Be the Bar insufficient or not if the Declaration be not sufficient the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment and here is not any breach of Covenant viz. that the Plaintiff shall enjoy it without any lawful impediment of the Defendant his Heirs or Assigns or any claiming by Marland and then if the Heir of Marland cannot make any lawful claim then there is not any breach of Covenant assigned and he said because it is not shewed that the Land is not holden in Socage the Devise is not good for it may be that the Land is holden in Capite but admit the Devise good that when Andrews bargains and sells unto Marland and the Tenant never attorns then nothing passeth and then the Heir of Marland cannot make any lawful claim or lawful impediment Periam Iustice Here Marland was assignee of Andrews and if he or his heirs make claim although that the assignment be not sufficient in Law yet because he hath colour by this assignment his claim is lawful and so there is a breach of the Covenant and although it is not alledged that the Land devised is holden in Socage yet the Devise is good for two parts of the Land. Anderson Iustice If it be good but for two parts then is the Reversion apportioned and the Rent destroyed and so Marland hath not any Rent by his purchase of the Reversion and so he can't lawfully disturb the Plaintiff The Law doth create his apportionment which grows by the Devise and therefore the Rent shall not be destroyed but if it had been done by the Act of the party it had been otherwise and I would willingly hear if the Heir of Marland be assignee of Andrews for otherwise he is not within the words of the Covenant for Marland hath an estate to him and his heirs for the life of another Now after the death of Marland his heir is a special occupant and vide H. 26 Eliz. Rot. 560. in the Common Pleas such an Heir shall not have his age CCCCXXX Oglethorpe and Hides Case Pasch 33 liz In the Common Pleas. IN Debt upon a Bond for the performance of Covenants Debt it was holden by the whole Court That if the Defendant pleaded generally the performance of the Covenants and the Plaintiff doth demur generally upon it without shewing cause of Demurrer Iudgment shall be given according to the truth of the cause for that default in pleading is but matter of form and is aided by the Statute of 27 Eliz. But if any of the Covenants be in the disjunctive so as it is in the Election of the Covenantor to do the one or the other then it ought to be specially pleaded and the performance of it for otherwise the Court cannot know what part hath been performed CCCCXXXI Tracy and Ivies Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Dower by Margaret Tracy against Ivie the Case was Dower That John Finch was seised and enfeoffed Shipton and others of two parts of the Lands to the use of himself and the Defendant his then wife and their heirs for ever with Condition That if his said wife did survive him Co. 4. Vernons Case she should pay such sums of mony not exceeding two hundred pounds to such persons which the Feoffor by his last Will should appoint and afterwards he declared his Will and thereby appointed certain sums of mony to be paid to divers persons amounting in the whole to the sum of one hundred and fifty one pounds and by his said Will devised the residue of his Lands to divers of his Kindred having no issue and died The wife married Tracy and they brought Dower against the Devisees who pleaded the Feoffment aforesaid and averred the same was made for the Ioynture of the Demandant And because that no other matter or circumstance was proved to verifie the Averment the Court incited the Iury to find for the Demandant which they did accordingly CCCCXXXII Bond and Richardsons Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Debt upon a Bond Debt 1 Cro. 142. the Condition was to pay a lesser sum such a day and at such a place the Defendant pleaded payment according to the Condition upon which they were at issue And it was found by Verdict That the lesser sum was paid such a day before the day contained in the Condition of the Bond and then received and upon this Verdict Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff for the day is not material nor the place but the payment is the substance CCCCXXXIII Marshes Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Trover had Conversion GOods came to a Feme covert by Trover and she and her Husband did convert them to their own use It was holden per Curiam That the Action upon the Case shall be brought against the Husband and Wife and not against the Husband only for the Action doth sound in Trespass and it is not like unto Detinue for upon a Detainer by the Wife the Action lieth against the Husband only CCCCXXXIV Corbets Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Debt 2 Len. 60. AN Action of Debt was brought by Original Writ against an Administrator in another County than where the Administrator was commorant and before notice of the Suit he paid divers Debts of the Intestate due by specialty and so he had not Assets to pay the Debt in demand having Assets at the day of the Teste of the Original And now Plainment Administred 1 Cro. 793. the Defendant appearing pleaded this special matter and concluded so he had nothing remaining in his hands And it was holden per Curiam to be a good Plea. See 2 H. 4. 21 22. CCCCXXXV Gillam and Lovelaces Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Administration KAtharine Gillam Administratrix of John Gillam brought Ejectione
firmae against Leonard Lovelace and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved for the Defendant in arrest of Iudgment That the Declaration was not good because the granting of Letters of Administration is set forth in this manner viz. Administratio commissa fuit Querenti per Willielmum Lewen Vicarium generalem in spiritualibus Epi. Roff. without averring that at the time of the granting of the Letters of Administration the Bishop was in remotis agendis for a Bishop present in England cannot have Vicarium But as to that it was said by the whole Court That the Vicar general in Spiritualibus amounts to a Chancellor for in truth the Chancellor is Vicar general to the Bishop Another Exception was because the Declaration is not Epi. Roff. loci illius Ordinarii but that was not allowed for all the presidents and course of the Court is That by way of Declaration such allegation needs not but by way of Bar it is necessary Another Exception was taken because the Plaintiff hath declared of an Ejectment and also quod bona catalla ibidem invent cepit c. And here in the Verdict the damages as well for the Ejectment as for the Goods and Chattels are entirely taxed It was adjorned CCCCXXXVI Greeves Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin Replevin the Defendant made Conusans as Bayliff to one Greeves and Rockwood c. and said That A. was seised of the Lands and 6 Eliz. enfeoffed certain persons in fee to the use of his last Will by which he willed that his Feoffees should stand seised of the said Lands Devises Poph. 188. until the said Greeves had levied of the profits of the said Lands the sum of one hundred pounds It was objected against this Conusans that here is no devise for A. at the time of the devise had not any Feoffees but the Exception was disallowed by the Court And they cited the case of 15 Eliz. Dyer 323. Lingens case A. made a Feoffment in fee to his use and afterwards devised that his Feoffees should be seised to the use of his Daughter that the same was a good devise of the Land. See 29 H. 8. Br. Devises 48. CCCCXXXVII Kempton and Coopers Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass for breaking of his Close the Defendant pleaded Bar. 3 Len. 194. that before this he had brought an Ejectione firmae against the now Plaintiff and recovered and had Execution c. Iudgment if Action c. And by Periam Windham and Anderson Iustices the same is a good Bar and the conclusion of the Plea is also good Iudgment if Action without relying upon the Estoppel CCCCXXXVIII Leigh and Okeley and Christmass Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. OLiphe Leigh Fermor of the Queen of a Wood called Meerherst Wood in Warplesden in the County of Surrey brought an Action of Trespass against Henry Okeley and Robert Christmass for breaking of the said Wood and therein entring and cutting down of two hundred loads of Wood and carrying away the same c. The Defendants pleaded That before the time in which the Trespass was supposed c. That King H. 8. was seised of the Manor of Warplesden Custom whereof the said Wood was parcel of which Manor a Close called Withybod containing eleven Acres eidem bosco adjacent was parcel and that the said Wood is and time out of mind c. was closed and separated with Hedges and Ditches from the said eleven Acres which said Hedges and Ditches per totum tempus praedict fuerunt adhuc sunt praedict bosco spectant pertinent And that the said eleven Acres are and time out of mind weâ—â— customary Lands parcel of the Manor aforesaid and demised and demisable in Fee-simple And that the said King H. 8. at a Court holden 38 H. 8. by his Steward demised the said eleven Acres by copy to John Goring and his Heirs and that within the said Manor there is this Custom That every Copyholder Tenant of the said eleven Acres c. hath used and accustomed per se vel servientes suos per eorum praecept succidere capere asportare subboscum in praedict bosco in quo c. pro reparatione praedictarum sepium defensionum inter praedict boscum in quo c. and the said eleven Acres c. quandocunque eaedem sepes defensiones in decasu extiterint and shewed further That at the time of the Trespass c. the said Hedges and Fences were in decay and so justified Vpon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law. It was argued by Godfrey That the Prescription is not good for it appeareth that this customary Land is contigue adjacens to the said Wood i. where the Trespass was done And of common Right the making of the Hedge doth appertain to the Owner of the Wood And the Prescription is no more but to take Wood in the Lands of another adjoyning to my Land to make the Hedges of the same Land in which the Wood groweth which cannot be a good Prescription for it sounds in charge and not to the profit of him who Prescribes Which see 22 E. 3. Prescription 40. Trespass against an Abbot because where the Plaintiff was Farmor of the King of his Hundred of D. and by reason thereof he might make Attachment and distrain for the Debts of the King within the said Hundred and where for a certain debt of the King he distrained the Beasts of one A. and the Abbot made Rescous to which the Abbot said That he was Lord of the Manor of D. within which Manor there was this custom c. That if any Distress be taken within the said Manor that the same should be put into the Pound of the said Abbot of the same Manor and not driven out of the Manor and there ought the Distress to remain three days so that if the party would agree within the three days that then he should have his Beasts and he said That the Plaintiff would have driven the said Beasts out of the said Manor and that he would not suffer him upon which there was a demurrer because it is not any profit to the Abbot but a charge to keep the Beasts of another Also he said That the King shall not be bound by such a custom as another person shall whereupon Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff So here in the principal case There shall be no damage to the Defendant if the Wood be not fenced for if his Cattel escape into the Wood he may justifie it because it is in default of the Plaintiffs inclosure And if the Beasts of the Plaintiff escape into the Lands of the Defendant he may take them Damage Feasant for the cause aforesaid 21 H. 7. 20. A Custom is pleaded That if any Tenants of the Manor shall take the Cattel of any one Damage Feasant and shall therefore distrain them that
Serjeant this case hath been adjudged 16 Eliz. A Lease to three Habendum to the use of the first for life and after to the use of the second for life and after to the use of the third for life the same is good Clench Iustice this proviso follows the Habendum and is a sentence to explain the sentence Wray Shute it is another sentence although it immediately follows the Habendum Clench if the words had been provided that although it be limited ut supra in the Habendum scil the first named shall have the Lands to himself for life c. it had been good by way of Remainder Wray Our case at Bar is not that any person shall take the Remainder but that any of them shall not take the profits during the life of the other Tanfield took exception to the verdict because the life of Pain is not found in the verdict Coke this is a verdict and no pleading and the opinion of the Court was that the verdict was good notwithstanding the said Exception and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCCXLVII Hudson and Leighs Case Mich. 30 31. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Appeal of Maheim 4 Co. 43. RObert Hudson brought an appeal of Mayhem against Robert Leigh for maiming his right hand and for cutting of his veins and sinews which by that means are become dry so as thereby he hath lost the use of his fingers To which the Defendant pleaded that heretofore the Plaintiff had brought against him an Action of Assault and Battery and wounding and therein had Iudgment to recover and Execution was sued forth by Scire facias and satisfaction acknowledged upon Record Damages of 200 Marks assisted by the Iury for the damages and 11 l. 10 s. de incremento by the Court with averment of all identities Cooper Serjeant the same is a good Bar and although that an Appeal and an Action of Trespass are diverse Actions in nature and in many circumstances yet as to the recovery of Damages the one shall bind the other See 38 E. 3. 17. a good case In Trespass for breaking of his Close and Battery the Defendant pleaded that before that the Plaintiff by Bill in the Marshalsey hath recovered his Damages for the same Trespass c. and vouched the Record and the Record was sent the which was varying from the Record pleaded for the Record vouched was only of Battery without any thing of breaking of the Close and also the Battery is taxed at another day c. and with averment yet as to the Battery it was holden good enough with averment and as to the breaking of the Close the Plaintiff had Iudgment See 41 E. 3. brev 548. 12 R. 2. Coronae 110. and the Case betwixt Rider Plaintiff and Cobham Defendant Pasch 19 Eliz. Rot. 74. it was clearly holden and adjudged that after a Recovery in Trespass an Appeal of Maheim doth not lie and the Book which deceives the Plaintiff is 22 E. 3. 82. where it is said by Thorp That notwithstanding Recovery in Appeal of Maheim yet he may after recover in Trespass but Non dicite contra Popham contrary the Plea in Bar is not good for the Averment is that the stroke and the wounding supposed in the Writ of Trespass and in his Appeal of Maheim are all one but it is not averred that any damages were given for the Maheim or that the Maheim was given in Evidence for it might be that there was not any Maheim when the Trespass was brought but that after by the drying of the wound it became a Maheim and then the Action did rise as if a man upon a Contract promiseth to pay me 10 l. at Michaelmas and other 10 l. at Christmas if he doth not pay the 10 l. at Michaelmas I may have an Action upon the promise for the not payment of that 10 l. and afterwards I may have another Action and recover damages for the not payment of the 10 l. at Christmas but if I do not begin any Action before Christmas I cannot recover damages but once for the whole promise and damages shall be given in Evidence and if I be disseised I may recover damages for the first Entry and notwithstanding that I shall have an Assise and if I do reenter I shall have Trespass and recover damages for the mean profits Ante 302. and the damages recovered for the first Entry shall be recouped and the Book cited before Fitz. Coronae 110 doth not make for the Defendant but rather for the Plaintiff for there it is averred that the Maheim was given in Evidence in the Action of Trespass which it is not in our Case Egerton Solicitor we have shewed That succisio venarum in this appeal specified is eadem succisio vulneratio mentioned in the Trespass Coke Although the identity of the wounding and cutting of the veins are averred yet it is not averred that the damages recovered in the Trespass were given for this Maheim Wray chief Iustice The Iurors are to take consideration of the wound in an action of Trespass and to give damages according to the hurt and we ought to think that they have done accordingly and if they have not so done the party may pray that the Court by inspection would adjudge upon it and so increase the damages But now when the Iury hath given great damages scil 200 Marks with which the party hath been contented it should be hard to give the Plaintiff another Action and if there be any such special matter that it was not become a Maheim at the time of the Action of Trespass brought but it is become a Maheim of later time by drying the Plaintiff ought to have shewed the same to the Court and so have helped himself for otherwise it shall not be so intended but that the averment made by the Defendant is good enough to oust the Plaintiff of this Action and the Iudgment cited 19 Eliz. before was given by me after I was constituted chief Iustice and this Bar as I conceive was drawn out of the pleading in 19 Eliz. and afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff CCCCXLVIII Crosman and Reads Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Intermarriage 1 Cro. 114. THe Case was that I.S. made his wife his Excutrix and dyed I. D. being then endebted to the Testator in sixty pounds upon a simple Contract the Wife Executrix took to Husband the said I.D. I.D. made his Executor and dyed a Creditor of I.S. brought an Action of Debt against the Wife Executrix of I.S. and upon the pleading the matter in question was Debt by Executors If by the entermarriage of the wife with the Debtor of the Testator the same was a Devastavit or not And if the said Debt of sixty pounds due by I.D. should be Assets in her hands And per Curiam It is no Devastavit nor Assets as is supposed For the woman may have an
Bench. WIlliam Wade brought an Action of Debt against Presthall the Defendant pleaded That he was attainted of Treason Debt Ante 326. not restored nor pardoned and demanded Iudgment if he should be put to answer upon which the Plaintiff did demur It was argued for the Plaintiff that the Plea is not good for the Defendant shall not take benefit of his own wrong A person attainted gives his goods Plea in disability of himself not aâ—loâ—ed he shall not avoid it A Woman takes a Husband thereby she hath abated her own Writ It is true That a person attainted is a dead man it is so as to himself but not as to others 33 H. 6. a person attainted is murdered his Wife shall have an Appeal so as to all respects he is not dead and although as yet the Plaintiff cannot have any Execution against the Defendant yet here is a possibility to have Execution if the Defendant get his pardon As a man shall have Warrantia Chartae although he be not impleaded and yet cannot have Execution but there is a possibility to have Execution 22 E. 3. 19. A Rent granted to one in Fee upon condition that if the Grantee die his heir within age that the Rent shall cease during the nonage the Grantee dieth his heir within age his Wife brought Dower presently and recovered and yet she cannot have Execution but yet there is a possibility to have Execution viz. upon the full age of the heir Coke contr By his Attainder he hath lost his Goods Lands Life Degree for he is now become Terrae filius and he cannot draw blood from his Father nor afford blood to his Son or his posterity so as he hath neither Ancestor nor Heir and as to the possibility the same is very remote for the Law doth not intend that he shall be pardoned and see 6 H. 4 64. A man committed a Felony and afterwards committed another Felony and after is attainted of one of them he shall not be put to answer to the other but if he obtain his Charter of pardon he shall answer to the other See also 10 H. 4. 227. tit Coronae Popham Attorney General The Defendant ought to answer for none shall have advantage of his own wrong The Plaintiff is made a Knight pendant the Writ it shall abate because his own Act but here Treasons are so heinous that none shall have ease benefit or discharge thereby And if the Defendant shall not be put to answer until he hath his pardon then the Action is now suspended and an Action personal once suspended is gone for ever and he cited 29 E. 3. 61. in the Book of Assizes where it is said by Sharp Execution upon a Statute may be sued against a man attainted and he said Execution against a person Attainted That if the Enemy of the King comes into England and becomes bounden to a Subject in twenty pounds he shall be put to answer notwithstanding that interest that the King hath in him Harris Serjeant to the same intent he conceived by 33 H. 6. 1. That Traitors are to answer for if Traitors break the Goal the Goaler shall answer for their escape for the Goaler hath remedy against them contrary of the Kings Enemies Burchets Case and he cited the case of one Burchet who being attainted of Treason struck another in the Tower for which notwithstanding his Attainder he was put to answer Egerton Solicitor General And he said That the Action is not suspended but in as much as every Action is used to recover a thing detained or to satisfie a wrong if it can appear that the party cannot be satisfied according to his case he shall not proceed And in this case the Plaintiff if he should obtain Iudgment could not have Execution by the Common Law Ante 213. for he hath no Goods nor by the Statute of Westm 2. by Elegit for he hath no Lands nor by the Statute of 25 E. 3. by his body for it is at the Kings pleasure and then to what purpose shall the Plaintiff sue and it is a general Rule Regula That in all Actions where the thing demanded cannot be had or the person against whom the thing is demanded cannot yield the thing that the Writ shall abate As in a Writ of Annuity by Grantee of an Annuity for years the term expireth the Writ shall abate Abatement of Writ Tenant in special tail brings Wast and pendant the Writ his issue dieth the Writ shall abate c. 2 E. 4. 1. A man Outlawed of Felony pleaded in dis-affirmance of the Outlawry and yet he was not put to answer until he had his pardon and then he shall answer And as to the Case of 33 H. 6. 1. It doth not appear that the Traitors were attainted and then there is good remedy enough And Burchets Case cannot be resembled to our Case for although that by the Attainder the body of the party might be at the Kings pleasure yet his body may be punished for another offence for the example of others And as to Tressels Case who in such case was put to answer I grant it for he concluded Iudgment if Action and so admitted him a person able to answer and then it could not be a good plea in Bar. And in Ognels Case the Retorn of the Sheriff shall bind them for upon Process against a person attainted they returned Cepi where they ought to have returned the special matter without a Cepi but now this general Return shall bind them and by that he shall be concluded to say that the party was not in Execution And this Plea is not any disabling of the Defendant but he informs the Iudges that he is not a person able to answer to the Plaintiff As in a Praecipe quod reddat the party pleads Non-tenure the same is no disabling of his person but a shewing to the Court that he cannot yield to the party his demand A man shall not take advantage of his own wrong i. in the same thing in which the wrong is supposed or against him against whom the wrong is supposed to be done but in other Cases he shall take advantage of his own wrong as Littleton If a Lease for life be made the Remainder over in Fee and he in the Remainder entreth upon Tenant for life and disseiseth him the same is a good Seisin Cases where a man shall take advantage of his own wrong Marbery and Worrals Case upon which he may have a Writ of Right Littleton 112. 35 E. 3. Droit 30. And yet this Seisin was by wrong And there was a Case betwixt Marbery and Worral in the Exchequer The Lessor entred upon his Lessee for life made a Feoffment in Fee with clause of Re-entry the Lessee re-entred the Lessor at the day came upon the Land and demanded the Rent which was not paid it was holden the same is a good demand of the Rent and yet
he is a Trespassor to the Lessee And in another Case A man shall take advantage of his own wrong Fitz. N.B. 35. N. An Infant hath an Advowson by descent the Church becomes void he who hath Right paramount usurps and presents to the Church and the 6 months pass now by this tortious usurpation he is remitted and the Infant out of possession and without remedy And he cited the Case 16 H. 7. 10. A Scire facias out of a Fine was brought against an Abbot by which Fine the Predecessor of the Abbot granted to find a Priest to sing Mass in such a Chappel c. and the Abbot pleaded That the said Chappel was become ruinous and decayed so as no Priest could sing Mass there and it was prayed on the part of the Plaintiff that forasmuch as the Covenant is confessed that Iudgment be given but that Execution should cease until the Chappel be rebuilt but it was not allowed for this is a good Bar for the time and no Iudgment shall be given for it shall be in vain for it cannot be executed because there is no Chappel and it may be the Chappel shall never be built again And so in the principal Case c. It was adjorned CCCCLXVII Knightley and Spencers Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN a Prohibition betwixt Knightley and Spencer The Case was Prohibition More Rep. 528. 2 Co. 47 48. 2 Cro. 452. That Ph. Abbot of Evesham and all his Predecessors time out of mind c. were seised as well of the Rectory impropriate of B. in the County of N. and also of the Manor of B. in the same Parish c. until the dissolution of his House and that by reason thereof the said Abbot and all the Predecessors had holden the said Manor discharged of payment of Tithes until the dissolution c. and shewed the branch of the Statute of 31 H. 8. And that the said Abbot did surrender the Possessions of the said House to the King and that the King held the same discharged of the payment of Tithes and that afterwards the King granted unto the Ancestor of Knightley the said Manor and to the Ancestor of Spencer the said Rectory and although the Plaintiff ought de jure to hold the said Manor discharged of Tithes yet the Defendant sued him in the Spiritual Court c. To which the Defendant confessing the Impropriation pleaded That the said Abbot was seised ut supra but that before the making of the said Statute of 31 H. 8. the said Abbot demised Decimas Rectoriae praedict to one Spencer for 70 years who made the Defendant his Executor and died and that at the time of the said Demise and dissolution of the said Abby one Goodman and others were possessed of the said Manor until the year 1585. which was the year before the Suit began in the Spiritual Court and that at the time of the dissolution he paid Tithes for it and now the Plaintiff refuseth to pay c. absque hoc That the Abbot and his Predecessors held the said Manor quit of the payment of Tithes time out of mind c. upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law. Coke for the Plaintiff That this Vnity of possession is a discharge within the Statute of 31 H 8. the words of which are Unity of possession a discharge of Tithes That the King and his assigns shall have and enjoy the Lands discharged and acquitted of Tithes as freely as the said Abbot held the same at the day of the dissolution And see before whereas divers Abbots were acquitted and discharged of and for the payment of Tithes for the Statute doth not intend a real discharge as by composition or such manner which is not here but only a suspension which is not any discharge in Law and yet in speaking of discharge ordinarily an actual discharge is understood As if I be bound by Obligation to discharge one of such a Bond it is not enough to pay the mony but I ought to procure an actual Discharge where it is put generally but where it is put secundum quid as it is here referred to the Dissolution a suspension is a Discharge intended in the said Statute but where the Statute is indefinite there an actual Discharge is understood but restrained to a time a suspension sufficeth and truly it is a discharge within the intent of the Statute for if the Statute shall be intended of an absolute discharge and a Discharge in Law only the Statute had been superfluous for the Law said so much before for without such provision the King and his Assigns held discharged from payment of Tithes But the makers of the Statute knew well enough that the Abbot might have such discharge by divers means and it should be infinite for the party interessed to enquire of them all and therefore they did enact briefly That if at the time of the dissolution they were in any manner freed of payment of Tithes the same should be sufficient and so here is not any wrong unto any for the Parson had all as he had before and the same is like to the case betwixt Wharton and Morley 7 Eliz. in the Exchequer the Report of which Mr. Plowden communicated unto me and it was upon the Statute of 1 E. 6. cap. 14. of Monasteries That all Grants made to the King by any Provost Wharton and Marleys Case Governour c. of any Manor c. shall be good c. and the Case was That a Prebend of the Church of York surrendred to the King but the Surrender was never enrolled and yet adjudged good upon the Statute for if it was a lawful Surrender the same had been good of it self without any aid of the Statute which was made to supply insufficient assurances and so in our Case for the cause aforesaid and it should be injurious to drive the Iury to enquire of the manner of the Discharge if it were by composition upon the foundation or by dispensation of the Pope as Cistere Templarii And here the Plaintiff hath declared of an Impropriation before time of memory and so before the Council of Lateran which was within those 400 years and 25 Eliz. there was a Sussex Case where the Plaintiff declared as here but they would not proceed and see Dyer 10 Eliz. 277 278. The Prior of St. John hath priviledge from Rome that he shall not pay Tithes for any Land quas propriis manibus aut sumptibu◠excolant but their Farmers have paid Tithes and it was holden that in the hands of the Farmers Tithes should be paid but after the Term ended the Patentee should hold discharged so as the Statute hath a favourable construction upon this point Now it is 〈◊〉 if the Lease of the Rectory by which the Defendants claim be good or not and then admitting that Tithes are due in this Case yet if his Lease be void he shall not have a Consultation especially if it
E. 4. 44. A Writ of Annuity is brought against a Prior and it appeared That the Prior and his Successors have used to pay the Annuity as Parson of D. and not as Priors which Parsonage was appointed to the said Priory time out of mind and in the Writ the Defendant was named Prior only and not Parson and therefore the Writ was abated See 14 E. 4. 4. 10 H. 7. 5. In an Action of Wast So Bracebridges Case 14 Eliz. Plowd 420. The Case put by Catiline If the Parson Patron and Ordinary make a Lease for years and afterwards the Lessee becomes there Incumbent the Term is not extinct for he hath the Term in his own Right and the inheritance in the Right of his Church which see 30 H. 8. Dyer 43. A Parson purchaseth and after leaseth his Parsonage he himself shall pay Tithes notwithstanding this Vnity and as to the reason of the other side That if such discharge of Tithes be not intended by the Statute but only a Discharge in Law the Statute should be in vain the same is not so for if the Abbot had been discharged by way of Release of Composition for the Monastery being dissolved the Appropriation had been good if it had not been supported by the Statute and then the Release and Composition of no force and the King should not take advantage of it but by this Statute and as to Whartons Case before cited the same cannot be Law for it hath been holden upon the Statute of 18 Eliz. of Confirmations That if an Infant maketh a Lease to the King the same is not made good by the Statute for the said Statute extends to imperfections in circumstances and not in substance And although the Lease be not good yet because the matter of the surmise is naught although our Bar be naught a Consultation ought to be granted also our Lease is well pleaded and if such defect be in it as hath been objected the same ought to come in by Plea on the other side and it is not like Heydons Case for there it was found by special Verdict not to Cromwells Case where such defect was in the Declaration and so no ground of Action as to the Traverse it is good enough as if special Bastardy be pleaded against one born before the marriage and so Bastard the other party shall traverse generally the Bastardy and not the special matter but for the principal matter i. this unity of possession divers rules have been 5 Eliz. in the Common Pleas the Case was An Abbot had a Manor within the Parish of D. and a Composition was made betwixt the Parson of D. and the said Abbot that the Parson should have yearly certain Loads of Wood out of thirty Acres of the said Manor for and in recompence of all the Tithes of Wood there afterwards the Parsonage was appropriated to the said Abbot and afterwards the house was dissolved and the Manor granted to one and the Rectory to another and it was holden That the portion of the Tithes was removed for he had them scil The Manor and the Tithes in several Rights And Manwood Chief Baron and Periam Iustice to whom a Case depending in the Chancery was referred concerning the discharge of Tithes by unity of possession delivered their opinions That such an Vnity is not any discharge within the said Statute It was adjorned CCCCLXVIII Hoskins and Stupers Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared Assumpsit That whereas the Plaintiff had sold to the Defendant 1000 couple of Newland Fishes to the use of the Defendant and in consideration that he should ship and should bring and carry the adventure of them from Bristol in portum of Saint Lucar and should carry back again the value of the said Fish to London or Bristoll secundum usum Mercatorum The Defendant did promise that upon the arrival of the said Fish in portum of St. Lucar he would give to the Plaintiff 112 l. and said that he arrived with the said Fish ad portum of St. Lucar and that afterwards he arrived with goods of the value of the said Fish ad portum of London secundum usum Mercatorum It was holden by all the Iudges that in portum and ad portum is all one Exposition of words as the Statute of Wast is Quod vicecomes accedat ad locum vastatum yet he ought to enter into the Land So the Writ of accedas ad Curiam in plena Curia recordari facias c. Another Exception was because he declared That he returned with goods to the value and doth not say whose goods they were but the Exception was not allowed for these words secundum usum mercatorum imply that they were the goods of the Defendant Quod fuit concessum per Curiam and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCCLXIX Walgrave and Agurs Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. SIr William Walgrave brought an Action upon the Case against Agur upon these words spoken by the Defendant to a servant of the Plaintiff Action for scandalous words 1 Cro. 191. It is well known that I am a true subject but thou innuendo the said servant servest no true subject and thine own conscience may accuse thee thereof It was moved in arrest of Iudgment That these words are not actionable for no slander comes to the Plaintiff thereby for perhaps the Party served no man but the Queen and if the words may receive such sense Sâ—vage and Cooks Case which is no pregnant proof of infamy they are not actionable as in the Case betwixt Savage and Cook These words Thou art not the Queens friend are not actionable for it might be they were spoken in respect of some ordinary misdemeanours as in not payment of Subsidies or the like Also it is not averred that the party to whom the words were spoken was the Plaintiffs servant Coke Where a man is touched in the duty of his Office or in the course of life an Action lieth although that otherwise the words are not actionable and here is set forth in the Declaration That the Plaintiff at the time of the speaking of the said words was a Iustice of Peace and Sheriff of Suffolk and Captain of a Troop of 120 Horse to attend the Preservation of the Queens person So in respect of place and dignity in the Commonwealth as 2 H. 8. The Bishop of Winchester brought an action upon the Statute of Scandal Magnatum upon these words My Lord of Winchester sent for me and imprisoned me until I made a Release to J. S. and in respect of his Place and Dignity the words were holden actionable and 9 Eliz. Dyer In an action upon the Case by the Lord Aburgaveney against Wheeler My Lord of Aburgaveney sent for us and put some of us into the Coal-house and some into the Stocks and me into a place in his house called Little
The last words of the Limitation do not distinguish or disjoyn it but respect the estate precedent And by Clench Iustice If the use limited to Ambrose shall depend only upon the Limitation of his death the same should be void for then he should not he in esse to take But the other Iustices were of a contrary opinion and that the use is good 7 H. 4. Gawdy Although that here be three things yet but two times for the words are not or at such of the said days or times as shall first happen for that would alter the case But here these words ought to be intended as if they were spoken before in the Limitation of the estate to the Daughters and cannot divide the former Limitation and he said that if by reason that the Limitation upon the death which is certain it shall vest in Ambrose presently then if after the other Limitation shall fall then his Remainder which vested in him upon the said certain Limitation should be devested and should now accrue to him upon the other Limitation which should be absurd and inconvenient c. It was adjorned CCCXXXI Thomas and Wards Case Trin. 32. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Ejectione firmae by Thomas against Ward Ejectione firme 1 Cro. 102. upon a Lease made to him of the Manor of Middleton Cheney by one Chambers the Defendant pleaded that long time before the Lessor of the Plaintiff had any thing the Bishop of Rochester was seised and leased the same to the Defendant the Plaintiff by Replication said that the said Lease was upon condition viz. The Lessee by the Indenture of the said Lease did covenant that he would not put out or disturb any of the Tenants inhabiting within the said Manor out of their Tenancies doing their duties according to the custom of the said Manor and shewed that the Defendant had put out one Ann Green a Tenant dwelling there upon a Tenement parcel of the said Manor late in the possession and occupation of the said Ann and that the Bishop had re-entred for the condition so broken and made a lease to the Lessor of the Plaintiff upon which Replication the Defendant hath demurred in Law Tanfeild argued for the Defendant that the Bishop had no cause to re-enter for there is not any condition in the Case but only a Covenant for it comes in only on the part of the Lessee and they are words of Covenant only whereas every condition ought to be the words of the Lessor and the Bishop hath sufficient remedy by Action of Covenant But if the words had been indifferent and absolute without depending on the Lessor or Lessee then it had been otherwise as 3 E. 6. Dyer 65. Non licebit to the Lessee dare concedere vel vendere statum vel terminum without the Licence of the Lessor under pain of forfeiture the same is a good condition but here it is meerly a Covenant and it cannot be both Haughton Although the words sound in Covenant and be the words of the Lessee yet the Lease being made by Indenture the same is the Deed of both and every word in it is spoken by both parties and although that he may have an Action of Covenant yet he cannot thereby overthrow the Lease as by Entry by condition broken and yet by the words it seems the meaning of the Indenture was that by the breach of this Covenant the estate should be defeated for so are the words sub poena forisfactur And here by way of Action he cannot have the benefit of the whole Covenant and therefore he shall have it by way of condition And see the case betwixt Browning and Beston Plow 132. If it happen the Rent to be behind that then the Lessee Covenants that although the Rent be not demanded that the said Lease should be utterly extinct void and of no effect and 24 Eliz. there was a case betwixt Hill and Lockham where by the Indenture of Lease the Lessee Covenanted to grind all his Corn at the Mill of the Lessor and afterward in the end of the said Indenture the Lessee covenanted to perform all the Covenants sub poeâ—a sorisfactur and by the opinion of the whole Court the same was a condition And see 21 H. 6. 51. where in an Obligation where A was bound to B. the condition is written in this manner Praedict B. vult concedit That if the said A. doth stand to the Arbitrament of such a one that then c. the same is a good condition although they are the words of the Obligee and the Deed of the Obligor and so here is a good condition And such was the opinion of Wray and Gawdy and Fenner did not contradict it Wherefore Tanfeild said Admit here it is a condition yet here is not any breach of it sufficiently set forth for the breach is assigned because he had put out a woman unam tenentem inhabitantem out of certain Lands parcel of the said Manor late in the possession and occupation of the said woman and that might be that she was but Tenant at Will and the Covenant doth refer only to Copy-holders And it may be also that she had disseised one of the Tenants of the Manor in which case the putting out of such a Tenant being in by wrong is no breach of condition Also it is not averred in facto that Ann was Tenant of any part of the Mannor Also the Replication is That the said Defendant had ousted the said Ann where she had done her duty fecit debitum suum before the Ouster and that might be that she had done her duty once but not after and therefore he ought to have said that she had done her duty always before her putting out and this word duly being single is too general for it may be understood of curtesie where the words in the Indenture are Doing their duty according to the custom of the Manor And also it might be that Ann Green was Tenant and Inhabitant but was not put out of the Land which was parcel of the Manor And Wray said that these Exceptions were incurable And therefore Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff CCCXXXII Harvy and Thomas Case Mich. 31 32 Eliz. Rot. 414. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was Leases 1 Cro. 216. Husband and Wife seised of Lands in the Right of the Wife the Husband alone makes a Lease by word for years Afterwards the Husband and Wife levy a Fine and after the Wife and Husband both dye It was holden clearly by the whole Court that the Conusee should avoid the Lease CCCXXXIII Sly and Mordants Case Trin. 32. Eliz. Rot. 314 In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 191. 2 Len. 103. 3 Len. 174. Dy. 250. 1 Cro. 198 199. that whereas he was seised of certain Lands the Defendant had stopped a Water-course by which his Land was drowned and found for the Plaintiff It