Leonard Barley Plantiff and Foster Defendant it was agreed without scruple by Winch and Hutton Iustices only present in the Court that if a man infeoff another to the use of A. for life and after his death to the use of his daughter till B. pay her a 100. l. and then to other uses c. to the use of B. I. in this case the daughter had not any remedy for the 100. l. if B. will not pay that except he make a new promise and then upon that she shall have an action upon the case upon which if shee recover and have satisfaction the use will arise to B. but otherwise not though she have judgement to recover that and whether this same is discharged is triable by the record of the recovery John Theaker's case NOte that one Iohn Theaker was seised of certain lands and died in Ianuary last and his wife was married to one Duncombe within a week after and one Alphonsus Theaker entered into the land as Cozen and heir to Iohn Theaker deceased and the wife of Iohn Theaker who was dead gave out words that she was with child by her first husband and upon that Alphonsus Theaker had a writ de ventre inspiciendo directed to the Sheriff of London to inquire by 21. Knights and 12 women in the presence of the Knights whether she was with child or no and the Sheriff executed that and returned that they thought that she should be brought to bed within 20. weeks and upon that it was prayed that the Court would award according to Bracton that she may be taken into custody and that she may have divers women of fashion which may attend her daily till she is delivered that no deceit may be contrived against Alphonsus to deceive him but the Court would not agree to that though there was a president urged Hill 39. Eliz. Rot. 1200. Sir Percival Willoughby and the Lady Willoughby his brothers wife in this Court but the Court awarded that she should not be taken and detained from her husband but that a writ should issue to the Sheriff of Surrey whither the woman was now removed to return divers sufficient women which may resort to her daily till she is delivered which was done accordingly Fosters case FOster brought an action of debt of 300. l. against C. upon 2. obligations dated 20. December to pay him 150. l. c. and averred he had not paid that and did not say nor any part of that and Bing took exception to that in arrest of judgement because he had not averred that he had not paid any part of that and perchance he had paid part but not all but Hutton said that it is very good though this be upon several bonds and it any be paid it ought to come of the other part to shew that Woolsey was outlawed at the suit of Iones in an action of debt upon an obligation and the Capias ut legatum was taken out of the Court of the common pleas where he was outlawed in Trinity Term 21. Iac. and in December following Woolsey was warned to be at the Town of Shrewsbury to chuse Burgesses and before the day a binding process did issue out of the Marshes of Wales against Woolsey after Iones had delivered the Capias ut lagatum to the Sheriff to take Woolsey and the same morning that the election was Woolsey was taken upon the Capias ut lagatum but he was suffered to go and to give his voice in the election and then the Baileys of the Marches of Wales arrested him upon the process and because the Bailiffs of the Sheriff would not suffer the Bailiffs of the Marches to take him away from them there was gathered a great riotous companie on both sides but the Bailiffs of the Sheriff took him away and they and all them who took their parts were sued in the Marches for the withstanding their Bailiffs and upon this Harris moved for a Prohibition and the Court c. Winch and Iones said that if he is outlawed bona fide it shall be granted for the Bailiffs of the Sheriff had lawfully arrested him and it is lawful for them to keep him and for others to assist them and Winch said that if the persons which stood by had refused to help them this had been also sinable and it was said that the suffering him to go to the election was not any signe of a fraudulent arrest nay if the partie himself had consented to a fraudulent arrest upon a Capias ut lagatum this had not been punishable though they had known that there had been binding Process out against him because the arrest the detainer was lawful and agreed in the principal case that a Prohibition shall be granted and it was said that the other side are punishable because they did not aide the Sheriff for the officers of the other side were the cause of the Riot Sir Michael Wharton and Sir Edward Hide IT was agreed without scruple between Sir Michael Wharton and Sir Edward Hide that if a man in an avoury convey a good estate for years to two and one release to another that is not good without the shewing of a deed in that case Michael Bone and the Bishop of Norwich IT was agreed between Michael Bone and the Bishop of Norwich in trespas that by the lease of a Grange and all houses and buildings thereupon and belonging or let heretofore to one Edward Garrard that in this case if it may not be proved that the Tithes were not let to Garrard then they will not pass by this lease for it is not possible that Tithes shall pass as appurtenances to a grange because that they are of several natures except as Winch said that the Grange is the Gleab for if it is then the Rectory may pass by this name William Trist and Cawtrel at the suit of Heath WIlliam Trist and Cawtrel were bound in an obligation of 40. l. to one Heath who brought an action of debt upon that and recovered at the assizes and now it was moved in arrest of judgement that this was a mistrial for the venire facias was between Heath and Iohn Trist and the Sheriff returned that to be between Heath and William Trist and for this variance he shall not have judgement in the Case Hutton said in the case between Mankleton and Allen. MAnkleton and Allen that is a man had goods taken from him which taking he supposeth to be fellony but it is not and he complains to a Iustice of peace of that who commits the offender and bindes the other to prosecute and he accordingly preferred a Bill at the Sessions and the other is acquitted and the opinion of Hutton in this case was that this is not punishable by an action upon the case in the prosecuter for that shall never be maintained without apparant malice in the prosecutor Blunt and his wife against Hutchinson BLunt and his wife brought a quare Impedit
see more after Vpon an elegit the Sheriff returned that to be executed and the extent of the Church of St. Andrews Al 's St. Edes and Attoe prayed the Sheriff may amend this and make that Andrews only for that is the true name Hobert and the Court if this be the true name the alias dictus is surplusage and will not hurt the return of the writ Hill 19. Jac. C. P. Allen against Brach Ent. Hill 19. Jac. ALlen against Brach upon the reading of a record in a replevin the case was Tennat of a Coppihold for life in which the custome was that the wife shall have her widowes estate and the husband was attaint of fellony and executed and whether the wife in this case shall have the widowes estate was the question upon the demurrer Winch being only present seemed that not without a special custome In an action upon the case the Plantiff shewed that he was possessed of a Wind mill sufficiently repaired and that he at the instance and request of the Defendant let that to I. S. and in consideration thereof the Defendant promised to pay the rent and that the Mill should be left in sufficient repair except the Sayles and he averred that he had let that to I. S. accordingly and that he had not paid the rent nor left that sufficiently repaired and Serjeant Hendon said that the declaration is not good first because that the Plantiff had shewed that he was possessed of a Winde Mill and had not shewed of what estate and it may be this was only at will and then the lease is void Hutton Iustice it is good notwithstanding this exception for the shewing that he was possessed was surplusage and if he had shewed that he let for years and never shewed that he was possessed yet this is good and if the lessee never enter yet the assumpsit lyâ—â— secondly Hendon moved that the promise was to pay the rent and to leave the Mill sufficienty repaired except the sailes and the Plantiff averred that he had not repaired and never made mention of excepting the Sailes and here the jury found the Defendant guilty of all and had given entire damages and it appears by the Plantiffs own shewing that he shall no have any action at all for the sails for they are excepted and therefore though the promise is good for the rent yet it is not for the not reparation and the damages are intire Winch and Hutton Iustices only present held this good after verdict and judgement was given according Wright against Black and Black VVRight against Black and Black in an action upon the case and the Plantiff declared that he was of good fame and that the Defendants such a day and yeare at the Sessions of Norwich preferred a Bill of indictment containing that the Plantiff felloniously stole two bundles of vetches and also they maliciously incited one I. S. to give in evidence to the grand Iury that this was Billa vera and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement by Serjeant Richardson first because the Plantiff had not averred in his declaration that the Bill was found but only that he preferred a Bill of indictment against him containing such a thing and this is not good as 21. E. 4. 41. one pleaded a pattent of exemption and this was pleaded quod inter alia continetur and ruled no expresse grant was pleaded and so evil and so Browning and Beestons case Com. 173. there a condition was pleaded that in such an indenture it was contained that if such a thing was not made then the lease shall be void and evill because he had not expresly averred what the condition was and so in our case to say the Defendants preferred a Bill of indictment containing that the Plantiff stole 2. bundles of Vetches this is only in nature of a recital and no direct affirmation that there was such an indictment and this declaration doth not agree with the precedents and therefore it is evil secondly admit this to be good yet as this case is the Plantiff may not have an action upon the case but an action of conspiracy against both Thirdly the declaration is not good because it sets forth that the Defendants incited I. S. to give in evidence to the grand jury that this was Billa vera and had not averred that he was sworn and then though an action may lye for the other yet because the action is brought for all and damages are entire all shall be void and the Plantiff shall not have judgement for any and lastly he said the action it self in this case will not lye because the indictment was not found but only an evidence and an acquital before the grand jury and this is lawfull being in an ordinary course of justice and prayed that the Plantiff may have judgement in the case Attoe contrary First the Plantiff here may not have a writ of conspiracy for the indictment was not found but yet if we should admit that he may have a writ of conspiracy yet he may as this case is have an action upon the case at his election which was granted by Justice Winch as to this point and yet he said that this action upon the case is in the nature of a writ of conspiracy and for that reason there ought to be some act made or else an action of conspiracy will not lye upon a bare attempt Attoe an action upon the case will lye upon this attempt for by this the Plantiff is defamed as much as if the Defendants had said that he had stole 2. bundles of Vetches and this is more then a defamation by word and though the indictment was not found yet an action upon the case lyes as 10. Jaco B. R. Whorwoods case against S. and R. declared that the Defendant preferred a Bill of indictment containing such a thing without any eo quod c. and the Bill not found and yet an action upon the case lyes very well upon this attempt without an express averment of an eo quod because that the indictment was not found but otherwise it is where the indictment is found there it is not good containing such a thing as my brother Richardson had said without an eo quod and the same case of Whorwood was adjudged accordingly and it was also affirmed in the exchequer chamber upon a writ of error brought there and he also cited a case 14. Iac. in B. R. Rot. 236. Demey against Ridg where was a Bill of indictment for the stealing of a horse and the Bill was not found and yet adjudged that an action upon the case will lye for that Richardson said that the indictment is not found here and therefore it was no slander and so was adjudged in a case in the 44. of Eliz. in the Kings Bench which was one Jeroms case Justice Hutton said that it seemed to him that the action
that he agreed if one say of another that he was foresworn in a Court which is not a Court of record that none action will lye because the party is not punishable for that in perjury but in our case the commission issued out of the high Commission Court which Court to the examination of witnesses is in nature of a temporal Court and had been confirmed by act of Parliment and Serjeant Harvey argued to the contrary that the first words are not actionable and then the subsequent words are uncertain and yet if one say of another that he was foresworn at the Common Pleas barre the words are actionable for it shall be intended that this was upon examination in the execution of Iustice Hobert if a man is foresworn in a Court Baron before the Steward this is perjury but in our case the words are altogether uncertain for it doth not appear what authority the Commissioners had nor yet in what manner he was forsworn and Iustice Hutton said if one man say of another he was foresworn before the Bishope of S. this is not actionable but if one say of another that he was forsworn before the Bishop of S. upon examination by him by vertue of a Commission issuing out of the Chancery this is actionable and Hutton agreed to the case of the Court Baron the same Law by him if that be in a Court Leete but in the principal case Iudgement was arrested Wase against Pretty Ent. Hill 16. Jac. Rot. 1716. WAse against Pretty Ent. Hill 16. Iac. Rot. 1716. in an ejectione firme the case was that one joynt Coppiholder did release to his companion and the question was whether this is good without surrender and admittance for it was objected if this shall be good then a Coppihold shall pass without the assent of the Lord but it was resolved by Hobert Warberton and Winch Hutton being absent that the release is good and Warberton said that by Littleton if 3. Ioyntenants are and one of them release to another he to whom the release is made is in by the releasor but if there are but two then he is in by the Lord or from the first conveyance Winch if two Ioyntenants are in capite and one release to the other the King shall not have a fine for this Alienation but Hobert said that the practice is otherwise at this day but he said that when one joynt Tenant releases to another he is in by the first conveyance and in the case in question the release shall be good without surrender and admittance for the first admittance is of them and of every of them and the ability to release was from the first conveyance and admittance it seems if a Tenant in Capite alien upon condition and afterwards he enters for the condition broken he shall not pay a fine for such an alienation Hitcham Serjeant said that if land be given to two upon condition that they shall not alien and one releaseth to the other this is no breach of the condition Hobert if the King grant you his demeasnes you shall not have his Copihold Winch said that it was adjudged in this Court that where one erected a house so high in Finsbury fields by the wind mills that the wind was stopped from them that it was adjudged in this case that the house shall be broken down Goddard against Gilbert GOddard brought an action upon the case against Gilbert for these words thou art a thiefe and hast stolen 20 loads of my furzes and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and it was moved in arrest of judgement by Hitcham that these words are not actionable for though the first words of themselves had been actionable yet when those words are coupled with other words which do extenuate them it is then otherwayes for if a man say thou art a thiefe and hast stollen my apples or my wood it shall be intended that the apples and the wood were growing and he said there is no difference to say in this case you are a thiefe and have stollen 20 loads of my furzes but it was said by Iustice Warberton that the furzes shall be intended to be cut for that is the most natural and proper signification of the words and Hobert chiefe Iustice said that it is true that it is the most proper signification of the words but yet they are furzes when they are growing as well as when they are cut down and Hobert chief Iustice said if a man say of another thou art a thief and hast stollen my corn in this case the words shall be taken in the better sence and judgement in the principal case ought to be arrested and it was the opinion of him and of Winch that there is no difference where a man said thou art a thief and hast c. and thou art a thief for c. ut supra but it was adjourned Winch Iustice said I was of counsel in the Kings Bench in a case where a man had a window in the backside of his house and another man erected a wall within a yard and half of that in his own ground and adjudged in an action upon the case that the wall shall be broken down Warberton certainly this was an antient house but Winch said that made no difference It was ruled that after imparlance in debt upon an obligation the Defendant shall be received to plead that he was alwayes ready to pay notwithstanding it was strongly urged 13. Eliz. Dyer 306. is to the contrary Gilbert Lewings against Nicholas March. GIlbert Lewings brought an action of covenant against Nicholas March and deâ—lared that Charles Cornwallis had granted the next avoydance to the Church of D. to Thomas March and that Nicholas March was his Executor and that Nicholas March assigned this to Gilbert Lewings his executors and assignes to present to the same Church when that shall become void and covenanted that the same person who shall be so presented by him shall have and enjoy that without the let or disturbance of the said Charles Cornwallis or Nicholas March or any of them or any by their procurement and after Gilbert Lewings presents I. S. and after I. W. presented an other claiming the first and next avoydance by the procurement of Charles Cornwallis and ruled that the declaration was not good for it ought to say that Charles Cornwallis granted to I. w. the next avoydance and procured him to disturbe and that by his procurement he was disturbed Athow It seems to me to be but little difference to say he disseised me by the procurement of I. S. and he commanded I. S. to disseise me and he did that accordingly at his command Sir Edward Sackvil against Earnsby VPon a motion made by Sir Randal Crew in the behalf of Sir Edward Sackvil against Earnsby the case was that two brothers were seised of land to the eldest for life the remainder to the youngest in tail and they
like to the case of a common for a man may prescribe to have common in another mans land for this is but a reception of the profits with the mouthes of his cattle but in our case it is all one as to prescribe to have the land it self and I may not prescribe to have land it self for I may not say that I and my ancestors had used to have such land for such a prescription is void to which Hobert chief Iustice and all the Court agreed as to that point and then to prove that this is all one as to prescribe to have the land it self he said that if a man lets the profits and the herbage of land for years this is a lease of the land it self as was lately adjudged in this Court which was also granted by the Court also he said that this appears by the 27. of H. 8. 12. that a man shall have a praecipe quod reddat of pasturage or herbage but not of common and a formedon lyes of pasturage 4. E. 4. 2. the Regist fo 177. Ejectione firme lyes of pasturage and so he concluded that upon the matter he prescribed to have the land it self but Hobert chief Iustice and all the Court to the contrary that the prescription is good for that may have a good beginning by grant for a man may lawfully grant the pasturage and the feeding of his land when that is not sowed and by consequence if that may be good by grant it may be good by prescription and judgement was commanded to be entered for the Defendant See prescription 51. and 52. In trespass the Defendant pleaded in barre that such a one was seised of land in the right of his wife and that his wife died seised and that he was heire to her entered and gave Colour to the Plantiff the Plantiff replied that the husband and wife were joyntly seised and that the wife died after whose death the husband was seised by Survivor-shipp absque hoc that the wife died seised and Warberton and Hutton being only present the traverse is not good that the wife did not die seised but it ought to be that she did not die sole seised In trespass for the taking of goods in a place in yorkshire and the Defendant justified as servant to the Bishop of Durham and he shewed that the Bishop of Durham had a Faire and that time beyond memory he and his predecessors had used to seise the cattle that were sold if he who bought them refused to pay toll and if the thing taken was not redeemed within such a time he might sell the same And he justified in a place in Durham absque hoc that he was guilty in Yorkshire and by Warberton and Hutton this is a good traverse to the place for it is local If a Capias issued here to have the body of such a one at Westminster such a day and the Sheriff bring the body or return the writ before the day this is good by Iustice Warberton Tutter against Fryer TUtter against Fryer a rent charge was granted for years with a nomine poenae a clause of distress if that was not paid at the day and the rent was behinde the years incurred and it was moved by Athowe that though the years are incurred that he may distrain for the nomine poenae but the Court was of a contrary opinion for that depends upon the rent and the distress is gone as to both of them Duncombe c. against the Bishop of Winchester c. DUncombe and others against the Bishop of Winchester and others Defendants in a Qu Imp. and the case was that Sir Richard Weston was seised of the said Church in fee in grosse and was convicted of recusancy and a Commission issued to certain Commissioners to seise two parts of his lands and goods and they seised this advowson inter alia into the hands of the King and the King granted the advowson to the Plantiff and the Church became void and whether the King or the university of Oxford shall have that was now the question and it was appointed to be argued the next Term. Potter against Turner IN the Kings Bench Pasch 19 Iac. the case between Potter and Turner was as I conceived to this effect A. was indebted to B. in 20. l. and C. was indebted to A. in 30. l. and A. in satisfaction of the debt which he owed to B. assigned the debt of 30. l. which C. owed to him and made a letter of attorney to sue in his name A. and B. acquainted C. with this agreement and C. promised to B. in consideration that he will forbear till such a day that he will pay him the money and upon this promise he brought the action against C. and he pleadded non assumpsit and it was found for the Plantiff And it moved in arrest of Iudgement that the consideration was not sufficient according to Banes case Coke 9. If executors who had not assets promise to pay a debt of the Testator this shall not binde them because they who made the promise were not chargeable but on the other side it was said by Whitwick of our house that this was a good consideration for the assignement of that debt was lawful and no maintenance at all as appears by 15. H. 7. 6. and a recovery by B. against C. is a good plea in barre in an action brought by A. against C. but Dodderidge Houghton and Chamberlin only present to the contrary for B. here had only an authority to sue and this is at all times Countermandable by A. As if I deliver goods to my servant to deliver over to I. S. and I. S. promise my servant that in consideration that he will deliver them to him he will give him so much money this is no consideration except that they are delivered accordingly for this is only an authority to deliver goods which is alwayes countermandable by me And Iudgement was entered for the Defendant vide 4. E. 4. 14. Ewer and Vaughan IT was said by Dodderidge and A. in the argument of the case between Ewer and Vaughan that it had been adjudged by all the Iustices in one Trewmans case that no writ of error lyes of a judgement given in the Stanneryes in Cornwal A Prohibition to the Admiralty MAny poor Marriners sued one Iones the Master of a ship for wages in the Admiral Court and judgement was given against Iones and now he prayed to have a prohibition and he suggested that the contract was made at London in England and so the suit was not maintainable in the Admiral Court but the prohibition was denyed because he had not sued his prohibition in due time viz. before a judgement given in the Admiral Court which in point of discretion they disallowed and also these are poor Marriners and may not be delayed of their wages so long and besides they may all joyn in a Libel in the Admiral Court but
plea for the Plantiff to say that he was seised till the Defendant disseised him absque hoc that C. enfeoffed him and for that reason he ought to traverse the feofment made by B. for the other was but a mean conveyance see Dyer 107. in Trespass the Defendant conveyed to the donee by 5. or 6. discents by dying seised of the estate taile in every of them the Plantiff confessed the intaile and conveyed to him by feofment made by the heir of the donee which was a discontinuance and took traverse to the dying seised of the same feoffor and ruled to bee evil for he ought to traverse the most antient discent 43. H. 3. 7. Secondly it is evil because he had confessed the seisin of E. 6. and the grant by the same King to Wyat and so had confessed and avoyded the seisin of the same King and then the Law will not suppose that E. 6. purchased that again and for that the traverse of his dying seised is evil when he had sufficiently confessed and avoided that before as Dyer 336. in Vernons case a discent was pleaded to the heire from his ancestor the other party said that the ancestor devised that to him absque hoc that this discended to him as son and heire and ruled to be evil for a traverse needs not when he had confessed and avoyded that before Vide 14. H. 8. Sir William Meerings case 26. H. 8. 4. by Fithzherbert but Brook in the abridgement of the same case said that if the traverse is evil then he had waved the plea before and all was evil 7. E. 4. by Littleton for hereby the representation of Queen Eliz. she had gained the inheritance to the Crown and then the traverse being evil he had waved the former plea which was good without traverse and this seisin in the Crown is not answered but by way of argument as here 14. H 6. 17. he ought to traverse absque hoc that he died in his homage 20. E. 4. 5. 35. H. 6. 32. Serjeant Iones to the contrary and as to that which hath been said that the presentment is alleaged to be in jure coronae and the confessing the presentment is a plea by way of argument to which he answered that the record is not so but the seisin of the advowson is alleadged by discent to Elizabeth Queen by force of which she was seised in jure coronae and Iones argued that the traverse is good for every plea in barre ought either to be traversed and denied or confessed and avoided and here that ought to be traversed Dyer 208. 312. in avowry for a rent charge and seisin was alleadged in the grantor of the land in fee and the Plantiff said he was seised in taile he ought to traverse that he was seised in fee and a good traverse Hill 2. Iac. in C. B. Rot. 1921. Edwards against D. it was pleaded that such a man was seised in fee of a rent charge and the other confessed that he was seised in fee and that a long time before he enfeoffed one I. S. there he ought to traverse that he was seised at the time of the grant see the new book of Entryes Tavener and Gooches case in a Qu. Impedit And a note by the Lord Cooke also he said that after the grant there may be an usurpation and so the dying seised in the case of an advowson in gross ought to be traversed â—e 21. E. 4. 1. 20. E. 4. 14. and as to that which hath been said against the protestations he answered it ought to be traversed and for that the rest ought to be taken by protestation and in some cases the conveyance is traversable see Cromwels and Andrews case And so he concluded and prayed judgement for the Plantiff Note that he said that it was adjudged in that Court 2. Iac. in the case of the Bishop of Winchester that two usurpations gaine the advowson from the King And the reason was because the King by an usurpation may gaine an advowson in him out of a Common person and if the King Vsurpe and the right patron present he is remitted Hobert by such usurpation the possession is gained from the King but not the right and note that upon the argument in the principal case by Bawtry and Iones it was ruled by Hobert Warberton and Hutton that if the Defendant do not shew better cause by such a day judgement shall be given against him and Hutton said that he had studied the case and found no doubt but that the traverse is good Winch was absent in the Chancery M. 19. Iac. C. P. IT was moved for a prohibition by Harris Serjeant to the Court of Audience because that the Plantiff was sued there for saying to one thou art a Common Quean and a base Quean and Harris said that a prohibition had been granted in this Court for saying to one that she was a piperly Queen and it was the case of Man against Hucksler and Finch said though the words are not actionable in our Law they are punishable in the spiritual Court for the word Quean in their Law implies as much as whore but Hobert said that this word Quean is not a word of any certain sense and is to all intents and purposes and individuum Vagum and so in certain see more after Note that it was said by Justice Warberton that it was adjudged in the case of one Ablaine of Lincolns Inne that if a man made a lease for years rendering rent and the lessee or a stranger promise upon good consideration to pay the rent that in this case no action upon the case will lye for it is a rent and is a real thing and Hutton Justice being only present agreed this was upon the motion of Finch Serjeant Mic. 43. Eliz. in the Kings Bench in an action upon the case he declared how he let certain land to the Defendant for years in consideration of which the Defendant promised to pay him for the farm aforesaid 20. l. and Hitcham moved that the action will not lye because it appears to be for a rent for which an action of debt lyes but by Gaudy Fenner and Clench it is not a rent but a summe in gross and for that reason because he promised to pay that in the consideration of a lease cleerly an action upon the case lyes but Sir John Walter replyed that a writ of error was brought of this case of Simcocks in the exchequer chamber and the matter in law was assigned for error and it was ruled that no action upon the case will lye for Walmsley said this was a rent for of necessity there ought to be supposed a commutation between the lessor and lessee and that the lessor demanded of the lessee how much he would give for that and then he answered 20. l. this made an entire contract and for that reason an action of debt lyes and not an action upon the case and Savil and
it is that if the Lord had seisin of more then the very services in this case it may not be avoyded in avowry and no fall tenure shall be avoyded c. but when he joyns another falsity and that is in the quantity of land now the false quantity of the rent had made the tenure traversable and the judgement was commanded to be entred accordingly Trin. 19. Jac. Thomas Bull Executor c. against Fankester THomas Bull Executor of William Bull brought an action against Fankester and declared that the Defendant enfeoffed his Testator in certaine land and that he covenanted for him and his heirs that he was seised of a good estate in fee and he alleadged the breach upon which they were at issue and now Attoe moved in arrest of judgement first because the Plantiff sueing as Executor had not shewed the Will for it hath been adjudged here that if a man bring an action as executor and do not shew the Will that the Defendant may demurre upon that because it is matter of substance but Hobert said it is very good because the Defendant had admitted him to be responsible but it is true he might have demurred upon the declaration as we often times adjudged here secondly Attoe said that the covenant being made with the heire the executor shall not have an action of covenant for it is annexed to the land which was granted by Hobert and Winch being only present in the Court. Note that it was said at the barre and agreed by Hobert that if the debtor make the dettee his executor he may now retain in debt against him and safely plead plene administravit if he had no other goods and shall not be driven to his special plea and so it had been agreed often times in this Court Parson and Morlees case PArson and Morlees case it was said that the Lord Chancellour presented to a venefice which belonged to the King which was above the yearly value of 20. l. per annum and this was referred to Hobert chief Iustice and to Tanfield chief Barron to certifie whether this was meerly void it remained good till it was avoyded Harris against Wiseman HArris had procured a prohibition against Wiseman who had libelled in the spiritual Court against the Plantiff for a frat in the Church which did belong to his house and it was said by Hobert and Winch only present that a man or a Lord of a mannor who had any Isle or a seat in the Church c. and he is sued for that in the spiritual Court he shall have a prohibition but not every common parishioner for every common seat and upon the first motion at the barre in this case day was given over to the Defendant to shew cause wherefore that a prohibition shall not be granted and the Defendant not having notice of that after the day the Plantiff had a prohibition and now after the day he shewed a good cause and upon that a supersedeas was granted to stay the prohibition in that case Aylesworth against Harrison AYlesworth against Harrison in debt against an executor the question was whether he may plead plene Administravit and give in evidence a debt in which the Testator was indebted to him or whether he may plead the special matter that plea amounting but to the general issue and it was argued by Harris Serjeant the Defendant may plead the special matter and shall not be bound to the general issue to leave that to the lay people who may suppose such a retainer to be an administration and he vouched the 15. E. 4. 18. if a man illiterate seale a deed which is read to him in another manner c. and he delivers that as an escrow to be delivered over as his deed upon conditions performed and this is delivered over before the conditions performed he may in this case plead the special matter and conclude so not his deed or if he will he may plead the general issue of non est factum and so is 39. H. 6. in dower the Tenant said that before marriage the husband infeoffed him and that after the Tenant let to him at Will and that the husband continued possession during his life absque hoc that he was seised of such an estate of which she might have dower and exception was taken there because that this only amounts to the general issue and yet ruled to be good for the lay people may conceive such a continuance of possession during the life of the lessee to be such an estate of which the wife may have dower if this were put upon the general issue and in our case because he had liberty to plead specially or generally he prayed that the Defendant may be admitted to plead specially and that he may not be bound to the general issue Serjeant Hendon to the contrary if one plead a plea which amounts to the general issue see Layfields case Coo. 10. and though in Woodwards case commentaries there was such a plea pleaded yet this doth not prove the contrary for in the same case no exception was taken by the Plantiff and presidents do prove that the Defendants in this kind have been compelled to plead the general issue Hobert if no special matter may be alleadged to the contrary the Defendant shall be compelled to plead the general issue and this is good discretion in the Court to take away the perplexity of pleading because one plea is as good as the other to which Winch being only present agreed and it was ordered that the Defendant here plead accordingly In debt against the heire upon the obligation of his father and in the declaration the Plantiff omitted these words obligo me et hered es meos c. and after error brought the Plantiff prayed that this might be amended because it was the misprision of the Clark only Hobert and Winch said that this shall not be amended for it is a matter of substance but because the clark who made this misprision was a good clark day was given over c. Widdow Archers case IN debt against the Widdow of Archer being executrix of her husband and the Plantiff declared that neither the Testator in his life nor the executrix after his death had paid that omitting those words licet saepius requisitus c. and evil but this omission was amended Sir Edward Grubham against Sir Edward Cooke SIr Edward Grubham brought an audita querela against Sir Edward Cooke upon a recognizance of 4000. l. and this was acknowledged to the use of his Mother and shewed that the conusor had infeoffed him and another in the land and that the conusee had sued execution only against him and it was found for the Plantiff and it was so moved in arrest of judgement by Ashley Serjeant first because he had not shewed in this audita querela when the Statute was certified nor yet the Teste nor yet the return of the writ of extent
owner had not any remedy and so here he doubted that when the Sheriff made execution whether he shall have any remedy or no and therefore it is good conscience to allow him to take a bond for that before he make execution for otherwise a great inconvenience may insue for perchance after the extent and before the liberate the parties may agree and then the Sheriff shall not have any thing for all his paines which he had taken in the extent which never was the intent of the Statute but it may be objected that in this case the Sheriff may have an action upon the case against the debtee or the conusee if he make such composition I answer yet this is a great hinderance and trouble to the Sheriff to prosecute the suite and it shall be very inconvenient to allow that the Sheriff shall be allowed no other remedy and then for the third point he argued that the Sheriff shall have 12. d. in the pound for the first 100. l. where the bond exceed 100. l. and 6. d. for that which exceeds for otherwise as the case is he shall have nothing at all for the first hundred pounds for the words of the Statute are if the same be above 100. l. then he shall have 6. d. so that 6. d. only shall be taken for that which is above 100. l. and nothing for the first hundred if this construction shall be made and he also remembred the objection made by Hendon and so concluded that judgement ought to be given for the Plantiff Hobert said cleerly the Sheriff may take a single bill for his fees and that is the ordinary course also he read the Statute of the 29. Eliz. that it shall be lawful to the Sheriff c. and said the words of the Statute made a contract in law for which an action of debt lyes for the Sheriff and he â—â—id to Serjeant Bawtry that the second point will be found to be against him and for the third point that the Sheriff shall have but 6. d. for all in the case the summe exceed 100. l. and so they thought judgement ought to be given for the Defendant and Iustice Winch said that the reason wherefore the summe of 12. d. in the pound is given if that not exceed 100. l. is because that it is as much labour to the Sheriff to execute 100. l. as it is for 500. l. Maps and Maps against Sir Isaac Sidley MApps and Mapps brought an action upon the case against Sir Isaac Sidley upon a promise and shewed that one named Holdish was indebted to the Testator of the Plantiffs in 12. d. upon a bond which became due and that the Defendant in consideration that the Plantiffs will forbear to prosecute a suit upon the same obligation he promised to pay that and the Plantiffs shewed that they had forborn him till such a day c. and upon non assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement by Hitcham Serjeant of the King that this declaration is not good for this forbearance ought to be for ever and not a temporary forbearance only for the Defendant by his promise had made the debt his own as if the assumpsit promise had been to forbear to come to my house this ought to be a perpetual forbearance and here the assumpsion of the Defendant amounts to a release in law to the principal and yet he agreed if this had been generally that he had forborn and had not shewed he had forborn ill such a day the declaration had been good Hobert if the promise had been to forbear till such a day there he may sue the dettee if he do not pay it the day and it was adjourned Mich. 19. Jac. Mabies case MAbies case Hobert in Parson Mabies case if I let my rectory excepting my glebe the exception is void for no rectory may be without glebe and the same law of a mannor excepting the demeasnes but he may except parcel of the glebe and good but in pleading the lease of a rectory this shall be taken for the whole rectory and not for parcel Gratwick against Gratwick GRatwick brought a formedon in remainder against Gratwick and the Tenant pleaded that the day of the purchase of the writ and yet he the Plantiff is seised of the moity of the land in demand and it was argued by Serjeant Harvey that this is no good plea for he ought to shew of what estate he was seised and he may be seised by vertue of a Statute and he vouched the 39. E. 3. 7. Hobert if he had said that he was seised in his demeasne as of fee or as of freehold this had been good and a seisin by force of a Statute is no seisin at all and Hutton said if Tenant plead entry in part pending the wriâ— he ought to say that he entered and expulsed the other for otherwise it is not good and I conceive that the Court inclined that in the principal case that the plea for the cause aforesaid being of a general seisin was not a good plea. Sir Edward Grubham against Sir Edward Cooke AT another day the case of Sir Edward Grubham and of Sir Edward Cooke was moved againe and it was objected by Ashley that the declaration in the audita querela is not good because he had not shewed the day of the Testee and of the return of the writ execution in certainty but only by process such a day out of the Chancery which is not good but he ought to plead all the record of the extent in special and he offered to shew a president of that and secondly he had not shewed the execution of the liberate by which the land was delivered and so there is no express allegation of a grievance Richardson the presidents in the old book of entries are according to our declaration and Hutton vouched the 9. H. 6. and 39. H. 6 and in an action of debt upon a judgement he needs not recite all the record but he may begin at the judgement and as to the second point they all agreed that the party may have an audita querela before an ouster and yet here the showing that it was delivered to the conuser by the liberate is a sufficient averment of the ouster for it may not be delivered without an ouster and ruled that the Plantiff shall have judgement if the Defendant do not shew other cause by such a day Vpon a Capias Vtlagatum the sheriff returned that the party which was arrested had a protection from Lord Stafford who was a Lord of the Parliamen and it was moved by Serjeant Hitcham that the return was not good for the protection of a Lord of the Parliament is not good in a Capias Utlagatum which concerned the King and by Winch Iustice only present in Court the return is cleerly naught and day was given over to the Sheriff to amend his
within the Statute and â—hirdly he had not shewed what time he was received that so it might appeare that he was an apprentice but for half a year and such a retainer is not within the Statute fourthly the conclusion of the information is contrary to the form of the Statute yet this doth not aide the imperfection of the information for such information only extends to matter of circumstance and not to matter of substance Finch Serjeant contrary that the retainer of an apprentice who departs out of the service of his Mr. without a testimonial is within the Statute of the 5th of Eliz. for the same branch is general there being no person who departs c. and an apprentice is a person which departs secondly the clause of the Statute is be it enacted that none of the forementioned retained persons c. and an apprentice is a person which is in a special manner named before Mich. 19. Jac. and therefore he is within the express words of the same branch Thirdly the form of the testimonial proves that for it is I. W. servant to such c. and an apprentice is such a servant Hobert chief Iustice said that it was never the intent of the Statute to make an infant who is an apprentice to be within the danger of the same Statute for an infant at the age of 14. years may be bound to be an apprentice and the punishment which is given by the same Statute is that such person shall be whipt as a Rogue which plainly proves the Statute intends only those who are of full age and if other construction shall be made perchance that the sonne of a gentleman may be punished as a Rogue by such departure and he held that if an apprentice depart with his Mrs. goods delivered to him that in this case he is not within the Statute of the 21. H 8. as another servant is and Serjeant Finch said that there is an express exception and if that had not been that an apprentice had been within the danger of the law but Hobert said that he doubted much whether an apprentice had been within that Statute though the Proviso had not been made but this proves that the makers of the Statute thought this to be a hard matter to make an infant who is apprentice to be within the danger of the same law and for that reason the proviso of the Statute was made Winch said to which Hutton agreed that when the Defendant had pleaded nihil debet and this was found for the Plantâ—ff yet he may move in arrest of judgement if the matter be not within the Statute adjurned In a replevin the Defendant said that he hâ—d property in the beasts absque hoc that the property was to the Plantiff and so prayed judgement of the writ and it was found for the Plantiff and now Harvey Serjeant moved in arrest of judgment for in no book is found such a traverse as this that the Plantiff had not property but only that the property was to the Defendant and secondly the conclusion of the plea is not good for he ought to conclude to the writ and not to the action Hobert 6. H. 7. is that an action of detinue affirmes the property at the time of the action but a repleviant the time of the taking and two men may have such property in the same thing that every of them may have a replevin and Hutton said that when the Defendant in the replevin claimed property he ought to conclude to the action and Hendon Serjeant being only at the barre and not of councell in the case said that the book of entries is that he shall traverse the property of the Plantiff as in the principal case Hutton Iustice said that this was never seen by him but they all agreed that this being after verdict judgement shall be given for the Plantiff Trehern against Claybrook Ent. Tr. 18. Jac. Rot. 650. TRehern against Claybrook in a debt upon a lease for yeares the jury gave a special verdict to this effect that Iohn Trehern Grandfather of the Plantiff was seised of land in fee and let this for forty yeers rendring rent for which the action is brought and that he devised the reversion to the Plantiff in catle the remainder to Leonard Trehern in taile with divers remainders over and with provises in the same will that for the raising of a stock for the Plantiff and for him in remainder his will was that one Griffith and Anne his wife being daughter of the devisor should have the profits and rent of the said land to their own use until the time that the Plantiff and the said Leonard Trehern accomplish the age of 21. years provided alwayes and upon this condition that the said Griffith and his wife within 3 moneths of his decease enter into bond to the overseers of his will in such a summe and in such a penalty as shall be thought fit by the said overseers and this bond to be made by their advice and if the said Griffith and Anne his wife do refuse to be bound as is aforesaid then the overseers shall have the rents and the profits c. and the jury found over that he made two executors and 3. who were overseers and that the 3. October 16. Iac. died and that within 3. weeks after the death of the devisor the executor read the will to the overseers but they found that the overseers did not remember that and if upon all the matter Griffith and Anne his wife had not performed the condition was the question and that if not the reversion was in the Plantiff And the point in law upon the verdict was whether Griffith and Anne his wife ought of their perils to tender the bond within 3. moneths or whether the overseers ought to make the first act and to tender the bond and the penalty for them to seal and Towse Serjeant argued that Anne and Griffith her husband ought to tender the bond at their peril for he said that the condition did precede the estate and therefore if they will have the benefit of the devise then he ought to tender the obligation and vouched Corbets case and 18. Eliz. the devise of land upon condition to pay money he ought to pay that at his perill Attoe Serjeant contrary and yet he agreed that if the condition was to precede the estate then the law was as Towse had said but here he said the estate precedes the condition for all the profits are devised to Griffith and to Anne his wife during the minority of the Plantiff by which it is apparent the estate is presently in the devisees and by consequence the estate precedes the condition and then the sole doubt will be whether Griffith and Anne his wife ought to procure the overseers to make the obligation and to limit the condition or whether the overseers ought to make this first they being the parties instrusted by the Will
doth not lye for for it is not averred that there was any fellony committed also Iustice Hutton held that in this case the declaration is not good because it is not expresly alleadged with an eo quod that the Plantiff stole the Vetches but only an indictment preferred containing such a matter and Iustice Winch said that the framing of an indictment in a Court of record is not any cause of an action for it is a proceeding in an ordinary Course of justice and for that reason ought not to be punished by an action upon the case for that will deterre and scare men from the just prosecutions in the ordinary way of justice Hobert chief Iustice was of a contrary opinion and yet he said that it is true that the ordinary Course of justice ought not by any means to be hopped or hindred and as that may not be obstructed so neither may the good name of a man in any thing which concerns his life be taken away and impeached without good cause for Courts of justice were not erected to be stages to take away the good name or fame of any man and therefore by the common law if two do maliciously conspire to judict a man without cause though the indictment it self be good and legally drawn yet a writ of conspiracy lies against those which caused this indictment to be preferred and it is as great a slander to preferre a Bill of indictment to the grand jury and to give this in evidence to them as it is to declare that in an ale house and as to the declaration he held that to be good without any averment of an indictment indeed and the indictment in writing and the preferring that to the grand jury containes the scandal and I am of opinion that an action upon the case lyes well see more after Easter 20. Jac. C. P. Hill against Waldron Easter 20. Jac. C. P. HIll against Waldron in an action of debt upon an obligation the condition was that I. S. shall levy a fine to the obligee before such a day of such land the Defendant pleaded that the obligee had not sued forth any writ of covenant the replication was that before the obligation made I. S. had made of feofment in fee of the same land to I. S. and that the feoffee continued in possession at the time of the making of the obligation and upon this the Defendant demurred and in this case two points were moved first when I am obliged that I. S. who is a stranger shall levy a fine to the obligee whether in this case the obligee is bound to sue a writ of covenant and it was argued by Serjeant Harvy that not yet he agreed that if the condition was that the obligor shall levy a fine to the obligee in this case the obligee ought to do the first act viz. to sue a writ of covenant as Palmers case Cooke 5. but otherwise when the fine is levied by a third person for there the obligor had took all upon him 4. H. 7. 15. E. 4. if I am bound to marry the daughter of I. S. and she will not marry me yet I have forfited my obligation and so here he ought to leavy a fine at his perill and at his own costs or at the costs of the obligor But admitting that the obligee ought to sue a writ of covenant because it appears by the replication that before the obligation made I. S. had made a feofment over and that the feoffee did continue possession at the time when the fine was to be leavied and therefore the obligee needs not to sue forth any writ of covenant because he who is to leavy the fine had disabled himself to perform that and he urged Sir Anthony Maines case where Cooke 5. the party needs not to tender a Surrender because that he who had the reversion had granted that over before the Surrender was to be made Serjeant Hendon to the contrary for he argued that the obligation is not forfeit except the obligee sue a writ of covenant and there is no difference between this case and when the obligor himself was to leavy a fine for the obligor had not undertaken for the whole fine but only that I. S. shall acknowledge a fine and if the obligor shall be compelled at his perill to sue a writ of covenant then you will construe the condition to extend to an unlawfull act for it shall be maintenance in him to sue forth a writ of covenant he vouched a case P. 4 Iac. Rot. 1548. Burnell against Bowle the condition of the obligation was that I. S. shall acknowledge a judgement in this Court to I. D. and in debt upon this obligation the Defendant pleaded that the Plantiff had not sued forth any orginall writ and it was holden a good plea and for the second point he held that the obligee ought to sue this writ of Covenant though that I. S. had dismissed himself of the land for the words are general that I. S. shall leavy a fine and this he ought to do though no estate pass by the fine for a fine upon release shall be a good performance of the Condition but otherwise if it had been to make a feofment in fee for a man cannot make a feofment except he be seised of the land at the time as 31. E. 3. debt 164. a man was obliged to present the obligee to such a Church and the obligee took a wife by which he had disabled himself to be a person yet the obligor ought to present him for otherwise he shall forfeit his obligation and so in this case Hobert and Hutton as to the first point held the barre to be good and that the obligee ought to sue forth the writ of Covenant for Hobert said he ought to do that for it is no reason to compel the obligor who is a stranger to the estate which passeth by the fine to sue a writ of Covenant and for that reason if I am bound to compel you to come upon such land to take a feofment I am not bound that the other make a livery of seisin but if the case was that I was obliged to you that I. S. shall leavy a fine to I. N. in such case the fine ought to be leavied at my peril though that I. N. will not sue a writ of Covenant Hutton according but Winch doubted of the case and as to the second point Hutton and Hobert agreed that the obligee as this case is needs not to sue a writ of Covenant because that I. S. had made a feofment of the land before and so had disabled himself at the time of the obligation for now it is impossible to leavy a good fine for if he should enter into the land and put out the feoffee this were not good within the condition and Hutton said it ought to be agreed that if I. S. had made a feofment after the time of the making
of the obligation and so had disabled himself afterwards and the obligor is bound that a fine shall be leavied this is to be understood of a good and a lawfull fine and not a fine in name only and he put the case that I let for years and after Covenant to make a feofment to I. S. this lease for years is a breach of the Condition though at the time of the Covenant made the lease for years was made Iustice Winch thought the contrary for this disability is by the act of a stranger and for that the obligor may not take any certain notice of that and therefore if I am obliged to you that I. S. shall enfeoffe you of his Mannor and at the time I. S. had made a feoffement of two or three acres of the same Mannor yet if he enfeoffe you of that which he was seised at the time of the obligation this is a good performance of the Condition though that 2. or 3. acres were disjoyned from that before and so in this case the obligor being a stranger to the estate of I. S. if I. S. make such an estate as he had at the time of the obligation made this is sufficient upon which he concluded that the Plantiff shall not have judgement but afterward judgement was commanded to be entered for the Plantiff according to the opinion of Hobert and Hutton Hoels case HOels case upon a special verdict was to this effect a man was seised of 2. acres of land in fee and had 2. sones and he devised both the acres to his wife for life the remainder of one acre to his eldest son in fee the remainder of the other acre to his youngest son in fee upon this condition in manner and form following if either of my sonnes die before my depts and legacies are paid or before either of my sonnes enter into their part that then the longest liver shall have both parts to him and to his heires in fee and the devisor died and Hoel the Plantiff being the eldest sonne in the life of his mother released all his interest and his demand in this to his younger brother and the doubt was whether this condition was gone by this release and Attoe argued that it was gone for Littleton saith that every land may be charged one way or other see Anne Mayowes case Release Coo. 1. Albaines case power of revocation released see more of this afterwards Trin. 20. Jac. C. P. Whitgift aganist Sir Francis Barrington IN Replevin the Defendant avowed as Baliff to Sir Francis Barrington and that Whitgift the Plantiff held certaine land of Sir Francis Barrington by escuage et quendam reditum and that the said Sir Francis was seised by the hands of Whitgift his very Tenant and for homage he avowed and upon this the Plaintiff demurred first because he had avowed for homage and had not shewed how nor in what manner the homage is due whether in respect that the tenancy come to him by discent or by purchase and for that this general allegation is naught for by Hendon Serjeant all the presidents in such avowryes made mention of the title to the homage as 4. E. 4. in avowry for homage the tenure is shewed and a discent alleadged or a purchase of the land and in no book or in any president that he ever yet saw did he see such a general allegation in avowry for homage but he agreeth the book of the 44. E. 3. 42. if the avowry is upon tenant by the curtesie this general allegation is good but otherwise of a tenant in fee simple and for that he alledged the second E. 3. avowry in a replevin the Bishop avowed for homage due by the Plantiff and exception was taken because it was not shewed in whose time the death of the ancestor was whether in his own time or the time of his predecessor and ruled to be evill for his avowry being his title he ought to shew that in certaine and so in our case Hobert this case doth not prove our case for in our case prima facie it is certain to all intents and purposes and I cannot see how an avowry may be better made and Finch at the barre vouched a president in the book of entries title horse de son fee secondly where such a avowry as in our case is made and then Hendon moved that the avowrie is not good for he had shewed the tenure by homage and by escuage and rent de quo quidem redditu he was seised c. and this is also repugnant for when he said that he was seised of the rent by the hands of the Plaintiff this is a seisin of the homage as Bevils case is and then by his own shewing because the seisin of the rent is a seisin of the homage he shall not have the homage of the Plantiff Thirdly admitting this point against him and that the seisin of the rent is not seisin of the homage yet the pleading is not good for when he expresly alleadged seisin of the rent in this manner de quo quidem redditu he was seised this excluded the seisin of any other services but only of the rent which is expresly alleadged and therefore in our case he ought to have alleadged generally de quibus serviciis he was seised and to leave this to the construction of the Law and he vouched 13. H. 7. 31. Serjeant Harvy to the same intent for though perchance no good reason may be given wherefore the pleading shall be such and that the seisin of the homage ought to be expressed yet because all the presidents are so the course of pleading shall not be altered and all the presidents shew a seisin of the homage see the book of entries 597. and 598. Serjeant â—owse to the contrary the book of the 19. E. 2. Recovery 224. is that the alleadging of the seisin or escuage as in our case of tent is a sufficient avowry for homage and 29. H. 3. such an allegation of the seisin of rent was made in avowry for fealty and good Hutton if the book of the 19. E. 12. be as Towse had alleadged it is all one with our case Hobert seems the avoury is good notwithstanding this last exception for perchance he was not actually seised of the homage by the hands of the Tenant himself and then by his own shewing his avowry shall abate and he demanded of Brownlow if there were any such president of an avowry who answered no. Hobert if the continual pleading be as my brother Harvy had alleadged we will not alter the course of pleading but in my opinion in reason none may plead in better manner or form and Hutton being only present agreed and then Hobert commanded the presidents to be searched concerning that matter and Finch at the barre being of Councel with the avowant said that till the resolution in Bevils case it was a great question whether the seisin of the rent was the
the words are found generally but yet admitting that the last words are actionable yet the Plantiff shall not have judgement for the damages are intirely given and for that reason void see more and Bedles case cited in Osborns case Cook 10. Harris Serjeant to the contrary for an Auditor is an officer of trust and he took an oath when he entered into his office and his receiving fees which are not due are also extortion and the words of Cousâ—â—age shall have also relation to the office as in Barkleys case you are a corrupt man an action lyes and Haywel and Stakleys case of a Iustice of the peace and Sir Miles Fleetwoods case he being receiver of the Court of wards one called him Mr. deceiver and ruled action lies and tunc et ibidem shall have relation to the same time in which the said words were spoken and so he prayed judgement for the Plantiff and it was adjourned till another time See after Good against Bawtry GOod brought an Ejectione firme against Bawtry for ejecting him of certain lands in Creeting St. Maries in Creeting St. Olaves and in Creeting omnium sanctorum and a Venire facias issued to try the issue to Summon 12. men de vicineto de Creeting St. Mary Creeting St. Olaves and Creeting omnium omitting Sanctorum and it was now moved in arrest of judgement by Attoe Serjeant that the Venire facias was not good for it ought to be of all the Creetings and the Court blamed the Clark very much for his negligence but it was adjourned till another time A man lett an advowson for 40. years and the lessee covenanted that he would not alien without the assent of the lessor and he shewed all the matter because he had aliened to I. S. without his assent and the Defendant pleaded that he had not aliened without his assent and upon that they were at issue and it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement because he had not laid that the alienation was by deed for an advowson may not pass without deed and Hobert said if a man will declare in an ejectione firme of a lease made by the husband and the wife without deed this is not the lease of the wife without deed or yet if the Defendant will plead not guilty or non dimisit and this is found for the Plantiff the Plantiff shall have judgement for this shall be intended to be by deed which was granted by Winch Iustice being only present that the breach was well laid and he alleadged a president 43. Eliz. a man avowed and had not shewed that this was by deed and the Defendant pleaded non concessit and found for the avowant and he had judgement but Hobert denyed this case but afterwards in the principal case it was adjudged that the breach was well laid and the Plantiff had judgement In a formedon in reverter the Tenant was essoyned and the vouchee also appeared the case was essoyned and he had day over till octabis Michaelis And then the Attorney of the Defendant would have been essoyned and it was argued by Hendon Serjeant that he shall not be essoyned and yet he agreed if the vouchee had not appeared the Tenant might have been essoyned againe 13. E. 3 essoyne the 8. and the same Law of the vouchee be returned tarde but if the vouchee appeare and is essoyned there the Tenant shall not be essoyned againe and so is the express â—ook of the 3. H. 7. 17. 9. E. 3. 39. and the reason is because by the appearance of the vouchee the Tenant is out of the Court c. and it was adjourned till another day and at that day it was resolved by the Court that the Attorney shall be essoâ—ned and this was upon the view of a like judgement in the case of the Earl of Clanrickard and Hobert said that in that case the Roll of the 3. H. 7. was searched for and could not be found and Towse urged 22. H. 6. and 13. E. 3. essoyne 8. Sir Henry L. Warden of the Fleet. RIchardson Serjeant moued for the warden of the Fleet Sir Henry L. and his motion was that whereas one I. S. was in execution in the Custody of the Warden of the Fleet for 300. l. and he made an escape and he at whose suite he was in execution brought an action upon this escape against the Warden of the Fleet and he shewed that the Warden upon fresh suit had taken him again and he prayed that the Plantiff may not proceed in his action for though the Warden of the Fleet may plead this though the action was brought before the retaking of the party yet he prayed for the saving of charges that the action may be stayed and he said that there was such a case in this Court against Harris deputy Warden to Sir Henry L. upon such an escape and he pleaded to the issue and after he retook the prisoner and in this case the Court had also relieved Harris if the issue had not been joyned but Hobert let the Plantiff be brought here present in Court and then we will speak to that point Gell against White Gell against White and others and he declared in action of Trespass but the writ was general but the declaration was quare vi et armis bona et catalla sua ceperunt et asportaverunt viz. tertiam partem unius dishei plumbei Anglice the third part of a dish of lead Ore and it was moved that the Plantiff shall not have judgement for the variance between the writ and the declaration and though it is objected that here is nor any original writ at all for in verity there was not any yet the declaration is contrary to it self for if in a replevin the Plantiffs writ is de bonis et Catallis and his declaration is of a taking of a horse this is not good and so here bona viz. tertiam partem c. for this particular thing may not be said to be goods and Chattels and Harris Serjeant moved that the Attorney might be banished the Court for declaring without a writ according to the express book 20. H. 6. Hobert good reason adjourned till another time Anne Buckley against Simonds Mich. 18. Jac. Rot. 2120. ENtered Mich. 18. Jac. Rot. 2120. Anne Buckley was Plantiff in a Quare Imp. against Simonds and the case in effect was that Andrew Buckley Grandfather of the husband of the Plantiff did Covenant by indenture with Preston that before such a day his Son should marry the daughter of Preston And Covenanted to convey 6. l. 13. s. per Annum of rent issuing out of land to hold to them during the life of the Covenanted and his wife and after this he Covenanted for him his hetres and assignes that after the death of the Covenantor and his wife the land to which the advowson in question is appendant shall remain come and be unto the said
that all such recoveryes shall be void and shall be taken for fained recoveries and this may not be imagined a fained recovery where he in remainder in tail is vouched by him who is Tenant for life Jennings case Coo. 10. and such recovery as is there resolved is out of the Statute of the 14. Eliz. and is good by the Common Law and so in our case but admitting this to be within the Statute of the 11. of H. 7. yet the proviso of the same Statute had made that good for there is an express proviso that a recovery with the assent of the heir inheritable if this appear upon Record this shall not be within the Statute and in our case this is with the assent of the heir inheritable and also this appears to be of record and so the recovery is out of the danger of the Statute of the 11. H. 7. See Doctor and Student a book which was written but a litle time after the making of this Statute and Dyer 89. Vernons case and he said that the intent of the same Statute and of the proviso of the same Statute was to have issues and heirs and not termors who had only a future interest to falsifie recoveries and so he concluded that the recovery is out of the same Statute and that the proviso of the same Statute had made that good by the assent of the heir but admitting this should be against him that this recovery shall be within the Statute yet the lessee in our case shall not falsifie nor take advantage of the forfeiture by force of the same Statute but it hath been objected by Harvy that the wife in this case had only an estate for life or Tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct and he answered that the resolution in Beamounts case Coo. 119. is contrary for it is there expresly agreed that she was Tenant in tail after the fine leavied by the issue and so was it also resolved in Pophams case 9. Eliz. but there it was doubted whether she was Tenant in tail within the 32. H. 8. who might make a lease but all agreed that she was Tenant in tail who may suffer a recovery and binde the remainder and then when the feme suffers such a recovery as in our case that recovery shall take away a term for years which was made by the issue in tail Mich. 20. Jac. C. P. in the life of his mother notwithstanding she was a joynteress within the 11. H. 7. also he said that this lease for years being made by Henry Mark-Williams the son who was heir to the estate in tail and also to the reversion in fee being made by deed indented rendring rent this shall be a lease which issued out of the estate in fee simple and not out of the estate tail and this shall be out of the estate tail by estoppel being by deed indented for an estate shall not enure partly by way of interest and this lease to begin after the death of the feme he may not take advantage of the forfeiture for though the words of the Statute are that all such recoveries shall be void yet this shall not be void without entry and he who will have benefit by this ought to be mabled to enter presently so soon as the recovery is suffered for as there ought to be a person in esse who shall take benefit of the same Statute as appears by Coo. 3. Lincoln Colledge case so there ought to be a present estate in esse at the time of the recovery for the words of the Statute are to whom the interest shall appertain but in our case the interest doth not appertain to the lessee who had only a future term and therefore he shall not take the benefit by any forfeiture within the Statute of 11. H. 7. and the rather in our case because there is a rent reserved also all this matter is found by special verdict what estate the son haâ— when he made the lease by indenture Dyer 244. Coo. 155. and Bredons case in Treports case lessee for life and he in reversion by indenture let for years this is no estoppel and it shall be said to be the lease of one and the confirmation of the other and here the lease shall be said to issue out of the reversion in fee and not out of the estate tail and he vouched a case adjudged 10. Jac. when Flemming was chief Iustice of the Kings Bench between Errington and Errington and the case was that a man conveyed land to the use of himself and his wife in tail the remainder to his right heirs and had issue a son and a daughter and he died and the son let for years to begin after the death of his Mother and he died without issue and the daughter leavied a fine and the wife who was Tenant in tail died and the question was whether this lease for years issued out of the estate tail by way of estoppel for then the Conusee shall not avoid this but it was adjudged this lease was drawn out of the reversion in fee and the Conusee of the daughter shall avoid that which is all one with our case but admit that this lease is good by estoppel out of the estate taile yet he shall not take benefit of the forfeiture within 11. H. 7. and this differs from Sir George Browns case for there the Conuser entered by vertue of a remainder and not by the estate tail which passed to him by estoppel and upon that he concluded that if this is an estate meerly by estoppel he shall not have benefit by that Pope and Reynolds before NOw the case between Pope and Reynolds which see before was moved again by Ashley for the Plantiff in the prohibition and the case was that he was owner of a Park and the Park had been time beyond memory replenished with deer till the 10th of Eliz. at which time that was disparked and that the owners had used before the disparking to pay a Buck in Summer and a Doe in winter in full satisfaction of all Tithes due to the Vicar and the Parson had libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes in kinde and also traversed the prescription and it was found for the Plantiff in the prohibition and it had been moved in arrest of judgement that notwithstanding this prescription is found for the Plantiff yet he shall not have judgement for two causes First because gross Tithes belong to the Parson and not to the Vicar for the Vicaridge is derived out of the Parsonage to this he answered that for the most part every Vicaridge is derived out of the Parsonage but it is a meer non sequitur that this doth for the Vicarage and the Parsonage may have several patrons Fitzh 45. also a Vicarage may be time beyond memory as in our case 40. E. 3. 2. 7. and Fitz. juris utrum a Vicar may have a juris utrum and
answered that if it is meerly Collateral then it shall not go to the successor of the Bishop but to his executors as if the lessee had covenanted or obliged himself to pay this Herriot to the successor he may not have benefit of this obligation but the executor of the Bishop who was lessor shall have that and so he said that the argument made by Hendon is against him for if it be meerly Collateral then this shall not go to the successor and though the lessee of the Mannor may not have it the Plantiff shall not have a Trover and Conversion as he said before but he held this good by way of reservation for modus conventio vincunt legem and as to that which hath been said that the Herriot is to be paid upon the death of a stranger and not upon the death of the lessee himself to this he answered that this is nothing for the payment shall be out of the beasts of the lessee and not out of the beasts of a stranger and so he concluded and prayed judgement for the Defendant Rives case SAlmon avowed for a rent charge and he shewed that Sir Robert Rives had a rent charge granted to him and he further shewed a discent of that to the son and heir of Sir Robert and shewed that the rent was behinde unpaid to him viz. to his son and heir and he avowed as Bailiff to the son and exception was taken to the avowry because it is not expresly alleadged in whose time the rent was due whether in the time of the father or in the time of the son for if it is behinde in the time of the father the son may not distrain for that but it was resolved that the avowry was very good for in asmuch that he had shewed that the rent was not paid to the son this implied the rent was due to the son and not to the father An Executor brought a Scire Facias upon a judgement given for the Testator in debt by him and the Defendant would have pleaded the death of the Testator between the verdict and the judgement per Curiam he was not suffered for he may not plead this in a Scire Facias but the Defendant is put to his writ of error In Trespass for beasts taken in London and the Defendant justified to taking as a distress upon a lease of land in Kent and the Plantiff replied that the Defendant sold the beasts in London and so not a good plea to bring the Trial out of Kent and to have that tried in London which note Batterseys case AN action upon the case was brought against one Hordecre upon an assumpsit and he declared that the Defendant had arrested one Battersey by vertue of a Commission of Rebellion out of the Cinque ports and that the Plantiff keeping a Common Inne the Defendant brought the said Battersey to his Inne and requested the Plantiff to keep him a day and a night and promised in consideration there upon that he would save him harmless and he shewed that he kept the prisoner accordingly and that the said Battersey brought an action of false imprisonment against him and recovered against him upon which the action accrewed and upon non assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement because he had not shewed that the said Battersey was lawfully arrested and imprisoned and then if a man will without cause arrest a man and promise in this case no action will lie for it is no consideration because that the imprisonment is unlawful but Hobert chief Iustice Hutton and Winch contrary for be the imprisonment lawful or not lawful he might not take notice of that as if I request another man to enter into another mans ground and in my name to drive out the beasts and impound them and promise to save him harmless this is a good assumpsit and yet the act is Tortious but by Hutton where the act appears in it self to be unlawful there it is otherwise as if I request you to beat another and promise to save you harmless this assumpsit is not good for the act appears in it self to be unlawful but otherwise it is as in our case when the act stands indifferent but Hobert said it may be there is a difference between a publick officer and a private man for if the Sheriff arrest a man unlawfully and promise as before this is a good assumpsit but perchance otherwise of a private man as here but in the principal case the Defendant had pleaded non assumpsit and this implies a Lawful imprisonment for otherwise the Defendant might have given the unlawful imprisonment in evidence and judgement was commanded to be entered for the Plantiff Claworthy against Mitchel CLaworthy against Mitchel in a replevin the Defendant avowed for a rent and shewed that his father was seised and let for years rendring rent and he died and that the reversion descended to him and for rent behinde he avowed in barre of which avowry the Plantiff said that the father devised the reversion to another and the other maintained his avowry and traversed the devise and it was found that the devise was only of two parties and not of the third part for in very truth the land was holden by Knights service and all this was found by special verdict and for whom the jury had found was the question and it was argued by Hendon that this verdict is found for the avowant and he vouched 32. H. 8. Brook issue 8. in a precipe quod reddat if the issue be whether A. and B. infeoffed the Tenant and it is found that A. infeoffed him but not that A. and B. infeoffed him the issue is found against the Tenant see 14. E. 4. and Dyer 260. in debt upon a lease for years of divers parcels of land and upon non demisit pleaded it is found quod demisit all except one parcel this is found for the Plantiff and â—rin 15. Iac. Rot. 2022. Allen against Soper in a replevin for a horse and avowed for damage fesant and the Defendant claimed Common for his beasts Levant and Couchant upon his land and some in this case were found Levant and Couchant and others not and it was found against the Plantiff and he said in this case when the Defendant had alleadged a devise of all the land and upon this issue is joyned and it is found that part is devised and not all this is found against the Plantiff because the issue is joyned upon a particular and a special point whether all was devised or no and yet he agreed that upon a general issue as in trespass in 20. acres of land and the Defendant is found guilty but only in one yet the Plantiff shall have judgement but not where the issue is joyned upon a particular point as here but admitting that the Plantiff shall have judgement yet the avowant shall have return
for the third part as in debt upon a lease for years and it is found that he had not cause to demand all the rent but that tâ—is ought to be apportioned yet he shall have judgement for the residue and so here Ashley Serjeant to the contrary the jury have found for the Plantiff for the avowant had avowed for all and he alleadged 26. Assise where in an assise the seisin and the diseisin was found and yet because there was no Tenant found of the Frank-tenement the Plantiff shall have judgement and as to that that had been said that the avowant shall have retorn for part he denied that for now it appeared by the special verdict that the avowant and the devisee are Tenants in Common and Tenants in Common ought to joyn in avowry and for that reason the avowant shall not have return for any part but he ought to replead Dyer 177. see the book Hobert said that without question in this case if the jury had given a general verdict this had been against the Plantiff for it was not devised if all was not devised according to the issue and then if it would have been against the Plantiff in this case of a general verdict the special verdict shall be construed to be of the same nature in law and it shall be adjudged by us against the Plantiff for generally where the general issue shall be against any of the parties there the special verdict shall be of the same degree and Winch and Hutton agreed and by Winch who pleads in the affirmative ought to prove all to be true as in the case of Soper which had been remembred by my brother Hendon and by Hutton every issue which is taken upon absque hoc ought to be precisely found and as to the second point he held that the avowant shall have return for part for here the jury haue found the third part of the reversion in him and by that there appears a sufficient certainty to the Court to make an apportionment then if the Court may make an apportionment the avowant shall have return for so much as is due to him but if the apportionment is to be made by the jury and not by the Court there the avowant shall not have return for the third part but if it was in debt for 40. l. and the jury finde 20. l. the Plantiff shall have judgement of that part to be apportioned by the jury and so in Trespass if part be found for the Plantiff he shall have judgement for the demand is by writ but in our case it is an avowry and it is a certain issue and for that reason the avowant shall not have return for the third part adjourned Hutton alledged 28. H. 8. 32. and at another day judgement was commanded to be entered for the avow an t Hobert and Winch being only present Note that if a man make a lease of several parcels of land in a Town and this is for the trial of a title in an ejectione firme he ought to enter into every part of those several and to leave a servant or other to keep the possession till he had entered into every parcel and then to deliver the lease of all and this is good Empson and Bathrust before THe case of Empson against Bathrust was moved again by Harris and he praied judgement for the Plantiff and it had been said that this obligation is void by the Statute of the 23 H. 6. but he held that this Statute did not extend to this obligation for it is only where a sheriff takes a bond of any person which is in his ward and yet he said he never found in any book the Sheriff might exact any fee of any person for he is an officer of the King but 21. H. 7. he may prescribe to have a bare fee but the Statute of 23. H. 6. appoints little fees in some cases Secondly he argued in this case that the Sheriff may take a bond for by 29. of Eliz. this is a due debt to the Sheriff and then if the Sheriff give the partie day till another day it is good reason he shall have a bond for that for his security Thirdly he held that the Sheriff may take this bond of the party after the extent and before the liberate by the Statute of the 29. Eliz. for otherwise perchance when the Sheriff had made the extent perchance the Conusee will not sue out the liberate and so the Sheriff shall be defeated of all his labour and travel taken in the extent and in the last place he said that in case the summe exceeded a 100. l. the Sheriff shall have 6. d. in the pound for that which exceeds and 12. d. for the first hundred pound but it was resolved by Hobert Winch and Hutton that judgement shall be given against the Plantiff and first they agreed this obligation not to be within 23. H. 6. for the partie was not in the ward of the Sheriff and so was resolved in Bewfages case Secondly it was agreed by the said 3. Iustices that the Sheriff may not take his salary appointed by the Statute till a compleat execution viz. till the liberate for the words of the Statute are in the negative and doth not establish the fees but only tolerates them and Hobert said if the Sheriff made an extent and before the liberate a new Sheriff is chosen then in this case the new Sheriff shall have the fees appointed by the Statute and not the antient Sheriff and by Hobert if the Conusee sue an extent and then refuse to sue the liberate to the intent to defraud the Sheriff of his fees the Sheriff shall have his remedy by his action upon the case and by Hutton if the Sheriff return upon the extent that he is ready to deliver that to the Conusee this is sufficient to intitle him to his action upon the case and thirdly it was holden by Hobert and by Winch that the Sheriff shall have but 6. d. in the pound for all if it exceed 100. l. for so was the intent of the Statute but Hutton said that the Common practise is otherwise and Hobert said that he did not value that for he knew well enough that the Sheriff will rather take more then less then their fees and though it had been said that if such a Construction shall be made then the Sheriff shall have as much for executing 100. l. as 200. l. to this he said the Sheriff ought to take this subject to this casually for it is the very words of the Statute and lastly it was resolved by Hobert and Winch that the obligation was void by the Common law and extortion and a taking by the Colour of his office see Dive and Manninghams case and Hobert said that every bond that is taken for any thing which is malum in se is void by the Common law and this extortion is malum in se and so void by
reason the factor may sell the goods without ready money and this is good reason for perchance the goods are of that nature that they will not keep without perishing by which clearly it appears that if I deliver goods to another to Merchandise and to sell he may sell them without ready money but if my factor or Bailiff will sell them to one which he knows wâ—ll prove a Bankrupt without ready money this is not good but secondly he held the custome as it is here alledged not to be good for then the partie shall have no remedy for his money except the factor will go into Spain and sue the Bill and the laws of Merchants are special laws for their benefit and not for their prejudice and this custome as it is alledged is too large but if he had alledged that such Bill taken by the factor shall be as good and effectual to the Mr. as if it had been taken in his own name this had been good besides the custome is not good for it is alledged to be that when the factor had delivered the Bill to the owner of the goods this shall be a discharge to him who was the factor and here is no time set within which this may be delivered and so for ought is shewed it may be delivered 10. years after which may be good and to that which had been said that the laws of Merchants are national laws he denied that for every Kingdome had its proper and peculiar laws and though this is the law of Spain and national to them yet this ought to be reasonable or else it shall not binde and judgement was commanded to be entered for the Plantiff Hobert and Winch being only present It was ruled that he who had land in a parish who did not inhabit there shall be chargable to the reparation of the Church but not to the buying of ornaments of the Church for that shall be levied of the goods of the parishioners and not of their lands by Sir Henry Yelverton and said to be so formerly adjudged In trespas the Defendant pleads that one such was possessed of a term for years and bring so possessed by his last will and Testament devised that to the Defendant and died after whose death the Defendant entered and was possessed by vertue of the devisee upon which plea the Plantiff demurred generally and Hutton thought this plea prima facie to be good though the Defendant had not expresly alledged that the devisee died possessed but his plea implies that for he had said that he entered by vertue of the devisee and was possessed and this only matter of form and not matter of substance and no cause of general demurrer which Winch also granted that this was also matter of form and not matter of substance Gage against Johnson for his fees GAge brought an action against Iohnson as his servant and Solicitor to the Defendant in a suit in the Kings Bench taking for every Term 3. s. 4 d. for his fees and for this he brought his action of debt and Serjeant Hitcham moved in arrest of judgement and he urged the case of Samuel Leech an Attourney of this Court in an action upon the case brought by him upon a promise to pay so much for the solliciting of a cause of the Defendant and the opinion was that the action will not lie for it is in nature of maintenance for a Solicitor may not lay out money for his Clyent and if an action upon the case will not lie then much less an action of debt and Hobert said that a Councellor may take fees of his Clyent but he may not lay out or expend money for him and the same law of an Attourney for if he did disburse money for him he doubted much what remedy he should have and he further said a servant may follow business for his Mr. and may take money for his labour for if I retain my servant generally he is not bound to follow my suits at law except at his pleasure for that is an extraordinary service and for that if I will say to my servant that if he will follow my business at Westminster I will give him so much for his pains my servant in this case is not without his remedy but if his service is coupled with Soliciting to take money for his pains his opinion was that no action will lie to which the other justices also agreed and they arose Wright against Black before NOw the case of Wright and of Black was moved again and the case was that Wright had brought an action upon the case against Black and Black for that the Defendants intending to make away his good name and to cause him to lose his goods did maliciously and without cause at Norwich in the County of Norfolk prefer a Bill of indictment at the Sessions of peace containing that the Plantiff stole two bundles of fetches and also did cause and entice one I. S. to give in evidence that the indictment was good and true by reason of which he was bound to Answer that at the next Assiles and there he was accquitted and whether the action was maintainable was the question and Attoe argued that the action is maintainable though it is not shewed that the Bill of indictment was found and he vouched a case which was Hill 10. Iac. B. R. Rot. 921. between Whorewood and Cordery and his wife Defendants which case and judgement was after affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber upon a writ of error and the case was that the Plantiff declared that the Defendants intending to take away his good name did charge him to have ravished Dorothie Coxe and maliciously exhibited a Bill of indictment containing that the Plantiff did felloniously ravish the said Dorothie their daughter and did give this in evidence to the Grand jury who found Ignoramus and yet it was adjudged that an action lies and he cited a case the 19. Iac. in B. R. Deney against Ridgy where was only an indictment preferred concerning the stealing of a horse and no more and yet an action lies Hobert chief Iustice said that if seemed to him that it is actionable for this is as great a scandal to give this in evidence to the Grand jury as to publish this upon an Alebench and as the course of Iustice ought not to be stopped so neither ought the good name of man in things which concern his life be taken away without good cause and I have heard that judgement was given another Term for the Plantiff but quere better of that Hoes case HOes seised of land in fee he devised that to his wife for life the remainder of one parcel of that to Thomas his eldest son the remainder of the other parcel to his youngest son in fee and this devised was with proviso that the feme shall pay his legacies and also his will was that in case his wife died before the payment of his debts and legacies
prayed judgement in the case for the Defendant Finis M. 20. Jac. The Bishop of Glocester against Wood before NOw the case between the Bishop of Glocester and Wood was adjudged Hobert and Winch being only present and first it was resolved by them that when the Bishop let parcel as 20. acres for life and after he lets the Mannor it self to another rendring rent in this case the rent issues out of the intire Mannor for if in debt for the rent the lessor do declare upon a demise of the Mannor omitting the reversion of this parcel the declaration is evill and upon non dimisit pleaded it shall be found against him Secondly this they held that the Herriot reserved shall go with the reversion and if this do not go with the reversion to the lessee of the Mannor yet the Plantiff shall not have the Herriot and then though the Defendant had not good title to the Herriot yet if the property of the Herriot do not appertain to the Plantiff he shall not have a trover and conversion for the Defendant had the first possession and judgement was commanded to be entred for the Defendant if no other cause was shewed before next thursday Hill 20. Jac. C. P. Bulloigne against William Gervase Administrator BUlloigne brought an action of debt upon an obligation of 12. l. against William Gervase Administrator to I. S. and the Defendant pleaded that the intestate died outlawed and that the outlawrie alwayes continued in force and upon this the Plantiff did demur generally and it was argued by Attoe for the Plantiff for the plea is not good for this is a plea only by way of argument that he shall not be charged for this debt because he had not assets and in this case this outlawrie ought to be given in evidence upon nothing in his hands being pleaded and it ought not to be pleaded in barre for by possibility the outlawrie may be reversed and then the Administrator shall be charged if he had any goods and he vouched a case in this Court Trin. 27. Eliz. Rot. 2954. Worley against Bradwel and Dame Manners his wife Administratrix to Sir Thomas Manners and the feme pleaded outlawrie in the intestate and the Plantiff demurred generally and it was adjudged to be no plea and note that the record was brought into the Court and read accordingly Hitcham Serjeant to the contrary the record in Manners case was not well pleaded for the Defendant only shewed that a Capias ad satisfaciendum issued against the Testator and did not shew any recovery or judgement against him and that was the reason of the judgement in that case and the Plantiff here ought to have demurred specially as the case of 27. of Eliz. for otherwise he shall not have advantage of this plea and the plea is only evil for the manner for it is apparant that by the outlawrie of the Testator all his goods are forfeit and this is the reason of the book of 16. E. 4. 4. it is a good plea in an action of debt to plead an outlawrie in the Plantiff and to demand judgement of the action and not judgement of the writ for the debt is forfeit to the King by the outlawrie Hobert Hutton and Winch the president shewed by Attoe is not answered for though the pleading of the outlawrie is without shewing of a recovery and judgement yet the outlawrie is good till it is reversed and Hutton said that in some cases an Executor or Administrator had goods though the Testator died outlawed as if the Testator let for life rendring rent and the rent is behinde and after the Testator is outlawed and dies this shall not be forfeit but his Executors shall have the rent and if a man make a feofment upon condition that the feoffor pay 100. l. to the feoffee and his heirs or Executors and the feoffee is outlawed and the feoffor pay the money to his Executors as he may well the Executors and not the King shall have that also if the Testator is outlawed and he devise his land to his Executors to be sold these moneys shall not be forfeit and they shall agree that the plea was not good notwithstanding the general demurrer for he who will barre another by an argumentative plea his plea ought to be infallible to all intents and purposes and so it is not here for the Executors and the Administrators may be charged by the having of goods though the Testator was outlawed and for that the plea of the Defendant is not good in substance and the general demurrer is good by Hobert and by him if we suffer this plea then the Defendant will keep the goods and not reverse the outlawrie nor yet satisfie the King also if he had not goods the Defendant may plead plene Administravit or nothing in his hands and give this outlawrie in evidence See 8. E. 4. 6. 3. H. 6. 32. 39. H. 6. 37. by the opinion of Prisot and also see the case in E. 4. 5. a case to this purpose and also note well that it was said concerning the case of Manners that a writ of error was brought of that afterwards and that the case remains till this day undetermined Buckley against Simonds Ent. 18. Jac. Rot. 2120. NOw at this day the case of Buckley and Simonds was argued by Iustice Hutton and by Winch and the case was briefly this Anne Buckley Administrator to Andrew Buckley her Husband was Plantiff in a quare Imp. against John Simonds John Prior and Robert Pierce Alias Price for disturbing her to present to the Church of D. and shewed that Andrew Buckley Grandfather of the Husband of the Plantiff was seised of the said advowson in gross and presented one I. S. and he died after whose death the advowson discended to Richard Buckley and that the Church became void and that one Richard Williams usurped upon the said Richard Buckley then being within age and that Richard Buckley also died and by his death the said advowson discended to Andrew Buckley as brother and as heir to Richard and that the Church became void and before the presentment by Andrew and within 6. moneths Andrew died and that the Administration of the goods of Andrew were committed to the Plantiff and that she presented within 6. moneths and the Defendants disturbed her and the Defendants pleaded in barre and confessed the seisin of the Grandfather as is alledged in the declaration and they said that the said Andrew Buckley 14. Eliz. by his Indenture made between the said Andrew Buckley on the one part and John Preston of the other part by which the said Andrew Buckley by the same Indenture covenanted with Preston in consideration of a marriage to be had between John Buckley and Elizabeth Preston daughter of John Preston he covenanted with him and his heirs that immediately after he death of him and of his wife the said advowson inter alia shall be to the said John Buckley
his son and to Elizabeth Preston and to the heirs of John and so the Defendant claimed by vertue of a lease for 1000. years made by Iohn Buckley and the Plantiff demanded Dyer of the Indenture which was read to this effect that Andrew Buckley by the said Indenture covenanted with Preston that in consideration of a marriage between his son and the daughter of Preston that he will grant a rent charge of 6. l. 13. s. out of his land at Weymouth and at Melcombe Regis payable at 4. usual feasts and he Covenanted for him and his heirs that he would convey the land in Melcombe Regis and Wike Regis to such persons as Preston should appoint provided that the said Andrew Buckley and his wife may injoy that during their lives without impeachment of waste and covenanted that immediately after their deaths the lands shall immediately remain come and be to the said Iohn Buckley and Elizabeth his wife and that the advowson of Bradway shall remain come and be to the said Iohn Buckley and Elizabeth his wife and upon all the matter the question was whether by this last covenant an use will arise of the advowson in Bradway to Iohn Buckley for if an use is raised to him then this lease made by him is good and by consequence the title of the Defendants is good to present to this advowson and if not then the fee alwayes remained in Andrew Buckley the Grandfather and by devise discends did come to Andrew Buckley the Husband of the Plantiff and thâ—n the quare Impedit is maintainable And Hutton began his argument he argued that no use will arise to Iohn Buckley by this Indenture for when a man will raise an use by way of covenant there are 4. necessary things which ought to concur First is a sufficient consideration as of blood or marriage or other Collateral considerations as if I covenant with you that when you infeoffe me of certain land I will stand seised to the use of you and your heirs this is good but if the consideration be for money then this ought to be inrolled or otherwise no use will arise the second point is there ought to be a deed to testifie this agreement for otherwise no use will arise as was resolved 38. Eliz. in Collard and Collards case Thirdly he who covenants ought to be seised of the laâ—d at the time of the covenant as was resolved 37. Eliz. in Yelvertons case a man covenanted to stand seised to the use of his son of such lands as he should afterwards purchase and it was holden void because he was not seised at the time of the covenant and lastly the uses must agree with the rules of the Common law Cook 1. and he cited Chudleys case a man covenanted to stand seised to the use of one for years the remainder to the right heirs of I. S. this remainder is void though this is by way of covenant and use for the free-hold may not be in abeyance and so if I will at this day bargain and sell my lands in fee they shall not pass without the word heirs for it was not the intention of the said Statute to raise uses in such mannor contrary to the rules of the Common law or uses which are uncertain and in our case the intent was that no present use shall arise for out of the same land is granted a rent charge to Iohn Buckley and Eliz. his wife by which it appears plainly that it was not their intent that any present use should arise by the delivery of the indenture and if the use do not arise presently upon the delivery of the Indenture it shall never arise at all also the intent appears for it is that the land shall remain free from incumberances and this sounds only in covenant and for this reason the covenants shall be of the same nature and lastly the covenant is that the land shall remain and be and this is altogether incertaine and for this no use will arise because this failes of words as if I covenant to leave my lanâ— to my son after my death this will not raise an use to my son no more then if I covenant with the friends of my wife that after my death she shall have my goods this will not make my wife to be Executor and he vouched 21 H. 7. 17. 34. H. 8. 59. the Lord Borroughs case Dyer 355. 166. 324. and so be concluded that judgement ought to be given for the Plantiff Iustice Winch argued to the same purpose and he said the first part of the covenant contains that there shall be a marriage before such a day if the parties shall agree and the second part is a covenant that the feme shall have 6. l. 13. s. for her joynture and if this covenant executed an use of the land presently then this destroyes the joynture which was not the intention of the parties Thirdly there is another covenant to convey Coppihold land and if this covenant do raise an use then it will follow that Iohn Buckley shall have the land though the marriage do take effect and besides the covenant doth create an use presently or not at all and then when this use is to be raised by this covenant which contains in that nothing but future and Executory matter this will not create a present use and he cited the books which were vouched at the barre and by Hutton and so he concluded that this covenant will not raise an use presently to Iohn Buckley and that judgement ought to be given for the Plantiff And at another day the case was argued by Hobert chief Iustice for the Plantiff and that no use will arise by this covenant and he said if I will covenant to make assurance of my land to my son or to a stranger this covenant is meerly nugatorie and will not raise an use but on the contrary if I will covenant to stand seised to the use of my son though there is also a covenant to make further assurance yet this will raise a present use for the covenant is declaratory and not obligatory and so is Dyer 235. and there was no word to assure the land or to stand seised to uses but only that the land shall come remain and be in tail or in fee and there was no word to assure the land and this case is agreeable to the case of 21. H. 7. 18. by Rede that no use will arise and the reason is plain because the covenantor had election in which manner he shall have that whether by discent or in any other manner for if I covenant that my land shall descend to my son after my death no use will arise by this covenant and he put the case in Chudleys case that if a man covenant that after his death his son shall have his land in tall it is said that the son shall have an estate executed by the Statute of 27. H. 8. and the
Infant was not bound by this Covenant at the Common Law and no Collateral covenant shall be maintainable upon the Statute for this being against an Infant it shall be taken strictly as a custome that one shall infeoffe yet that custome will not warrant him to lease and release and as to that which had been said that it is incident to every retainer to serve truly and faithfully that is very true and an action upon the case lies upon a covenant in law but not upon the covenant in fact he ought to have Collateral securitie which was also confessed by Hutton and he said moreover that the retainer is for the benefit of the Infant that he learn his Trade but the covenant here is for his disadvantage and for the advantage of his Mr. and for that reason it is void as if an Infant had covenanted to pay 10. l. for the learning of his Trade when his time was up Winch Iustice contrary to that last point for he thought the covenant to be incident to the retainer and good though he is an Infant as an Infant who levyes a fine is also inabled to make an indenture to lead the uses and note that Hutton and Hobert said also that the barre of the Defendant is good viz. the pleading of the want of the certificate and for that reason the replication of the Plantiff that he had 40. s. per annum is evil and though the rejoynder of the Defendant is evil and a departure yet it appears that the Plantiff had not any cause of action and for the covenant they said that they two are strong in their opinions and upon that Winch agreed also that judgement shall be given against the Plantiff and Attoe moved the Court what remedy the Plantiff may have for the loss is 500. l. and per totam â—uriam he shall not have an action of accompt for that lies not against an Infant being an apprentice Coo. 11. 89. and the Court said that as to the retainer and the damage it is no more then if an Infant had been retained by word and there is not any remedy but an action upon the case and Attoe said that they had thought to have brought an action of Trover and conversion and he doubted whether that will lie and after the Court said to him you had best to bring an action upon your case and it was afterwards ordered by Arbitrement Oxford and his wife against Goldington IN a Prohibition for Oxford and his wife against Goldington to the Court of Audience for they are sued there for a legacie devised to the Plantiff by one George Cotton and this is as they are Administrators to one William Cotton who was executor of the said George for that he libelled against the Plantiffs in the Prohibition in the Court of Audience and had shewed that they had goods of the first Testator and a Prohibition was awarded and Finch moved for a consultation and he said if by the spiritual Law an Executor wasts the goods of the Testator and after dies intestate that in this case his Administrator shall answer that viz. the debts and the legacies of the first Testator and Doctor Pope who was present in the Court said that the Law was so and so he said the Common Law was that is the Statute of 31. E. 3. which gives the same remedy against an Administrator as against an Executor if the Executor die intestate for it is the interest of the first Testator upon which the Administrator shall be committed to the next of the Kin and if none will take that upon them then the Administration of the Executor ought and ought to take several letters of Administration for that and if no letters of administration is taken and yet he meet with the goods he shall be charged as an Executor of his own wrong and if no goods be of the first Testators then it is no reason that he should be charged and the Statute of 31. E. 3. gives no remedy per Curiam but against the immediate Administrator and if the case be as you have alledged then the Legatee or the debtee is at no damage or mischief for he may sue the Administrator of the first Testator if he had goods or any other who had goods as Executor of his own wrong and if none will take letters nor yet meddle with the goods then the debtee or the Legatee may take letters of Administration himself and so no consultation was awarded but the Prohibition stood Avis against Gennie and others ONe Avis brought an action of Trespass of his close broken against Gennie and two others and the writ was general but in the the declaration he affirmed that to be in Ayring half a Rood and in digging another half Rood and after in his new assignement shewed that to be a Sellion containing by estimation and acre and it was found for the Plantiff and damages assessed to 20. s. and now it was moved in arrest of judgement by Attoe because the new assignement is more large then the declaration and the opinion of the Court was that because this was but an action of Trespas where damages only is to be recovered that this is very good but otherwise it is perthance if that had been in an ejectione firme Brigs case BRigs brought a Prohibition against another and alledged that the Dean and Chapter of D. was seised of the Mannor and the Defendant being Vicar sued to have Tithe in Court Christian and shewed that time beyond memory c. they had held that discharged of Tithes for them and their Tenants and that they let that to the Plantiff and it was moved by Hendon Serjeant that the Dean and the Chapter are a bodie Politique and temporal which are not capable of this prescription in non decimando Coo. 2. the Bishop of Winchesters case Hobert said that the Dean and Chapter are a bodie spiritual and are annexed to the Bishop throughout all England and if the Bishop is capable of that as it is plain he is then the Dean and Chapter is also capable of that which was granted by Hutton but Winch doubted for Winch said he may be a lay man and for that the Plantiff ought to averre that he is a spiritual person Hutton confessed that the Dean may be a lay man as was the Dean of Durham by special licence and dispensation of a King but that is rare and a special case and is not common and general and therefore not to be brought as an example which was also granted by Hobert chief Iustice and upon that day was given over to the Defendant to shew cause wherefore the Prohibition shall not be granted Anne Summers case in Dower A Writ of Dower was brought by Anne Summers against the Tenant of the land and he pleaded a fine with proclamations levyed by her husband 14. Iac. in which year the husband died and the wife had not claimed within the Statute
Harvey and Blacklock in this Court where the Defendant pleaded such plea in all points as here as to the Fettering for the Defendant fettered the horse of the Plantiff because he was so fierce and so wild to one of his own horses and so continued till he delivered him to the Plantiff and because the horse died within the year the Plantiff brought his action and upon this plea pleaded by the Defendant it was demurred in law and judgement was given for him for Cook who was then chief Iustice said that a horse may be of 40. or 100. l. price and it shall be intollerable to allow such Nusance and secondly he had not made proclamation and so trespass lies against and so in our case Harris Serjeant to the contrary for when the Lord of a Mannor takes an estate he had some kinde of property before the year is expired and for that reason he may detain the estray against the owner till amends is made to him 44. E. 3. 14. 29. E. 3. 6. by Knevet 20. H. 7. by Vavasor and Frewick and if he had property against the owner himself he may use that with moderation to make some benefit of that especially in case of necessity as 22. Assise 5. 6. a man may justifie the beating another if he be in a rage and 6. E. 4. 8. one may justifie the felling of a tree in the ground of another in case of necessity and here is no other way to restrain this Savage Colt and so the justification is good but in this case it was resolved by Hobert Winch and Hutton Iones being in the Chancery First when a beast comes within the Mannor of another Lord this is a trespas but after the seisure for an estray it is a possession of the estray in the Lord and the beginning of property as Hutton used the term so that he may have an action of trespass against any stranger which takes that out of his possession and if he estray into the land of another he may him retake Secondly it was resolved that if the Lord make not proclamation in convenient time that this possession became tortious for the law necessarily imposeth it upon the Lord of the Mannor that he make Proclamation because that otherwise the owner may not come to the knowledge of him Thirdly that the estray within the year is as a pledge in the Custody of the law till amends be made to the Lord and for that reason the Lord may not work him no more then he can work a distress Fourthly it was resolved that if the estray goe into the Mannor of another Lord and the last Lord claims that as an estray the first Lord had lost that but not before claim Fifthly Hutton and Winch agree that he might Fetter the Colt being so fierce and wild for he is answerable for the trespas and wrong which he makes in the land of his neighbours and also to the owner if he lose him and therefore it is unreasonable that he may not keep him safe for his indempnity and that is not like to the case 27. Assise which was urged of the other side also they said fettering is the usual way in the Country to restrain wild horses and therefore if it be in an ordinary manner as he Fetters his own there is not any remedy against the Defendant Hobert chief Iustice was against that last point for the Lord may not hold him in arcta custodia as a prisoner because he had rather the keeping of an estray the the property and for that if the estray go into the land of another Lord the first may not take him again if the other claims him as an estray for the possession was rather in regard of his Mannor then in regard of himself and therefore he shall not answer for the wrong which he doth in the lands of others for the possession is in regard of his Mannor and his Fettering is an abuse and he may not neither use nor abuse an estray and he said over that the Defendant had not well pleaded for another reason because he had not shewed that he proclaimed him in the next market Town within convenient time which convenient time ought to be adjudged by the Court and he said the Lord may not keep him else where within the year then within the Mannor Winch Iustice said the Defendant ought to proclaim an estray ut supra if the year be past for by that he gains an absolute propertie but here where no property is devested he needs not to proclaim him within the year and Hobert commanded this case to be moved again see the last case but one in the book Ruled that after imparlance in debt upon an obligation the Defendant shall be admitted to plead alwayes ready though the 13. Eliz. in Dyer was urged to the contrary Hill 21. Jac. C. P. Hillary Term in 21 year Iac. C. P. Trehern against Claybrook TRehern brought an action of debt against Claybrook upon a lease for years and upon nihil debet pleaded and a special verdict the case was to this effect the Grandfather of the Plantiff was seised of lands in Southwark and he made a lease for years of that to the Defendant at London rendring 45. l. rent and after he devised the reversion to the Plantiff in fee and in his will he set forth that his intent was that his Executors shall have the reversion during the Term upon condition that they enter into bond to pay 34. l. per annum at 4. usual Feasts during the Term and he further devised that this bond shall be made by the advise of his overseers and he limitted all this to be done within 6. moneths after his decease and if his Executors refuse his will was that his overseers shall take the profits upon the same condition and appointed that both obligations be made to the Plantiff and the devisor died and the Executors within 3. moneths shewed the will to the overseers but no obligation was offered to be made within the 6. moneths and the Plantiff required the Executors to enter into the obligation and to pay the rent which was not done and he claimed the reversion and brought his action afterwards in London where the lease was made and not in Southwark where the land did lie and this case was twice argued by Councel at the barre and now it was argued by the 3. Iustices Hobert being absent And Iones Iustice moved a point which was not moved at the barre viz. that the Plantiff is devisee of the reversion and so is privie in estate only and for that reason the action ought to be brought in Southwark where the land lies and not in London where the contract was made but the lessor himself had liberty to bring the action where he pleased in regard of the privitie of estate and contract and so was it adjudged in the Kings Bench between Glover and Humble and here though this be
after verdict and no exception taken by the Defendant yet we as Iudges of the case may take notice of that ex officio and give judgement against the Plantiff and the 3. Iustices agreed that here is a condition by which the reversion is vested in them but it is in the Plantiff till performance of that which not being performed by them within the time limitted the Plantiff ought to have the rent and though the Will is that it shall be with the advise of the overseers and no advise is found yet that is at the peril of the Executors who ought to give notice of that to the overseers being to their advantage and for that see 21. H. 6. 67. 46. E. 3. 5. 18. E. 3. 27. 11. H. 4. 13. which cases were cited by Serjeant Harris at the barre and they agreed that the overseers shall not have the reversion for though it was devised to them yet that was upon the refusal of the Executors and no refusal is found but only a non performance of the condition and also the devise is tied to them upon condition to do that within 6. moneths which ought to be performed in convenient time at the least though it be in case of a Will and so they concluded that the Plantiff had right as to the matter in Law but that judgement shall be given against him upon the matter supra and it was resolved that this was not aided by any Statute of Ieofailes for this is a mistrial but another point was moved whether the Plantiff shall pay costs within the Statute of the 23. H. 8 or 4. Iac. the words of the Statute are if the Plantiff be nonsuite or verdict given against him upon a lawful trial but here it was resolved that he should not pay costs for no verdict is found against the Plantiff but rather for him and judgement is given against him because he mistook his action and in Bishops case Coo. 5. judgement was given against the Plantiff upon a material variance in the verdict and no costs was given and it is not only out of the letter of the Statute but also out of the intent for it may not be imagined that the Plantiff had stirrd an unlawful suite when the matter which he declares is found for him and that Statute is not taken by equity as Hutton said for it hath been agreed here that if Executors are nonsuite or judgement given against them upon a verdict they shall not pay costs within the Statute of the 23. H. 8. or 4. Iac. and so is the constant practise for the Statute speaks of any contract or specialty made with the Plantiff or between the Plantiff and Defendant and the Executor brings an action upon the contract of another and in the principal case judgement was entered that the Defendant should go without day and that he shall not have costs against the Plantiff Bret and Ward NOte upon evidence to a Iury between Bret and ward upon the dissolution of a Vicarage in the County of Warwick which was part of the Priory of Dantry where the Pope by his Bull gave to the Vicar minutas decimas et alteragum and it was certified by the Doctors that alteragum will pass to the Vicar Tithe wool c. and the usage was shewed in evidence and the Copie of the Popes Bull and the Court would not credit that without seeing the Bull it self and so the Plantiff was nonsuite and the Iury was discharged Bacon against Weston BAcon brought an action of debt upon an obligation against Weston as an Administrator to one Okes and he pleaded that the said Okes such a day and year in his life time acknowledged a judgement to him in the Kings Bench upon an indebitatus est of 1500. l. and died and that he retained so much of the goods to satisfie himself and that over that 1500. l. he had put 40. s. and it was moved that he ought to plead the general issue and give this matter in evidence as he may well but it is a mischief to the Plantiff to take issue upon that for then he ought to say that he had assets Hobert true he may give this in evidence or he may plead that the judgement was not satisfied or defezanced but we may not compel him to change his plea except he will assent Potter against Brown POtter brought an action upon the case against Brown for these words he innuendo the Plantiff as is arrant a thief as any is in England for he did break open the Trunck of the Plumbers standing in my Lord of Suffolks Hall with another mans tools and took out 20. l. and upon a general issue it was found for the Plantiff and damages given to twenty pound and Hendon Serjeant moved in arrest of judgement First because for want of an averment that there are Thiefs in England and it had been adjudged that if A. say of B. he is as arrant a Thief as any is in Warwick Goal yet B. ought to aver that there are Thieves in Warwick Goal but it was holden by the Court viz. by Hutton Winch and Iones that there needs not any such averment and the difference is when the words do relate to a particular place and when to an entire realm and the same law when it is tied to one kinde of fellony for it is very well known that there are Thieves in England and any in other realm and Hendon moved that the last words extenuate the former for the latter shew that he took that as a trespas for he did not say that he stole 20. l. out but took it out and so it shall be intended that he took it as a trespasser as to say B. is a Thief for he took money out of my Pocket implies a trespass and he is a thief for he took my horse this shall be supposed that he took him as a trespasser and Hutton said that till the time of Hen. 8. there was not any actions brought for words and to the end to settle peace he thought words not to be taken so largely and favorably in giving way to unruly tongues and to the unbridled humours of men but rather strictly to curb them for their evil language see after East 22. Jac. C. P. Easter Term in the 22. year of King James in the Common Pleas. VPon Wednesday being the 25th day of April and the first day of this Easter Term which was the first day which I came to Report and it was agreed by the Court the same day that if one come to the Bar to make his law in debt brought against him upon a simple contract that the Plantiff shall be demanded and if he will be nonsuit he may and then the Defendant shall not recover costs against him but as I have heard that this was to have been intended where the Plantiff was an executor or Administrator and not of any other Leonard Barley against Foster BEtween
reversion for life of the Grandfather is no dispensation to the estate of the lessee for though the action was suspended during his life yet now it is on foot again and in many cases an estate may be dispunishable of waste and yet by matter ex post facto this shall be punishable viz. where the first privitie of the estate was determined as in case a lease for years be without impeachment of waste and then the lessor releases to the lessee c. the first privity is gone and he is now punishable in an action of waste and here in our case there was no absolute dispensation but only for the time and yet perchance though the estate is subject to waste in the creation yet if the lessor will afterwards by his deed grant that this shall be dispunishable this may priviledge him but here is no such matter in the case at the bar and of this opinion was the Court and Winch said that there was no difference where the Franke tenement is intercedent for if this be not punishable yet the particular estate shall not participate of that priviledge of him in the remainder and Iones Iustice said if the particular estate had been extracted and drawn out of that estate for life in that case that had been dispunishable but it was agreed by Hendon Serjeant that the Plantiff in his declaration had declared of a waste after the estate for life was determined and they found that this was made in the time of him in reversion for life and so differed but the Court was of opinion that this was nothing to the purpose for it is only a variance from the time and not from the matter for it is not material whether this was before his death or after his death because in both cases this is punishable but day was given over to shew other causes Portington and Beamount IT was argued clearly in the case between Portington and Beamount that if the Court of the Councel of York which is a Court of equitie do decree against a maxime in law as against a joynt Tenant who had that by Survivorship that the heir of his companion shall have the Moietie that in this case a prohibition shall be granted except that during the lives of the parties it was agreed that there shall not be any Survivorship and then they hold plea upon that equitie and then good In Dower it was agreed clearly that if the Tenant shew that before the husband any thing had in the land A. was seised of the same land in fee and leâ— that for years rendring rent and granted the reversion to the husband of the Plantiff who died seised of the said reversion and so demanded judgement if the demandant shall have Dower c. this is no plea in bar of Dower but proves she had title of Dower but this saves the lease for years and she shall have judgement only of the reversion and of the rent and also she doth save to the Tenant damages and the demandant shall be indowed of the reversion Summers against Dugs SUmmers brought an action upon the case upon a promise against Dugs and he shewed in his declaration that the Defendant was rector of the Rectorie of D. and that he and all his predecessors had used to have all manner of Tithes and said that he the Plantiff occupied 100. acres of land in the same parish and shewed that the Defendant promised to the Plantiff that in consideration that he would plant his lands with Hops and so make the Tithes to be the better the Defendant promised to the Plantiff to allow him towards every acre which he shall so plant 40. s. towards the charge in planting them and he shewed that he planted an acre at the request of the Defendant and so upon the promise brought the action and now it was moved whether this was a good consideration to ground an action because the Tithes are not bettered by the planting of that with Hops but by the growing of them and the increase of them and he had not averred that the Tithes were of better value then they were before and it was also moved that he may not have an action for the Rood c. but this afterwards was referred to Arbitrement but the Court said if the Plantiff had shewed in his declaration that he might have made more benefit of that by other means then that by the planting of it with Hops the Tithes also being bettered then it had been more cleare Philip Holman against Tuke PHillip Holman was executor of George Holman and he brought an action of debt against George Tuke and declared upon a lease made by himself by the name of Philip Holman executor of the Testament of George Holman deceased of such land and the said land was delivered to him in execution of a Statute by extent which Statute was made to this Testator and this lease was for years if the Plantiff should so long continue seised by force of the Statute and it was rendring 100. l. per annum and for 3. years rent behinde he brought his action in the debet and in the detinet and also in the declaration he averred that he did continue seised so long by vertue of the extent and Serjeant Bing demurred in law because he said the action ought to be brought in the detinet only because he had brought the action as executor but Hendon and the Court c. Iones and Hutton to the contrary because the lease was made by himself and Hutton said in the case there is difference between a personal contract and real and it was said that an executor shall never be forced to bring his action in the detinet only where he need not name himself to be an executor which note well It was agreed in a case by Hobert that where a man brought an action de parco facto and declared upon the breach of a pound and also of the taking out of beasts and the Defendant as to the taking out of the beasts pleaded not guilty and as to the breaking of the pound he said that he was Lord of the Soil upon which the pound stood and thaâ— he brake of the Lock and put a lock of his own and Hobert said in this case that he ought to plead the general issue for in verity this is not any broach of the pound except the beast come out of it and Iones Iustice was of an opinion that if he put out the beasts he may not have this action because the freehold was in him but he ought to have a special action upon the case Entred in Easter Term in the 19th year of King James Rot. 1672. Ellen Goldingham against Sir John Saunds ELlen Goldingham brought an action of Dower against Sir Iohn Saunds to be indowed of the third part of the Mannor of Goldingham and he vouched the son to warranty as son and heir to Christopher Goldingham husband of
times at his pleasure to do this by his writtag indented under his hand subscribed in the presence of 3. witnesses to disanul them and also by the same writing to determine and set down other uses now if by indenture in the presence of three witnesses he do covenant with another to stand seised to other uses c. here though there is no express determination of the former uses according to the words yet the limitation of the new uses do implie a determination of the former uses and so the substance of the words observed though not the very litteral expression and so was it lately resolved in this Court between Kenet and Lee that where such covenants were with power of revocation in his life time sealed and delivered now if in this case this be done by Will sealed this is a sufficient revocation for the intent was satisfied and if in this case then by the same reason in our case but now let us come to this Statute and in this Statute there are matters of substance and matters of circumstance and the Statute of Acton Burnel saith that the debtor shall come before the Maior to acknowledge that now this is but a circumstance of the Statute for if the Maior come before him this is very good for the substance is that the Statute must be acknowledged before the Maior in proper person and not by Attorney and also the Statute saith that the recognizance be entred into the Roll with the hand of the Clark here the inrolment is the substance and not the writing and so the Statute de mercatoribus is that he ought to come before the chief Officer of the Citie c. and yet it hath been ruled here that if the Citie be governed by 2. chief officers he ought to come before them both for to this purpose they are but one nay the Statute is that he shall be a Merchant who shall acknowledge that and yet if he be not a Merchant he is within the compass of the Statute to be a Conusor but now to the point whether this is substance or circumstance and I am of opinion that though the day of payment is not expressed yet it is very well for a day may be in that and yet not be good as if it be at Michaelmas after I. S. shall come to Pauls now in this case because it may not appear to the Maior Iudicially when to award execution therefore it is not good but if this be to pay the first return of Michaelmas Term this is very good for there he may know immediately when to award execution and the same law if it be to pay before Michaelmas next or to pay presently as an obligation and so the Maior is bound to take notice that this is to be paid presently Another objection that it shall be frivolous that his bodie shall be taken so soon as it is acknowledged but I answer that this may be very well for this is for the securitie of the Merchant who is the Conusee and Merchants shall not be supposed to know when tendring may be in regard that they are supposed to be men of forreigne imploment and so upon the Statute of Bankrupts for the words of the Statute are to every creditor a portion is allotted to him by your construction the sale shall be void because it is not according to the words of the Statute but you see that this is ruled to be against you The third objection is explanatorie to the Statute of Acton Burnel and for that it ought to be precisely perused and not to varie from that but I answer to that that the Statute de mercatoribus it self had not been observed in every point and circumstance for the words of the Statute are that if the debtor do not pay at the day that then the debtee may come before the Maior and sue executtor and yet it was resolved Coo. 2. 48. that the executors of the Merchant may come and besides the words of the Statute are that the extent shall be of all his lands which were in the hands of the debtor at the time of the Statute acknowledged and yet if he who is the Conusor purchase lands afterwards yet they shall be liable to be extended by force of the same Statute though not made mention of and so it is out of the words of the same Statute and so I am of opinion that the Statute is good and that in this case no audita querela lies The argument of Justice Hutton HUtton contrary I am of opinion that this Statute is void and that the audita querela well lies in this case and all my argument shall be upon the Statute Acton Burnel for this is the fundamental Statute and I conceive that the intent of the law is to contain a certainty when the money shall be paid and the conclusion of the Statute de mercatoribus goes over and further then the Statute of Acton Burnel for this doth extend to all the subjects of the Kings Iews only excepted and there is a reservation that this shall not destroy the action of debt and also there is a reservation to the Iudges that they may take a recognizance as before and this Statute of Acton Burnel was made the 11th Edw. 1. and there are in that Statute several essential points Acton Burnel explained which of necessitie ought to be observed and first that this ought to be taken before an officer and yet two officers which are the chief officers may well do this for to this intent they are but one Secondly there ought to be a seal of they pâ—rtie Thirdly a day of the payment ought to be also expressed because the security is taken before an ignorant man Fourthly the seal of the King ought to be to that and fifthly this ought to be inrolled and it hath been also agreed to my hand that a conjectural day of payment is not good as at Mich. after the return of such a one from Rome or after the accomplishment of the age of 27. years for those shall never be dayes to give jurisdiction though they are good by way of contract and such a recognizance is good for any thing for which an action of debt will lie but if no action of debt will lie in this case then it is not good and so is also the Statute of 23. H. 8. cap. 6. for it doth not extend to such things but where an action of debt lies And the first part of the Statute is that the debt and the day of payment be entred in the roll that so it may appear whether the day be past nor no and that may not appear by the judgement of the law but upon the face of the Statute and there is also one clause in the Statute that if the debtor will say that his goods were delivered or sold for less then they were worth the partie had no remedy for when the Sheriff had
sold them the debtor may accompt it his follie that he sold them not before the day of the suit but if in our case the money is payable presently he had then no time to sell them for certainly the meaning of the Statute was in this to give time to the Conusor to allien and to sell his goods and so of a recognisance taken before the chief Iustice upon the Statute of the 23. H. 8. without question a day ought to be limitted when that shall be paid and there ought to be the seal of the partie and the seal of the King and the day of the payment specified and my first reason wherefore this Statute is void is because when an act of Parliament limits jurisdiction or power to any inferiour man he ought to pusue his limitted jurisdiction precisely in all the substantial points as the Statute of Magna Charta limits that he shall hold his turn viz. the Sheriff within one moneth after Michaelmas or Easter now if he hold that but 2. dayes after it is void And the reason is he ought to pusue this limitted jurisdiction and then what difference is between those several jurisdictions and I cannot compare that to a better case Cook 10. then to Neufages case upon the Statute of the 23. H. 6. if the Sheriff do take an obligation for an appearance if it do not appear in the condition when the day of appearance is then this obligation is void for the day of appearance ought to appear expresly and not to leave this to the construction of the law and then what difference is there between our case indeed contracts may be many times made good by reference but so may not a Recognizance and yet 17. Edw. 4. a man made a contract to give so much for Corn when he saw that and the contract by the Iustices was awarded void because that no day was set when that should be paid and see the book which is I conceive that if the contract had been to pay when he took the Corn it had been good and so here if a man had such a jurisdiction he ought to pursue that precisely and for that the day in all those cases ought to be observed and a fortiori in our case and an other reason is out of the presidents in all times and though there may be some few which doth pass sub silentio yet I do not value them according to Slades case Cook 4. and 5. Edw. 4. and all the subsequent Statutes since the Statute of Acton Burnel are but declarations and additions to this Statute and as Grants case upon the Statute of 32. H. 8. nay that is not only a Statute of explanation but is also an original Statute but the Statute of 34. H. 8. of Wills is meerly a Statute of explanation and for that reason in Buckler and Bakers case is Cook 3. that Act to be construed precisely according to the word and no new interpretation may be made of that and for an answer to that which my brother Iones said that here is a day equevolent to an express day for it is implied in law to be paid presently according to the case of an obligation but I say that in this case there is a diversitie in our books in the case of an obligation 14. Edw. 4. 14. H. 8. 29. and other books whether this is payable presently or upon request and therefore in a case so dubious it is not fit to make an ignorant Maior to judge another case by the rule of this case being so dubious and so doubtful for if in this case it be not payable without a request then this is matter of fact and not triable before him nay the Statute of mercatoribus it self appoints that the day be mentioned and so both the Statutes do mention that there ought to be a day of payment appointed and fixed in the Statute and then wherefore shall we make construction that an implyed day will so serve the turn and in the Statute de mercatoribus the form of the writ is set down which doth expresly mention a day and so I think there is not any doubt but that if it were a Recognisance upon the Statute of of 23. H. 8. for default of day it shall be void and so in our case and so he said the audita querela lies well The argument of Justice Winch. VVInch to the contrary and because the effect of his argument was to the same purpose with that of justice Iones and of the Lord Hobert I will report that but briefly and he said that he held this to be within the Maiors jurisdiction for the purpose and the entent of this Statute is to give securitie to the Merchant creditor and for that reason the day is not material but I will insist upon two things veritatem facti and considerationem legis here is a good contract and for that it ought to be paid presently and if there had been no other matter but this that it had been payable at a day past this had been good for the mistake of the Clark must not make any Statute to be void but yet I grant if this were part of the jurisdiction this ought to be pursued precisely as the law doth prescribe but a pettie addition or omission so that be not in point of substance will not hurt that and this is not part of the jurisdiction but it is to the Statute according to the intentions of the parties and the day is only part of their agreement but it hath been said that this had been idle for the Statute shall not be taken so to pay presently but I say the contrary for though he had not his money in his hand yet he will not trust him but will have his securitie and yet I agree to the difference before that there ought to be a time certain and not to be proved after by averment and here when no time is fixed this is payable presently but there shall need to be a request then I hold it is out of the Statute and when Satutes are obscure they ought to be interpreted according to the rules of the common Law and as to the case of an obligation it is payable presently and we ought to intend that the Maior takes notice that this ought to be paid presently for ignorance of the law is not supposed of any besides if this Statute be absolutely void then the partie is without remedy and in such a case we ought to bâ— favourable in our expression and so I conclude against the audita querela The argument of the Lord chief Justice Hobert HObert chief Iustice to the same intent I hold that the Statute is good and we ought to beware how we destroy assurances except it be upon good and sure grounds and it is a perilous case to make an ignorant man to lose his right by a slip and we ought to be the more warie
Plantiff in Hammond which indenture rehearseth that King Henry the eight was seised of this land in his demeasne as of fee in the right of his Crown from him conveyed that to Ed. 6. who in the 7. year of his Raign by his letters patents bearing date at Westminster he granted that to one Fitz Williams to Hilton in fee as by his letters patents may appear they being so seised by indenture which bore date c bargained and sold that to Henry Hoskins and to Proud also recited that Proud releaseth to the said Hoskins all his right as by the said release may appear and conveyed that to Iohn by discent and so the said Iohn being seised he and his son Peter made this conveyance to the Plantiff upon a good consideration in which they did covenant with the Plantiff in this manner and the said Iohn and Peter for them and there heirs do Covenant and grant to and with the Plantiff c. that they the said Peter and Iohn Hoskins according to the true meanâ—â—ing of the said indenture were seised of a good estate in fee simple and that the said Iohn and Peter or one of them have good Authoritie to sell that according to the intent of the said indenture and that there was no reversion or remainder in the King by any Act or Acts thing or things done by him or them and the Plantiff laid the breach that neither Iohn nor Peter had a lawful power to â—â—ll the Defendant pleaded that Iohn had a good power to sell that according to the intent of the said indenture notwithstanding any Act or Acts made by him or his faâ—her or by any claiming under them and upon that the Plantiff demurred and the case was now argued by the Court and Iones Iustice began and said that his opinion was that the Plantiff shall be barred the case being upon construction of covenants and the sole question is whether they are several covenants or only one covenant and I held that they are all one covenant and those words for any Act or Acts do relate to the two other precedent sentences and so it is all but one covenant though this stand upon several parts for if these words were placed in the fore-front there had been no question but that this had been but one covenant and this made no difference when it is set before and when it is set after and the repeating of that had been toutalogie for if I covenant I will build a house at Dale Sale and a vale of Brick here Brick shall refer to them all because it is tied in one entire sentence and covenant and so if I covenant with you that I will goe with you to Canterbury to Salisbury and Coventrie here the word goes relates to all 3. as in the case of Sir Henry Finch the rent was granted out of the Mannor of Eastwel and not of the Messuage lands and Tenements lying and being in the Parish of Eastwel or else where in the same Countie belonging thereto and resolved that land which is not parcel of the Mannor is not charged with the rent because it is all but one sentence and one grant and cited the case of Althams case and Hickmots case where special words will qualifie general words where they are all in one sentence and so I conceive they are but one covenant Cook 8. 9. especially in the intents of the parties and upon the intents of all the parties of the deed for when a deed is doubtful in construction the meaning must be gathered from all the parties of that but yet that is tied with two cautions that it be not against any thing expressed by the said indenture but only in case where it is doubtful Cook 2. 5. so Cheineys case and Baldewins case a habendum will destroy an implied premisses Cook 4. but not an expressed and so in Nokes case an express particular covenant qualifies the generalty of the implyed covenant like to the case which was 32. Eliz. in the Court of Wards between Carter and Ringstead Cook 8. where Carter was seised of lands in Odiham and of the Mannor of Stoy and there covenanted that he would Levie a fine to his son of all his lands in Odiham in tail and for the Mannor of Stoyes that should be to the use of his wife now these subsequent words drew that out of the tail according to the intent of the parties and so in our case and I also take an exception to the form of the declartion for he conveyes that to Fitz Williams and to Proud and Hoskins by the name of all his lands and Tenements which were in the tenure of Anne Parker and did not aver that these lands for which the Covenant was made were in her hands and for that it is not good and for these reasons I conceive the Plantiff shall be barred The argument of Hutton Justice HUtton to the contrary I hold that they are 3. several Covenants and yet I agree the cases afore cited and the reason is they are all included in one sentence for it is the care of the Purchasor that he had an owner of the land before he purchase for that which is the ground of assurances that he is seised in fee and hereafter that the Covents that this is free from incumberances made by him and that he had good title to alien which strikes at the very root of assurances and my first reason is because here are several parties and they covenant that one of them is seised of a good estate and that they or one of them had power to alien that for it may not stand with the intents of the indentures to buy of him who had no title and might not sell and also the last Covenant is meerly in the negative that they have made no Act or Acts by which the reversion shall be in the King and that is all one as if the word Covenant had been added in every clause of the sentence and Covenants in law may be qualified by express Covenants but if a man made a lease for years upon condition to pay 20. l. in this case an entrie by the law is implyed for default of payment but yet if it added that if it be behinde he may enter and retain till he is satisfied of the 20. l. now in this case this had taken away the implyed Covenant and condition but every express Covenant must be taken most beneficially for the Covenantee and in Nokes case it is said that an express Covenant controuls an implied one but he may use either of them at his pleasure and election and I grant Henry Finches case to be good law for there is not any clause or sentence till after the Alibie but yet in Dyer 207. they are distinct sentences and shall receive several constructions and so here the matter being several they shall receive divers constructions and he Covenanted that
he was seised in fee and that he had power to alien that and this was to encourage the Purchasers and for the form he needs not aver that this was in the hands of Anne Parker for he had confessed that in the bar that he came lawfully to that and besides the Covenant is broken though he never was seised and so I conceive that the Plantiff shall have judgement Winch to the same intent it is true if it had been all but one Covenant then if it had been no question this had not been broken but I think they are several Covenants like to the case of Sir Robert Napper lately adjudged also the first two Covenants are in the affirmative and the other in the Negative and for that they ought to be answered with several pleas and these kinde of assurances are the Common assurances and therefore they ought to be interpreted favourably for the Purchasers and Iohn was not deceived in these Covenants for they brought down upon the deed an estate in fee and it is also agreed if the word Covenant and grant had been divers times added to the several clauses then they had been several Covenants and now it is all one word and made those to be several Covenants and words of relation never will controul that which is certainly put down before and so he concluded in this case the Plantiff shall have judgement to recover Hobert chief Iustice to the contrary every deed ought to be construed according to the intention of the parties and the intents ought to be adjudged of the several parts of the deed as a general issue out of the evidence and intent ought to be picked out of every part and not out of one Word only and here Peter joyned with his father to strengthen the assurance and Iohn had not only his own estate but the estate of Proud and it is plain he never meant to intangle himself with other Conveyances then those which he and Proud had made and I hold this to be no independent Covenant and it is all bound with one clause S. for any Act or Acts made by them c. and it is confessed if these words had been placed in the forefront that then they should relate to all and it is as clear as if they were and the first reson is that the intent appears only to undertake for himself because he should but have part of the land and for that he was to warrant his evidence and to that end he was to deliver to him his title at large in the said indenture and here he had made the Plantiff privie to every several conveyance of that to inform the Purchaser of it and will you also intangle him with a covenant you might have taken notice of his title and it appears to be the very intents of the parties that you should take notice of the title and inform your selves concerning the same Secondly this is a sentence which may be taken both wayes and I say it is agreed that if it had begun with these words notwithstanding any Act or Acts c. that then it shall be all construed by this and I never saw any difference I grant they are several Covenants in point of fact but not in point of obligation for there are not several words of binding nay I say if he had released this last he had released all but it hath been said that one is in the negative and the other is in the affirmative but I do not value that and it hath been said that this is the Common assurance of the Realm and if other construction shall be made then no man shall be sure of his own we had given him leave to say that no reversion nor remainder is in the King by any Act by him made and the King may not have any reversion and he seised in fee also this clause standing indifferent whether this shall be referred to all or not and then the question is how the Court will adjudge of that for my part I take it that this may stand with the intent of all the parties of the deed but take that as you take it that this destroyes all for if he is absolutely seised in fee what matter is where the reversion is and yet if the reversion was in the Crown and not by his Act you confess that may not charge him which is expresly against the first Covenant if this be distinct by it self but take that indifferently and all the parties will stand together Nappers case hath no affinity with this for questionless there were several Covenants for in that indenture it did not appear what estate Sir Thomas Eearsfield had and for that reason nothing might be collected out of that but he had a present estate but in our case all is contained in the bodie of the indenture and Nokes case is a strong case and stronger then the case at the bar is for thereupon construction of all the parties of the deeds the special warrantie controuls the general warranty and the reason is no man will take an express special warranty when the intent is that he shall have a general warranty there was a case lately ajudged between the Earl of Clanrickard and his wife against the Countess of Leicester where the Lady pleaded that she was Tenant in Dower where in veritie she had the revesion in fee expectant upon a Term for life and they conveyed all the estate the Lady had in Dower and then they covenanted that they would convey all their estate to the Lord of Leicester and his heirs during the life of his wife and then Covenanted that they would convey all their estate to the Earl of Leicester and his heirs for ever in the aforesaid land and it was resolved that though such Covenant will raise an use to the partie who ought to have that and so the reversion will pass if there had been no more words now it was but during the life of the Lady for that third part for the Covenant was but to strengthen an estate and not to convey it and so he concluded that the Plantiff should be hard and after it was said by the Court that this case was not of weight to be brought into the Exchequer Chamber and therefore the Court advised that the parties would agree quere for the residue in the Exchequer Chamber concerning that Entred Hill 18. Jac the case of Comendams Richard Woodley against the Bishop of Exeter and Mannering RIchard Woodley brought a quare Impedit against the Bishop of Exeter and Mannering who was Parson of the said Church and he declared that Arthur Basset was seised of an acre of land to which the said Advowson was appendant in his demeasne as of fee and that he the 13. Octobris 13. Eliz. granted the next advowson to one William Manwood who was then incumbent in the said Church who by his will 20. November made one Harcourt his executor
and died by whose death the Church became void the which was the first and the next avoydance after the grant and Harcourt presented Cardon and that the said Arthur Basset so being seised in fee 18. Octobris 17. Eliz. by his will in writing devised to Iohn Basset his son the first and next avoydance of the Church aforesaid which first and next avoydance hapned after the death of the said Arthur Basset and that the said Iohn Basset was possessed of the said next avoydance and the said Chardon being incumbent 29. of September 37. Eliz. he was elected Bishop of Down in Ireland and he being so Elect the Queen by her letters 37. of her Raign considering the smalness of the said Bishoprick that it was not able to maintain him in his episcopal dignitie ex gratia sua speciali concessit Lycensavit et potestatem dedit to the said Chardon Bishop elect that he with the said Bishoprick the rectory of Tedbome in comendum ad huc recepire et fructus de c. in usus suos convertere disponere et applicare valeat et possit habendum that in Comendam for 6. years and within the 6. years he was consecrated and after the Term of the 6. years the Church became void per legis Anglie and that the Queen by her prerogative presented one Bee who was admitted instituted and inducted and the Plantiff conveyed from Iohn Basset his title by his grant of the next avoydance and shewed that the said Church became void by the death of Gee and that the vacation by the death of Gee is the next avoydance after the death of Arthur Basset by reason whereof the Plantiff presented and was disturbed and upon his decla ration Edwards the patron demurred and the Bishop claimed nothing but as ordinary and Manering pleaded and confessed the seisin of Arthur Basset and the grant to Manwood and the presentation by Harcourt of Chardon and the devise to Iohn Basset but he shewed that after the death of Arthur Basset the Acre to which the advowson is appendant descended to Thomas Basset as c. and he being so seised the Church became void by the death of Chardon who had the next avoydance after the death of Arthur Basset and that this remained void by 2. years after his death by which the Queen presented by Lapse the said Gee who was admitted c. and Thomas Basset conveyed that to Edwards and that became void by the death of Gee and that he presented the said Mannering c. absque hoc quod praedicta vacatio Ecclesiae praedictae post Mortem de Gee was the first and next avoydance after the death of Arthur Basset as the Plantiff had alleadged and upon this bar the Plantiff demurred and it was argued by the Councel of both sides on several dayes and in Michaelmas Term ensuing it was argued by the Court but because that Harvey was newly made Iustice he did not argue the case but Iustice Hutton began The argument of Justice Hutton ANd Iustice Hutton after a recital of the case said that his opinion was that the Plantiff should be barred and in the first place it is to be considered whether the King had any title at all to present by the Creation of Chardon to be Bishop Secondly admit that he had title whether he had dispensed with that and by his dispensation he had satisfied his prerogative Thirdly admit that the King had title and that this was not satisfied with the Commendam whether the grantee had lost his turn and as to the first point it ought to be agreed that when a parson is made a Bishop that he is discharged of the Church by the Common Law and so is the 45. Edw. 3. 5. and Dyer 159. petit Broo. 116. and this is an avoydance by Cession and for any thing that I see in our books the King had not any title to present except that he himself was patâ—on but because that did not happen fully in question here I will not deliver any opinion but I will say what our antient books do lay 41. Edw. 35. adjudged that the King shall not present to a prebendary where the prebend was made Bishop and the tithe which the King had to present was by reason that the temporalities of the Bishoprick of which he was prebend was in his hands and see the 7. H. 4. 25. a good case 11. H. 4. 37. Dyer 228. and for Brooks presentation 61. that is but the report of the Chancellor who had that in presentation but our Common Law doth not warrant any such thing and then for the second point whether the King had dispenced with his prerogative and in the first place we are to know that these Commendams were at the first but to see the cure served and by the opinion of Pollard the ordinary is to see the cure served though that be charged with such rents that none would have it and for that Commendams were at the first good but now if the King had title then that began per the consecration otherwise he shall never have it and so is 41. Edw. 3. 5. if consecration doth not give that he shall never have it and hereby his grant to hold that in Commendam he had dispenced with this prerogative and if this had been granted to him for his life none will deny but that he had dispenced with his prerogative and shall never take advantage of that again afterwards and no more in this case for he is incumbent to all intents and purposes for Fitz N B. 36. he may have a Spoliation and yet in this case he is parson and Bishop and now that the King may dispence with that it is not to be doubted and I will compare that with the like cases A. 6. Eliz. Dyer 252. where the King granted the Custody of the land and heir of his Tenant if he died his heir being within age and this grant was to Cantrel and it was agreed to be good and Wardship is as Royal an antient perrogative as any appertains to the Crown and 3. H. 6. title grant 61. the King may grant the temporalities of the Bishoprick before it is void which in my opinion is Cosen German to our case out of which book I conclude the King may dispence and by the dispensation he is full parson and this is for his life for the King may not make him incumbent except it be for life like to the case of Dyer fo 52. where the patron and the ordinary made a confirmation of a lease for part of the time which was made by the parson and agreed that this shall stretch to the whole time and no better case may be put then the case of Packhurst in Dyer 22. 8. where Packhurst was incumbent of the Church of Cleave and was made Bishop of Norwich but before he was created Bishop he had a dispensation from the Arch-Bishop to retain that in Commendam for 3.
years notwithstanding his advancement and he resigned during the 3. years and issue there taken upon the resignation and this case proves all the partes of our case first that the King may dispence and that by his dispensation he is compleat person to resign and if he do resigne during the years the King shall not have the prerogative to present again for that was satisfied with the dispensation and also when the King came to his prerogative by subjects means he ought to take that as it falls for otherwise he loses that quite vide Bastervils case Coo. 7. and another reason is if it be not satisfied then the King shall have another which is mischievous and this being a new case such president is not to have more favour then the necessitie of the Law will require and so my opinion is that it is all one as if it had for life and there is a good case 9. Ed. 3. 20. where the King had 2. presentments vide the case but it was upon another reason but the case of 21. H. 7. 8. Frowike where the grantee of the next avoydance had judgement to recover and the incumbent resigned so that it is the second presentment yet the Plantiff shall have the effect of his judgement and he had a writ to the Bishop quere the application for I did not well heare that but in our case if the prerogative of the King was not satisfied yet it ought to appear that when he presented Gee he had no title but that was an usurpation and if the King was not satisfied then the Plantiff shall not have judgement for then Gee was an usurper and upon that declaration the Plantiff shall be barred but now for the last point admit that the King was satisfied of his prerogative by his presentation of Gee whether the Plantiff had lost his course I think he had in the first place the words of the devise are the first the next avoydance which shall hap after the death of Athur Basset now it hath been objected that the King had the first by his prerogative and therefore he shall have the second I think in this case Brook presentation 52. is a strong case where a presentation was granted to one and after to another when the first is void and ruled that the second grantee shall not have the second and so Dyer 35. it ought to be taken according to the words for otherwise he shall not have any for modus et Conventio uniunt Legem and the case of quare Impedit 152. proves something to this purpose for a man had 4. advowsons and granted the next which should hap of them to I. S. and he died and the heir assigned the wife for her Dower one Mannor to which the advowson was appendant which first became void and ruled that the Grantee shall not have that against the feme and then it was moved by Thorpe that he shall have the second but Shard said certainly never which proves that if the turn of the Grantee was taken from him by the indowment of the feme he had lost that for ever the like case is the 15. H. 7. 7. 14. H. 7. 22. moved by Mordant that the Grantee of the third shall have the fourth when the wife is indowed of the third which case is brought to prove a case which without question is not law and that is that the King being Gardian of the Grantee of the next avoydance and he grant that in this case the heir shall have that at his full age which without question is now law for by the same reason his course may be the 20. but there are two rules from this which seem to cross this opinion one rule is that the words of the grantor shall be taken most strong against himself and the other that the Grantor shall not be received to avoid his own grant as it is said in Davenports case Coo. 8. but yet these rules are to be intended where the words are compleat for as the case is the 13. Ed. 3. Grant 65. that where the husband and his wife are joynt Tenants for life and he in reversion grant the lands only which the husband held in this case nothing passeth for the reversion was expectant upon a lease which the husband and wife held nay I will cite one case where a man by his own Act shall avoid his own grant in a quare Impedit Elmes against Taylor where a man was seised of the Mannor to which the advowson was appendant and he granted the third next avoydance and after against his own grant he usurped and it was adjudged that by this usurpation he had gained the advowson to be appendant to his Mannor again and that the Grantee had lost his course and so the case in Dyer 283. where the Church was void and the patron granted the next avoidance tunc vacant to another and this pro hac unica vice tantum and there resolved that the grant was not good and that it should not extend to another and so in our case it shall not extend to a second another reason is if the King had a prerogative he is bound and every derivative estate under him for he shall not be in better case then the grantee for he was bound by the law of the land and for that it is equitie and it is Iustice that the estate of the grantee should be bound and so in this case like to the case in Plowden 207. and Dyer 231. where by Act of Parliament the possessions of an Abbot were bound now if afterwards the Abbot made a lease for years or granted the next avoydance and then after they came to the King he shall avoid the grant for the interest of the Grantor was bound by Act of Parliament and see the case of the universitie of Oxford Coo. 10. where a man before he was a recusant convict he granted the next avoydance and after he became a recusant convict and then the Church became void now the grantee shall not present for his interest was bound by Act of Parliament and so he must take it and here it behoves him to take that as it is bound with the prerogative of the King and so upon all the matter he hath lost his title and he concluded that the Plantiff shall be barred The argument of Justice Winch. WInch Iustice of the same opinion but because his argument was much to the purpose of that with Hutton and the Lord Hobert therefore I will not Report that verbatim and Winch said I will speak to the last point which was moved by my brother Hutton and I hold that where he had the first granted to him now he shall have none at all for it is punctually expressed that he shall have the first and that shall not extend to the next which may be granted but I grant if two coparceners had an advowson and the eldest presented and
the year and afterwards the money not being paid Hickman sued forth a Capias ad satisfaciendum against Sir William Fish directed to the Sheriff of Bedfordshire for 210. l. and now upon a habeas Corpus Sir William Fish was brought to the bar and Serjeant Crawley moved for a supersedeas for him because the writ emanavit improvide c. and by the Court it is a cause to discharge him of the execution for the Capias ought to have issued for 200. l. only and he ought to have sued a scire facias though this was after the year because the Proces was not continued but they said withall it was in their discretion whether they will grant a supersedeas for they may put the Defendant to his writ of error It was ruled that if an action of debt was brought and the venire facias to trie the issue is in placito debiti and so is the habeas Corpus and the Pannel but in the Iury Roll of the nisi prius at the latter end of the jurata there it is placito transgressionis and agreed in this case this is amendable or in this case it is good without amendment Wen against Moore THomas Crew Serjeant did move in arrest of judgement where one Wen brought an Action upon the case against Moore and upon non assumpsit it was found for the Plantiff and he said that the Colloquium was laid to be at Bourn in the Countie of Lincoln and the venire facias was de Vicineto de Born without the letter u. and for that reason that they are several Towns therefore error for if the entire Town is omitted the trial is insufficient but the Court held this to be very good without amendment and shall be intended to be the same Town It was moved in arrest of judgement by Serjeant Finch that where one had brought an Action upon the case against one and shewed that the Defendant in consideration of 12. d. given to him by the Plantiff he assumed and promised that if the Plantiff may prove that he cut quandam arborem upon the land of Sir Francis Vain tunc crescent that he would give to him 10. l. and this being proved by the Plantiff it was now moved in arrest of judgement that quandam arborem is an individual tree and it ought to be aliquam arborem and another cause was alledged because it was not shewed that this was upon the land of Sir Francis Vain then growing but only he had said growing and that may be for perchance he purchased the land afterwards and before the Action brought and so it might be growing though not tunc crescent at the time of the promise but the Court c. Winch Hutton and Harvey seemed that the declaration was good for they said there is no question if quandam had been out this had been good for it is the singular number and he that certain or be that incertain yet by the verdict it is made certain that this is a tree and also those words tunc crescent do refer to the time when the tree was feld and not to the promise Holman against Sir Thomas Pope and Elizabeth his wife SErjeant Hendon moved in a case where an Action was brought by one Holman against Sir Thomas Pope and Elizabeth his wife as daughter and heir to Sir Thomas Watson and pending the writ Pope died and he moved that the writ ought not to abate because it is brought against her as daughter and heir where the land is assets in which the husband had nothing like to the case of an Executrix who brings her action in her own name and the name of her husband and pending the writ the husband dies the writ shall not abate but Justice Harvey said this case of Executors was adjudged against him and Hobert chief Justice was of opinion that the writ shall not abate but day was given over in that case Sir Thomas Holbeach against Sambeach IN the case between Sir Thomas Holbeach and Sambeach in a replevin where a demurrer was joyned the case was this one being Tenant for life and he in remainder in tail joyned in a grant of a rent in fee out of that and then they joyned in the levying of a fine to a stranger and his heirs and in this case it was said that the estate of the grantee of the rent which before was determinable is now made absolute and a judgement was also cited to be in that case lately adjudged to which the Court seemed to agree and they said if this be the point they will give judgement presently Crompton against Philpot. HEndon Serjeant moved in arrest of judgement in a case for Philpot a crier of this Court where one Crompton had recovered 40. l. damages against him in an action upon the case for words spoken against Crompton c. he innuendo the Plantiff stole a ring and had been hanged for that but for me and it was said in the first place that it doth not expresly appear that the words were spoken of the Plantiff himself neither is this introduced by any precedent Colloquium as it ought for otherwise the innuendo will not aide it but in veritie the declaration was that the words were spoken de eodem Richardo innuendo c. and also he said that the words are not actionable because that no value is exprest but it was ruled if that were but petie Larcenie the action lies but the Court gave no absolute opinion in the case for they were willing to compound for the poor man The residue of Michaelmas Term in the two and twentieth year of King James Brown and Ware against Barker BRown and Ware brought an action agaist Barker and they declared that whereas there was a suit depending between the Plantiffs and other Coppiholders of such a mannor in the Chancery against Brook their Lord and that one Woolsey was there Clark and that he for his fees and for the procuring of a decree had disbursed 14. l. and that there being a Communication between the Plantiff and the Defendant concerning the same he being a Coppiholder of the same Mannor that in consideration that they would pay to Woolsey 14. l. he would pay to the Plantiffs 40. s. upon request and the Plantiff shewed that they had paid the 14. l. and that the Defendant had not paid the 40. s. Licet postea saepius requisitus fuisset and upon non assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plantiffs and now it was moved in arrest of judgement by Crook Serjeant First because he is a stranger to the suit for he had not alledged that the Defendant was a partie and then it is no consideration but this was over-ruled because they paid the 14. l. upon his request the second exception was that this postea saepius requisitus was not sufficient in this case because that he ought to express the certaintie when and the place where the request was made
of 3. acres and he accepts a rent of two of them which render of them all this is void for one acre and lastly by a feofment of land by warranty a rent is discharged 21. H. 7. and here I conceive that the replication to the bar of the avowrie is not good for his plea is that the rent in this case is not comprised and that is a point in law whether it is comprised or no for if we do take issue upon that we shall draw the trial here from the Court to the jury in the Countie which is not good and so upon all the matter I pray judgement for the Plantiff in the replication The argument of Davenport Serjeant DAvenport Serjeant to the contrary and he said the case is as hath been recited and the question is whether the rent so granted in tail is by this agreement of the parties and by the fine of the land whether it hath extinguished the rent and I hold this conveyance which only passeth the rent by implication is no bar to the issue in tail within the Statute of fines for where it is said that a fine was levied of the rent by the name of the land and made no mention of the rent this will not carry the rent and yet I agree this fine to be a feofment upon record and to be a bar against the parties who levied that but not against the issue if this had been before the Statute of fines it is no question this had been no bar against the issue for it is the express book 13. Ed. 3. avowrie 12. and 26. H. 7. 4. Tenant in tail of a rent made a feofment in fee of the rent with warrantie and there it is said that the warrantie did not extend to issue quoad the rent but now our case is upon the Statute of 32. H. 8. which saith that a fine shall be a bar of my lands Tenements and hereditaments any way intailed but yet I conceive that this requires that the fine be levied expresly of that and not by way of conveyance and so the case of Smith and Stapleton by Thornton who said that this was granted to him to be law which must needs be meant it was granted by the Court or by the Councel of the other side and the reason of that is because it ought to be levied of that expresly and there it is said if Tenant intail of an advowson do levie a fine of the nomination that shall not bar the issue and yet in effect that is the advowson and because it is not levied of that expresly it is not good and then for the precedent agreement that is indeed that the fine shall be for the extinguishment of the rent and what then will that prove that the fine was levied of the rent and here the writ of Covenant was not brought of the rent and yet I agree that agreements which do lead uses of fines will qualifie them against the very nature of the fine as the case of the Lord Cromwel and Puttenham in Dyer but I do not hold the agreement will extend over the nature of the fine and therefore this being a rent in gross it may pass by the name of land and the averment here is contrary to that which doth appear upon the Record and then not comprised is a good plea but this shall not be tried by the Countrie but by the Record as 12. H. 7. 16. for it is only to inform the Court that the partie had mistaken the Law and shall be tried by the Court and not by a jury in the Countrie as Attoe said and so upon the whole matter of the case I conclude my argument and pray judgement for the Avowant see after Hill 22. Iac. The residue of Michaelmas Term in the two and twentieth year of King James Ralph Holt and Rand against Robert Holt. RAlph Holt and Rand were joyntly and severally bound in an Obligation to Robert Holt and he took out Proces against them by several Praecipes and he had two several judgements and took out two several Executions against them of one Test S. a fieri facias against Rand and a Capias ad satisfaciendum against Holt and the question was whether the writs were well awarded and whether when one is Executed the other is discharged and Serjeant Crew urged 15. H. 7. 15. if after a Capias executed Sir Gilbert Dabenhams case he may not have a scire facias against the same partie and he cited a case to be adjudged in the 13. year of King James between Crawley and one Lidcat where two joynt obligors and the obligee did sue them and had two several judgements against them and he took an elegit against one and a Capias against the other and he who was taken upon the Capias brought his audita querela by which he was discharged of the execution for in so much that he had taken an elegit against one he is concluded to take any Process against the other as well as against him who had the elegit sued against him and so is Cook 1. 31. and yet some books are if the fieri facias is served for part he may have a Capias for the residue and so is the 18. Ed. 4. and â—0 Ed 4. 3. but here the fieri facias was executed for all and for that no Capias ad satisfaciendum shall issue in this case but Waller one of the Prothonotaries câ—â—ed a case in this manner that if a noble man and another be bound in an obligation as before and the obligee had such a judgement as here in this case he may have an elegit against the noble man because that the first Process against him is by summons and distress and he may have a Capias against the other or a fieri facias but Hutton denied this case and said that he shall have the same execution against both for as this ought to be one satisfaction quo ad ec sati factionem so this ought to be one for the manner also and though in this case that the Capias was not well awarded and Harvey Iustice agreed to that Methol against Peck MEthol brought an action upon the case against Peck upon an assumption and he declared that in consideratâ—on that the Plantiff would pay unto one Plaford 52. l. to the use of Peck such a day c. Peck promised to redeliver his bond in which he was bound in the said summe when he should be requâ—sted to that and he said that he paid the 52. l. to the use of Peck and that the said Defendant had not delivered the said obligation licet saepius postea requisitus fuisset and upon the issue of non assumpsit it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement because he had not shewed the day and the place of the request but the Court c. Hobert Hutton and Harvey were of opinion that judgement
ought to maintain the award but to shew the breach for it shall be otherwise if it be found against him and then Hendon answered to the other exception that this is not for direct usury but is rather for the damage which he sustained by the forbearance of the money and yet if it were for interest it is good and then as to that which now had been agreed by my brother Bridgman that contracts and obligations for usury are good I say then by the same reason an award for that is good for whatsoever a man may contract for the same thing may be awarded if the contract will bear that and usury is not malum in se but only malum prohibitum and is good by our law and here in this case though the Arbitrator was deceived in the summe yet after the award made it is altogether certain and an implied recompence is sufficient in this case but the Court said that the casting up of the accompts did not make an award for it is not a good Calculation but the ending of the controversies that doth make the award but yet the opinion of the Court in this case was that the award was good for an Arbitrement shall not be taken absolutely upon the bare words and the Court did command the parties to come before them upon the morrow in the Treasury and as it seems this was for mediation to make an agreement for the opinion seemed to be for the Plantiff The case of Hilliard and Sanders argued by the Court. IUstice Harvey this Term did argue the case of Hilliard and Sanders which see before and after a brief recital of the case he said that his opinion was that the avowant shall not have return because that by the fine of the lands the rent is extract and I am induced to be of this opinion by two things the first is the agreement and tâ—e other is the favourable exposition of the Statute of fines to settle repose and quiet and I will first shew the efficacie of fines at the common law 21. Ed. 4. the Pryor of Binghams case it is laid for a ground and rule in law if a thing be contained in a fine either expresly or implicitly this is very good and so is 44. Ed. 3. 22. 37. H. 6. 5. for a fine is no more then an agreement and therefore it is called in latin Concordia and then see if by any words you may pass this rent by the fine and though the word rent is not there yet if it be so infolded in the lands that is good with that it is very good and for that 3. H. 7. 16. 17. 21. H. 7. proves that by a feofment of the land the rent doth pass and wherefore not by fine then and this shall be within the Statute of 4. H. 7. and 32. H. 8. and a case may be out of the Statute of 32. H. 8. and yet be within the Statute of the 4. H. 7. as the 2. Ed. 3. in Dyer though the feme after the death of the husband she may enter upon the discontinues of the husband yet if she do not within 5 years she shall be barred and now you see that the construction of these Statutes was alwayes to settle repose and quietness for if such a construction should be made according to the opinion of Chornton in Smith and Stapletons case then it will be mischievous and for his opinion it was only in the way of arguing and yet I conceive he had the good opinion of the Reporter and without all question it is a case of as hard a construction as that is of Archers case where the heir who nothing had in the land in the life of his father did levie a fine this is a bar for ever and the reason is because it is of a thing which is intailed and he cited a case in Bendloes Reports where a discontinuee was disseised by Tenant in tail who levied a fine and the discontinuee entred and then proclamations passed that in this case the issue was barred truly I do agree the case of 36. H. 8. that that a fine levied of land did not bar him who had title of Common or a way the reason is because there is no privitie but in our case there is a privitie and by Margaret Podgers case a Coppiholder is within this Statute and in our case the rent passeth especially in regard of the agreement as in the Lord Cromwels case and he cited a case primo Jacobi between Gage and Selby in an ejectione firme where Gage was Tenant in tail and he levied a fine to I. S. in fee and after he levied another fine to the use of himself for life the remainder over and his brother brought a writ of error to reverse the first fine and ruled that he may not for the second fine had barred him of any writ of error and so I conclude the fine had extinguished the rent The argument of Justice Hutton to the contrary HUtton contrary the fine had not barred the rent in which I will consider the nature of fines at the Common Law and they were of mightie and great esteem and force as appears by the great solemnitie which is used in them as is prescribed in the Statute of fines 18. Ed. 1. de modo Levandi fines and he agreed that such a fine by Tenant in fee simple will pass that inclusively for by the release of all his right in the land a Signiorie is gone I agree also that a fine is but an agreement but yet it must work according to the nature of the thing as upon a writ of Measne or of right of advowson a fine may be levied and yet it is not levied of the lands but of the advowson or Signiorie and so if the writ of covenant be one thing and the agreement of another thing then it is not good and first I will prove that at the Common law fines have been rejected when the writ of covenant did not contain the thing of which the fine is to be be levied and if at the Common law a fine was levied of rent there ought to be a writ of covenant of that 18. Ed. 2. fines 123. and there the rule is given that it is against reason to hold covenant of that which never was and the rent there never was before but ought to begin then and yet it is clear a man may create a rent by fine but he shall not have a writ of covenant of that when it was not in esse before and because the concord may not varie from that therefore it was not received 38. Ed. 3. 17. Knevet put the rule that a fine may not be of more then is in the writ of covenant and when a fine is properly levied of that it is by way of release Fitz. fine 100. and so I conceive here the rent doth not pass Secondly here no man may plead that any fine is levied of
in a double sence shall be taken in the best sence and it shall be intended he spoke Treason in putting of a case or in speaking that after another and yet he offended not and so if he had said that he had written or printed Treason for so do the printers of the King and the Clark of the Crown and so I conceive that the Plantiff shall not have judgement Easter 1. Carol. ANd Serjeant Bawtrey the Term following argued for Serjeant Hitcham that it was plain that the Defendant spoke the words with a full intent to take away his life and to speak Treason is to speak ex corde suo and not that which another spake and now in Easter Term 1. Carol. judgement was given for the Plantiff by Hobert Hutton Harvey and Crook with one accord and they said the limitation of the time is not material for if it was spoke in his infancie c. Brook ought to have shewed that and Crook cited Walgraves case 32. Eliz. in B. R. one said of him that he was not a good subject and adjudged because he spoke them maliciously and he being one of the privie chamber that the action will lie and so 5. Iac. Blanchflower and Alwood thou haste spoke Treason and shall be hanged for that adjudged to be actionable and the 7. Iac. Barford against Prowse thou haste spoken Treason and I will prove that adjudged to be actionable and judgement was given for the Plantiff according Pleadal against Gosmore PLeadal brought an action against Gosmore for the taking of his Colt and fettering him by which the Colt was much the worse and the Defendant justified and shewed that the Colt was taken within such a Mannor which was the Counteses of Hartfords and that she had estrayes within the same Mannor and he justified the taking as Bailiff to her and shewed that he fettered him to the end to keep him from doing harm because he was wild and Serjeant Attoe demurred in law and he said that a man may not fetter an estray because he shall be paid for his keeping and for the hurt that he did and he cited a judgement 8. Iac. in this Court Rot. 1749 between Harvey and Blacklock for the taking of his horse and the fettering him by reason of which he fell into a ditch and was drowned and the other justified the taking as an estray and he fetred him to one of his own horses because he was wild and they both fell into a ditch and were drowned c. and adjudged to be no Plea and the reason which the Lord Cook gave was because he shall be paid for the keeping of him and for his damage and of this opinion was Hobert in the case at the bar but Winch Hutton and Harvey contrary that he may fetter him as he may his own horse and for the case which was alledged they said that there was no proclamation pleaded and so the justification was not good and judgement was entred for the Defendant and this was the last case that ever Iustice Winch spake to in the Court for he being a man not more admired for his profound learning then he was reverenced for his pietie and integritie died upon Friday following being the fourth day of Februarie in the morning as he was making readie to go the Hall Elizabeth Davis against Hawkins THere was a case between Elizabeth Davis and Hawkins in the spiritual Court for defamatorie words and sentence was given against the Plantiff who appealed to the Arches and judgement was given for the Plantiff and 12. d. costs and then came the general pardon and the Defendant did appeal to the deligates and there the second sentence was affirmed and greater costs given and the Defendant did plead the general pardon and they would not allow of that and now it was moved for a prohibition and these points were debated by the Councel and agreed by the Court c. by Hobert and by Harvey that though this suit and sentence is only for to make the partie to denie the words and confess his fault in some publick place yet it is in effect as if it were meerly at the suit of the King for reformation and this is a new invention which they had found out to take away the benefit of the pardon of the King and now to the new costs which were taxed by the deligates they were not taken away by the pardon for though the first offence was yet because this new suit was not only to quash the sentence for the offence but also for the costs ergo these new costs were assigned for the unjust vexation for he was the cause of the removing of that and so they may do for the unjust vexation but not for the first offence The End A perfect Table of the Principal matters contained in this Book A ACcompt against a Bailiff to the damage of 100. l. and judgement to accompt he makes default what judgement shall be given 5. Accompt what is a good Plea in bar therein 9 An action upon the case where a request and the time and place thereof necessary and where not 2 Action for saying the Plantiff is a false for-sworn knave and took a false oath at a Commission 2 3 Action for saying thou art a Thief and hast stolen 20. load of my furzes lieth not 3 10 Action for c. thou hast stolen Hay from Mr. Bells Racks and judgement for the Plantiff 6 Action upon the case upon a promise what is a good consideration a quaint difference taken 7 8 Amendment of a judgement where and within what time good matter 89 Award where good in part and void for the rest 1 Action for words that the Plantiff stole Tobacco out of his Mrs. shop not good without averring that there was Tobacco there 15 Attachment denied upon an affidavit 15 16 Audita Querela where it lieth against one Feoffee and where before an Ouster 20 23 Action upon a promise what consideration is good therein to forbear 22 23 Action upon the case for procuring the Plant to be indicted for stealing Vetches where it lieth and if it ought to be a writ of conspiracie 28 54 An action by an Auditor for saying you are a Cozner and live by Coznage 33 39 40 41 An action for saying the Plantiff loaded a ship with Barley and stole 7. quarters of it by measure it lieth 41 Avowrie for rent granted to the father and that it was arrear to his son good without saying in whose time it was arrear 48 Action upon the case to save the Plantiff harmless for keeping a prisoner good without saying he was lawfully arrested 48 49 In avowrie for rent upon a lease by the father the son claimeth by discent the Plantiff saith the father devised the reversion to another the jury found a devise only of two parts judgement given for the Avowant 49 50 Amendments not allowed upon indictments actions popular or penal Statuts and