the 18th day Cook The Iudgment for the Queen upon an Information of Intrusion is Quod defendens de Intrusione transgressione Contemptu praedict convincatur c. And afterwards a Commission shall issue forth for to enquire of the Mean profits and there the Defendant may shew this matter in taking of the damages And if the Intrusion be at any time in the Information it is sufficient enough to have Iudgment upon it and in our Case the Continuance is laid 18 May. Egerton Sollicitor The Record warrants the Iudgment given upon it For possession laid in the Queen is sufficient to this Information And here Payn doth not answer the Queens title but traverseth the Intrusion And therefore he being found Intrudor by Verdict Iudgment ought to be given upon it For the Iury have found the Intrusion generally and specially 17 May. And that cannot be assigned for Error for it is part of the Verdict of which Error doth not lie but Attaint For if any Error was it was in the Iury and not in the Court. Which Manwood Concessit Tanfield As to the Case of Continuance of an Intrusion it is clear That every continuance ought to have a beginning for a thing which hath no beginning cannot be continued and here is not any beginning for the beginning which is laid in the Information is pretended to be 17 May and that cannot be causa qua supra Popham If an Information be brought of an Intrusion where in truth there is not any Record to prove it and the Iury find the Intrusion shall you have a Writ of Error upon it And every continuance of Intrusion is an Intrusion This Matter had been good Evidence to the Iury. Sed non habet locum hic c. CXCVI. Sir John Southwell's Case Hill. 28 Eliz. In the Exchequer SIr John Southwel of the County of Lanc. 7 July 2 Len. 132. 19 Eliz. made a Conveyance of all his Land to divers Feoffees and their Heirs upon Condition That they should find him and his Wife and so many persons in his House c. prefer his Daughters in Marriage pay his Debts c. And if there fell out at the years end upon Accompt made by the Feoffees any surplusage that then at the end of every such year they should answer such surplusage as should then remain in their hands unexpended of the Rents and Profits of his said Lands with Clause of Revocation c. Afterwards the said Conveyance being in force came the Statute of 23 Eliz. concerning Recusants Vpon which Statute the said Southwel was now Indicted And afterwards a Commission issued out of the Exchequer to the Sheriff of Lancast to enquire of the Lands of the saith Southwel And although against the said Conveyance it was given in Evidence That after that Conveyance the said Sir John Southwel had granted Trees out of the said Lands and had taken Fines and Incomes for Leases c. Yet the Iurors charged to enquire would not find That the said Sir John had any Lands c. And by special Commandment of the Queen it was referred out of the Exchequer to all the Iustices of England If the Lands of the said Sir John Southwel contained ut supra were subject to the said Statute and the penalties thereof And upon great deliberation had It was by them all Resolved and Agreed That notwithstanding that Conveyance the said Lands were lyable to the said Statute And as to the Iurors which against their Evidence given unto them for the Qeeen gav their Verdict ut supra process was awarded against them out of the said Court for to appear before the Lord Treasurer and the Barons of the Exchequer And for their said Contempt they were committed to the Fleet and each of them fined 20 l. CXCVII Hill. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Writ of Entry Sur Disseisin The Tenant said That the House in demand is within the City of London and that the said City is antiqua Civitas And that King Hen. 3. Concessit civibus Civitatis praedict quod non implacitentur de Terris Tenementis suis c. extra muros Civitatis praedict And further said That he himself is Civis London c. and demanded Iudgment of the Writ Note in the pleading before the Tenant said illis rectum teneatur intra Civitatem praedictam secundum Consuetudinem Civitatis praedict And to this Plea Exception was taken because that the Tenant doth not shew before whom by their Custom they ought to be impleaded It was the Opinion of the whole Court That the Tenant ought to have shewed That the Citizens for their Lands ought to be impleaded in the Hustings c. And the general words in the plea scil Sed illis rectum teneatur intra Civitatem praedictam secundum Consuetudinem Civitatis praedict did not supply the defect aforesaid After It was awarded by the Court That the Tenant answer further c. CXCVIII. The Lord Anderson's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Lord Anderson Chief Iustice of the Common Pleas 1 Roll. 189. brought an Action of Trespass by Bill for breaking of his House in the City of Wor. against one A. Citizen of the said City Now came the Mayor and Communalty of the said City and shewed their Charter granted to them by King E. 6. and demanded Conusans of Pleas. And by the Award of the whole Court the Conusans shall not be granted because that the Priviledge of this Court whereof the Plaintiff is a principal Member is more antient than the Patent upon which the Conusans is demanded For the Iustices Clarks and Attornies of this Court ought to be here attending to do their Offices and Services as belongs unto them and shall not be impleaded or compelled to implead others elsewhere than in this Court. And this Priviledge was given to this Court upon the Original Erection of it And such was the Opinion of the whole Court. And as for the Conusans it was denyed CXCIX Cocket and Robston's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. ARthur Cocket Thomas Andrews and A. his Wife 2 Len. 118. Post 192. 230. 1 Len. 219. 1 Len. 302. brought an Action of Accompt against Robston and Declared That one Mountford by the hands of Jo. Wase had delivered 100l to the Defendant pro relevamine of the said Arthur and Anne The Defendant pleaded Ne unque Receiver pur accompt render Vpon which they were at Issue And Iudgment was given That the Defendant should accompt Who before Auditors assigned alledged That he had expended the said 100l in the Education of the said Arthur and Anne by the space of 8 years after the delivery of the said 100l Vpon which they were at Issue And upon Evidence it was shewed on the Plaintiffs part That heretofore the said Arthur brought a Writ of Accompt against the said Robston as Guardian in Socage for the Land of the said Arthur discended And upon the
Issue in tail may enter upon the Conusee of a Statute acknowledged by his Father For if Execution had been sued against the Issue in tail it had been a Disseisin And see 2 R. 3. 7. That in such case the Wife or her Heirs may enter upon the Conusee And by Consequence the Conusee who is in by her c. Cook contrary I conceive that this Grant of this Lease by Sir Thomas Cotton to his Son is not good 2 Roll. 48 1 Cro. 15. 1 Inst 22. b. for it is but a possibility and no Interest I agree all the Cases which have been put before for Law but they cannot be applyed to this Case The Book in 7 H. 6. 2. is That if the Term of the Wife be extended upon the Statute of the Husband that the Wife shall have the residue after the death of the Husband but it doth not say that the Wife or her Husband may grant it during the Extent which is the matter now in Question And I conceive That Sir Thomas Cotton hath but a possibility For the Conusee upon the Extent hath but an incertain Interest And although it may be by some means reduced to a certainty in the Chancery where the Costs and Damages shall be assessed yet until it be reduced to a certainty it cannot be granted And therefore it is clear That if I have a Term for 8 years in Land and grant it unto another until he hath levied 100 l. and all his Costs of suit for it by this Grant all the Interest of the Term is in the Grantee and nothing is in me but a possibility 8 Co. Mannings Case And so it was holden in the Common Pleas by the Lord Anderson the day when he was made Chief Iustice there At which time this Case was put Lands of the yearly value of 20 l. are Leased to one until he hath levied 100 l. And the matter was What estate the Grantee hath And it was holden That if Livery be not made that he hath but an estate at Will for the profits of the Lands are incertain the one year more and the other year less And Bromley Lord Chancellor was then of the same Opinion Then if in case of a Lease it be so it shall also be so in case of an Extent and in both the Cases the whole Interest is out of the parties And 19 Eliz. the Case was in this Court That the Lessee for years devised his Term to his Executors for the payment of his Debts and Legacies and after the payment of them the residue of the years he devised to his Son The Executors enter which is an assent to the remainder he in the remainder grants his Interest And it was holden void because it was but a possibility and so incertain and although it might be reduced to a Certainty afterwards yet the same is not sufficient for it ought to be reduced to a certainty at the time of the grant And 17 Eliz. in this Court the Case was That Land was given to the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the Husband the Husband makes a Lease for years and dieth the Wife enters and entermarrieth with the Lessee And it was moved If the Interest of the Lessee by the entermarriage was extinct And it was holden That it was not for it was but a possibility and not an Interest quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam And if a possibility cannot be extinct then it cannot be granted And he denyed the Case put by Stephens Where a Man seised of Lands Leaseth the same for years to begin at a day to come and afterwards before the day the Lessor is disseised now during that Dissesin the Grantee cannot enter for his future Interest For the Feesimple being turned into a Right so also shall be the Interest And that is proved by Delamere's Case A Feoffment in Fee was made to the use of A. for life and afterwards to the use of C. for life and afterwards to the use of D. in Fee and afterwards A. enfeoffed a stranger who had notice of the use The same doth take away all the other uses and said Feoffee although he had notice of the use yet he shall not be seised to the first use for the estate out of which the first uses do arise is taken away and then also the uses And he said also That the Lease made to Sir Thomas Cotton is not good for it was made 11 Eliz. And it is found by Verdict That 10 Eliz. a Writ of Extent issued forth upon the Statute then was the Lands in the hands of c. during which time the Lord Mount joy and his Wife could not make the Lease aforesaid to the said Sir Thomas Cotton And as to that see 5 E. 3. Retorn of the Sheriff 99. See the Case of 3 E. 6. Dyer 67. Stringfellow's Case Then admitting the Lease to Sir Thomas Cotton yet the Lessee cannot put out the Conusee without a Scire facias for the Conusee is in by matter of Record Also here this Lease made by the Husband and Wife without any Rent reserved is utterly void and then the Conusee shall take advantage of it 9 H. 7. 24 18 E. 4. 2. And so was it ruled in the Case of Seniori puero in the case of an Enfant And see 7 Eliz. Dyer 239. Where the Provost of Wells being Parson impersonee of the Patronage of W. Leased the Tythe for 50 years rendring Rent which was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter but not by the Patron and Ordinary And afterwards by Act of Parliament the Provostry was united to the Deanery cum primo vacare contigerit The Provost died the Dean accepteth the Rent The same shall not bind the Church for the Lease is void as it is of a Parson or Prebend c. And so the Dean shall take advantage of it although not privy to it See 16 Eliz. Dyer 337. Lands given to a Parson and his Successors for to find Lights and he Leaseth the same for life The Rent is so imployed accordingly The Incumbent dieth The Successor accepteth the Rent the King grants it over The Patentee shall avoid the Lease as the Successor might have done before the Statute if he had not accepted the Rent but the acceptance before the Statute shall bind the Successor for that it was but a voidable Lease And the Case between Harvy and Thomas which hath been put on the other side serves to our purpose for there the Conusee shall avoid a Lease in Law which is void and here in the Principal Case the Lease is void for that no Rent is reserved upon it Wherefore c. It was adjourned CCVI. Beadle's Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was That A. Leased to B. certain Lands for 40 l. per annum 2 Len. 115. And a stranger Covenanted with A. That B. should pay him 40 l. for the Farm and Occupation
THE THIRD PART OF THE REPORTS Of Several Excellent CASES OF LAW Argued and Adjudged in the COURTS of LAW AT WESTMINSTER In the Time of the late QUEEN ELIZABETH From the First to the Five and Thirtieth Year of her Reign Collected by a Learned Professor of the LAW WILLIAM LEONARD Esquire Then of the Honourable Society of GRAYS-INN Not before Imprinted And now Published By William Hughes of Grays-Inn Esq With Alphabetical TABLES of the Names of the CASES and of the Matters contained in the BOOK LONDON Printed by the Assigns of Richard and Edward Atkins Esquires For Henry Twyford Thomas Basset William Rawlins and John Place 1686. TO THE READER Courteous Reader I Can do no less than acquaint thee That the First and Second Part of the REPORTS of that Learned Lawyer William Leonard of Grays-Inn Esquire were obtained from me and Printed by the over-forwardness of those persons that received it from my hand who published it with a Design to prejudice the Learned Author and my self by false Intimating in the Epistle to the Reader prefixed before the Second Part That the First and Second Part was All of our Learned Authors Works that I thought fit to publish That I may Extricate my self out of their intended Abuse and undeceive thee I do hereby assure thee That although I do Collect the First and Second Part yet do I wholly disown the Epistle aforementioned and also aver it to be a false and scandalous Assertion That it is so I refer thee to the View of this Third Part The which is in no wise Inferior to the First and Second Part But on the contrary I may with Modesty say as to the Worth and Usefulness of it That it may Challenge the Precedence of the Other Two the which I intended as one that Feasteth his Guests preserveth the Daintiest Dishes until the last My Intention ever was if my other occasions would give me leave To publish such further CASES as were Collected by him not before Imprinted that might add something to the Study and Benefit of the Ingenuous Reader Wherefore I having lately Collected out of his Manuscript which only is in my hands some other Cases out of many which lay scattering therein not before made Publick I have reduced them into this Third Part which I commend to thy Reading and leave to thy favourable Construction And if these Cases now Printed off in this Third Part as the former Cases have done shall find good Acceptance of thee and be useful to thee I shall willingly if God give me life and it be desired put an End to this Work. In the prosecution of the which I shall have due regard as I hitherto have had in this Third Part as well as in the Two former Parts that thou shalt be presented with nothihg but what is Really useful and not to be had in other Works of the like nature Now for as much as no Action or Thing done under Heaven can be free from Error in a greater or lesser proportion The which as well as other Arts Printing too too frequently demonstrateth yet the Errors of this Third Part are so few and Inconsiderable that it maketh me the more Confident to desire thy favourable Corection Therefore I leave it to thee From my Study in Grays-Inn 24 of October 1662. William Huhges The Names of the Learned Lawyers Serjeants at Law and Judges of the several Courts at Westminster who Argued the Cases and were Judges of the said several Courts where the Cases were Argued Viz. A. ANderson Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Anger Altham afterwards one of the Barons of the Exchequer Atkinson Ayliffe Justice of the Kings Bench. B. Beaumount Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Bromley Lord Chancellor of England Barkley C. Cook after Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Clench one of the Judges of the Kings Bench. Cooper Serjeant at Law. Clark Baron of the Exchequer D. Daniel Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Drew Serjeant at Law. Dyer Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. E. Egerton Solicitor of the Queen after Lord Chancellor F. Fleetwood Serjeant at Law Recorder of London Fuller Fennor Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Kings Bench. G. Gawdy Judge of the Kings Bench. Golding Serjeant at Law. Glanvile Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Gent Baron of the Exchequer Godfrey H. Haughton Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Hammon Serjeant at Law. Harris Serjeant at Law. Heal Serjeant at Law. Hobart K. Kingsmil Judge of the Kings Bench. L. Laiton M. Mead Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Morgan Manwood Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer Mounson Justice of the Common Pleas. O. Owen Serjeant at Law after Baron of the Exchequer P. Popham Attorny-General of the Queen after Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench. Periam Judge of the Common Pleas. Pepper Attorny of the Court of Wards Plowden Puckering the Queens Serjeant at Law. R. Rhodes Judge of the Common Pleas. S. Snag Serjeant at Law. Shute Judge of the Kings Bench. Shuttleworth Serjeant at Law. T. Tanfield Serjeant at Law after Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer Topham W. Wray Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench. Windham Judge of the Common Pleas. Walmesley Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Common Pleas. Y. Yelverton Serjeant at Law after Judge of the Kings Bench. A Table of the Names of the CASES in the Thrid Part of LEONARD'S Reports P. stands for Page C. for Case A. ANdrews and Glovers Case Trin. 4 Eliz. Page 7. Case 19 Abrahal and Nurses Case Hill. 19 Eliz. C. B. p. 63. C. 94 Absolon and Andertons Case Mich. 26 Eliz. B. R. p. 84. C. 124 Amner and Luddingtons Case Mich. 26 Eliz. B. R. p. 89. C. 128 Annisley and Johnsons Case Mich. 27 Eliz. C.B. p. 114. C. 164 Archbold and Borrells Case Mich. 28 Eliz. B. R. p. 139. C. 190 Lord Andersons Case Mich. 29 Eliz. C. B. p. 149. C. 198 Allen and Hills Case Mich. 30 Eliz. B. R. p. 152. C. 204 Abbots Case Pasch 30 Eliz. B. R. p. 206. C. 266 Anderson and Heywards Case Pasch 30 Eliz. B. R. p. 221. C. 294 George Ap-Rices Case Trin. 32 Eliz. Exchequer p. 241. C. 336. B. BArrentines Case Mich. 8 Eliz. C. B. Page 12. C 28 Oliver Breers Case 11 Eliz. Cur. Ward p. 25. C. 52 Banks and Thwaites Case Mich. 21 Eliz. B. R. p. 73. C. 113 Barker and Taylors Case Mich. 21 Eliz. C. B. p. 78. C. 117 Bunny and Bunny's Case Hill. 26 Eliz. C. B. p. 90. C. 129 Brett and Peregrines Case Pasch 26 El. p. 105. C. 155 Brian and Cawsens Case Trin. 27 Eliz. C. B. p. 115. C. 165 Baspoles Case Mich. 27 Eliz. B. R. p. 118. C. 167 Branthwaits Case Mich. 27 Eliz. B R. p. 118. C. 168 Bingham and Squires Case Hill. 29 Eliz. C. B. p. 151. C. 201 Beadles Case Mich. 30 Eliz. B.
John the Father in three parts to be divided And afterwards the Father by his Will devised the Lands holden in Socage unto his said Wife for life with divers Remainders over It was the Opinion of the Court in this Case that the Devise was utterly void by the Statute CLV Brett and Peagrims Case Pasch 26 Eliz. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that whereas he himself and the Defendant submitted themselves to the Award of A.B. and C.D. and whereas the said Arbitrators upon the hearing of the Causes between them did intend and were resolved amongst other matters of their Award to award that two Obligations by which the Plaintiff was severally bounden to the Defendant for the payment of certain sums of Mony to the Defendant should be delivered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff to be cancelled The Defendant promised in Consideration that that Article of the delivery of the said two Obligations should be left out of the Award that he himself would gratis deliver them to the Plaintiff without any Coertion or direction of the Award and further declared that the said Article ad specialem instantiam ipsius Querentis was left out by the said Arbitrators out of their Award and notwithstanding that that the Defendant had not redelivered ut supra c. but had put the same in suit against the Plaintiff In this Case upon the matter ut supra c. it was adjudged for the Plaintiff CLVI Nich. Lee's Case Pasch 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 26. 1 Len. 285. 1 Inst 113. Dyer 177. 219. a. 2 Len. 220. NIch. Lee by his Will devised his Land to W. his second Son And if he do depart this World not having Issue then I Will my Sons-in-Law shall sell my Land. The Devisor at the time of the Devise having six Sons-in-Law died W. had Issue John and died John died without Issue one of the Sons-in-Law of the Devisor died the five surviving Sons-in-Law sold the Land. 1. It was clearly agreed by the whole Court that although the words of the Will be ut supra If W. my Son depart this World not having Issue c. And that W. hath Issue which dieth without Issue there although it cannot be said Literally that William did depart this World not having Issue yet the intent of the Devisor is not to be restrained to the Letter but Construction shall be made that whensoever W. dieth in Law upon the matter without Issue the same Land shall be subject to sale according to the Authority committed by the Devisor to his Sons-in-Law And now upon the matter W. is dead without Issue As in a Formedon in the Reverter or Remainder although the Donee in tail hath Issue yet if afterwards the Estate tail be spent the Writ shall suppose that the Donee died without Issue a fortiori in the case of a Devise such Construction shall be made As to the other point concerning the sale of the Land Wray demanded if the Sons-in-Law were named in the Will The Clerks answered they were not See 30 H. 8. Br. Devise 31 and 39 Ass 17. Fitz. title Executors 117. Such a sale is good in case of Executors See also 23 Eliz. Dyer 371. And see 4 and 5 Mar. Dyer Land devised in tail and if the Devisee shall die without Issue that then the Land shall be sold pro optimo valore by his Executors una cum assensu of A. if A. dieth before sale the power of the Executors is determined And afterwards it was clearly resolved by the whole Court that the sale by the manner aforesaid was good and Iudgment given accordingly CLVII Rag and Bowley's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ERror was brought upon a Fine and the Error was assigned in the Proclamations Whereupon issued a Certiorari to the Custos Brevium who certified the Proclamations by which Certificate it appeared that two of the said Proclamations were made in one day upon which the Defendant prayed another Scire facias to the Chirographer in whose Office it appeared that all the Proclamations were well and duly made It was the Opinion of Wray Chief Iustice in this Case that the Defendant ought to have his preyer for the Chirographer maketh the Proclamations and he is the principal Officer as to them And the Custos Brevium hath but the abstract of the Proclamations and we may in discretion amend them upon the matter appearing But the other Iustices seemed to be of a contrary Opinion for that the Proclamations being once certified by the Custos Brevium who is the principal Officer we ought not afterwards to resort to the Chirographer who is the inferior Officer And afterwards the Clerks of the Common Pleas were examined of the matter aforesaid by the Iustices of the Kings Bench and they answered according to that which was said by Wray Chief Iustice Wherefore it was awarded by the Court that a new Certiorari be directed to the Chirographer who Certified the Proclamations to be well and duly made And thereupon the Court awarded that the Proclamations in the Office of the Custos Brevium should be amended according to the Proclamations in the Custody and the Office of the Chirographer Note In the same Case before the Writ brought a stranger had brought a Writ of Error against the same Defendant upon the same Fine upon which the transcript of the Fine and Proclamations are removed in Banco and after the Plaintiff is Non-suit Now another who hath Cause may have a Writ of Error quod coram vobis residet CLVIII Taverner and Cromwell's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. UPon an Evidence unto a Iury 3 Cro. 353. containing difficulty and matter in Law it was found viz. that the Bishop of Norwich 10 H. 8. was seised of the Mannor of Northelman in the right of his Bishoprick and at his Court holden within the same Mannor granted parcel of the Demesnes of the said Mannor to one Taverner and his Heirs where of the said Land in truth there was not any Demise by Copy before And so the said Land continued in Copy until 23 H. 8. at which time Taverner committed a forfeiture which being presented the Bishop seised the Land as forfeited and granted the same again by Copy to Taverner in Fee And so from thence it continued in Copy until 8 Eliz. which Interval between 23 H. 8. and 8 Eliz. amounted to 47 years It was the Opinion of the whole Court in this Case that the Continuance for 50 years is requisite to fasten a Customary Condition upon the Land against the Lord. It was also agreed by the Court that although the Original Commencement and that Customary Interest did commence 10 H. 8. ut supra from which time unto 8 Eliz. 60 years passed yet the seisure for a forfeiture which happened 23 H. 8. interrupted utterly the Continuance from the time which might by the Law have perfected the Customary Interest So
now the Grant to Fortescue be good or not Vide inde Dyer 2 Eliz. 17. Vpon a Writ of Mandamus The Escheator charged the Enquest who were agreed of their Verdict and delivered the same in Paper to the Escheator And before the engrossing sealing and delivery of it came a Supersedeas And it was Resolved by all the Iustices That before the engrossing indenting and sealing it was no Verdict See this Case Reported in Cook 5. Part 54. CLXXIX Nelson's Case Pasch 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass brought by Nelson chief Preignothory of the Court of Common Pleas the Case was That the Abbot of D. was seised of a Common out of the Lands of the Abby of S. as appendant unto certain Lands of the said Abby of D. And afterwards the said Houses were dissolved and the possessions of them given to the King by Act of Parliament to have and hold in as large and ample manner and form as the late Abbots c. After which the King so being seised granted the said possessions of the said Abby of D. to A. and the possessions of the said Abby of S. to B. It was argued That the Common notwithstanding the unity of possession did continue For unity of possession is so qualified and restrained by the Statute by the words aforesaid and also by the words in the state and condition as they now be And the Abbot of D. was seised in the right of his House of the said Common Therefore so also shall be the King and his Patentees and so a special seisin is given to the King. Rhodes Windham and Anderson Iustices to the contrary And the said words in the said Statute are to be construed according to the Law and no further And by the Law the said Common cannot stand against the Vnity of possession CLXXX Leonard's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 192. 2 Roll. 787. LEonard Custos Brevium brought an Action of Trespass for breaking of his Close The Defendant pleaded That William Heydon was seised and enfeoffed him And upon Ne enfeffa pas they were at Issue And it was found by Special Verdict That the said William Heydon was seised and leased to the Defendant for years and afterwards made a Charter of Feoffment to him by these words Dedi Concessi with a Warrant of Attorny in it and delivered the same to the said Lessee who delivered the same to him who was made Attorny in the said Deed who made Livery accordingly It was moved by the Plaintiff's Counsel That here is not any Feoffment found but only a Confirmation For as soon as the Charter was delivered to the Lessee for years the Law gave it its operation to that effect to vest the Fee in the Lessee by way of Confirmation See Litt. 532. But the Opinion of the whole Court was clear to the contrary for here the Lessee hath liberty how and by what Conveyance he shall be adjudged seised of the Land either by Feoffment or by Confirmation And it appeareth here That when the Lessee delivered the Charter to the Attorny And also when the Lessee accepted Livery from the Attorny he declared his meaning to be That he would take by the Livery And the Lord Anderson said That if Tenant in tail be disseised and makes a Charter-Feoffment with a Warranty of Attorny and delivers the same to the Disseisor who delivers the same to the Attorny who makes Livery accordingly the same is a good Feoffment and so a Discontinuance And after many Motions the Court awarded That the Plaintiff should be barred CLXXXI Palmer and Waddington's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. RIchard Palmer brought an Action upon the Case against Anthony Waddington And Declared That Henry Waddington Brother of the Defendant was endebted to the said Plaintiff in 20 l. Et jacens in extremis mortem indies expectans vocavit ad se dict Anthonium quem executorem Testamenti ultimae voluntatis Constituisset eum rogans ut dictas 20 Libras praefato Richardo infra spacium duorum Mensium mortem suam proxime sequend numeraret solveret Et dictus Anthonius in Consideratione inde super se assumpsit c. And all the matter aforesaid was found by Verdict upon Non Assumpsit pleaded And it was the Opinion of the whole Court That the Declaration was insufficient because there is not any good Consideration set forth in it for it is not said That in Consideration that the said Henry made the Defendant his Executor c. CLXXXII Stransham and Collington's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Plaintiff sued in the Spiritual Court for Tythes against the Defendant within the Parish of C. The Defendant said 1 Cro. 128. That the Tythes are within the Parish of A. and the Parson of A. came in pro interesse suo and thereupon they proceeded to sentence and that was given against Stransham who now sued a Prohibition And the Question was If within such a Parish or such a Parish be tryable by the Law of the Land or by the Law of the Church Wray Chief Iustice said It hath been taken That it is tryable by our Law. Fenner The Pope hath not distinguished Parishes but hath Ordained That Tythes shall be paid within the Parish CLXXXIII Higham's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 226. More Rep. 221. 1 Cro. 15. IT was found by Special Verdict That Thomas Higham was seised of 100 Acres of Lands called Jacks usually occupied with a House And that he Leased the said House and 40 Acres of the said 100 Acres to J.S. for life and made his Will by which he devised the said House and all his Lands called Jacks then in the Occupation of J.S. to his Wife for life and that after the decease of his Wife the Remainder thereof and of all his other Lands appertaining to Jacks to Richard his second Son c. It was said by Meade That the Wife should not have by Implication the Residue of Jacks for that she hath an express estate in the House and 40 Acres of the Land and her Husband having expressed his Will as to that his Will shall not be construed by Implication to pass other Lands to the Wife And it was said by him That it had been adjudged in the Case between Tracy and Glover That if Lands be devised to one and to his Heirs and if he dieth without Heir of his body 1 Roll. 839. that then the Land shall remain over that in such case the Donee hath but an Estate in tail to him and the Heirs males of his body And it was then also said by Anderson Chief Iustice That in the time of Sir Anthony Brown it was holden That if a Man be seised of two Acres of Land and devised one of them to his Wife for life and that J.S. shall have the other Acre after the death of his Wife that the Wife
not bind him to that nor did prescribe any time but left the same generally Yet it was the Opinion of the whole Court That he should have the Averment at the time of the Voucher or not at all So the Statute of 11 H 7. Cap. 20. If a Woman who hath a Ioynture for life or in tail suffereth a Recovery and afterwards the Issue in tail releaseth all his Right by Fine and dieth his Issue may enter for the assent ought to be by Voucher in the same Action or the like for if there be a mean instant between the Recovery and the Assent then any assent after is nothing to the purpose for the Recovery being once void by the Statute cannot be made good by an assent afterwards See Doctor and Student 54. And yet the Statute is Provided That the Statute shall not extend to any such Recovery c. if the next Heir be assenting to the same Recovery c. so as the same assent or agreement be of Record or inrolled And it doth not say That the Assent should be at one time or at another But to come to Leases upon Statutes Before the Statute of 2 E. 6. Cap. 8. If Leases had not been found by Offices the Lessees should have been ousted and put to their traverse But put Case that after that Statute a Lease made to begin at a day to come were not found by Office should it be helped by that Statute No truly And so it is holden in the Court of Wards at this day and the Lord Chief Iustice of England held so in his Reading at Lincolns-Inn The Statute of 1 Eliz. of Leases to be made by Bishops is That Leases other than for 21 years from the time that they begin that is when they may take effect as Deeds and not when they shall take effect to be executed For so they might make Leases infinite c. It was adjourned c. CLXXXV Lewen and Mody's Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. Rot. 2494. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin brought by Lewen Doctor of the Civil Law against Mody who made Conusans as Bailiff to one Fowke and shewed That 14 Elizabeth the morrow of the Purification a Fine was levied between Lovelace and Rutland Plaintiffs and the said Fowke and other Deforceants by which Fine the said Deforceants acknowledged the said Mannor to be the right of the said Lovelace and Rutland come ceo c. And the said Lovelace and Rutland by the same Fine granted and rendred to the said Fowke a Rent of 20 l. per annum in Fee out of the said Mannor And for the Rent arrear c. And the Plaintiff in bar of the Conusans shewed That the said Fowke being seised of the said Rent granted the same to one Horden c. Vpon which Grant they were at Issue And the Iury found That the said Fowke being seised of the said Rent by Indenture reciting That whereas a Fine was levied between Fowke and 7 others Plaintiffs and Lovelace and Rutland Deforceants as the rest ut supra granted redditum praedict to Horden and further found that no other Fine was levied between the parties aforesaid but the said Fine and that the parties to the Fine were seised of the Mannor at the time of the Fine levied and of no other Land And if this Rent so described by the said Indenture should pass or not was the Question And it is to be observed That the Indenture of Grant between Fowke and Horden recited a Fine of the Mannor of Coleshall inter alia where the Iury have found That the Fine was levied of the said Mannor only And it was argued by Shuttleworth That the said Rent did not pass to Horden by the said Indenture for the Rent bescribed by the Indenture is not the Rent which was granted by the Fine And if I let Lands for years to A. and afterwards A. grants the Land which B. holds of me the Grantis void As 13 E. 3. Grants 63. Land is given to Husband and Wife for their lives And the Lessor grants the Reversion of the Land which the Husband holdeth for life nothing passeth Walmesley contrary The variance in the Fine shall not avoid the Grant For the Indenture of the Rent agrees with the Fine in the Term in the year of the Reign and in the name of the parties to the Fine in the quantity of the Rent and in the Land charged the only difference is in the phrase of Law Deforceant for Plaintiff and it is granted that that is but a matter of Circumstance and not of substance Snag Serjeant contrary And first he took Exception to the Verdict for this that a special Verdict is given upon a special Absque hoc And the Lord Anderson interrupted him That it was a clear Case That such a Verdict upon such an Issue might be found And so it was adjudged in the Case between Vavasour and Doleman Fenner argued as Walmesley The Grant agrees with the Fine in the points of greatest importance and one falsity shall not prejudice it where there are so many verities which may induce the Court to judge That the Rent granted by the Indenture is the Rent created by the Fine and in a Fine the substance is not Who was Deforceant who was Plaintiff but who was party to the Fine And that some of the parties to the Fine were seised of the Land of which the Fine is levied And if the Indenture had been Whereas such a Rent was granted by a Fine levied between A. and B. without shewing who was Plaintiff and who Deforceant it had been good enough And although that in this Case the Plaintiff and Deforceant are mis-set down yet the same shall not make the Grant void for utile per inutile non vitiatur So if I reciting The Original Grant was made to me by Indenture Tripartite between A. of the first part B. of the second part and my self of the third part whereas the Indenture it self is Between myself of the first part the same is not material c. For such a small mistaking shall not avoid the Grant. So if I by my Deed reciting That whereas I am possessed of certain Lands for Term of years of the Demise of Sir Christopher Hatton Knight Treasurer of England whereas in truth he is Chancellor that mistaking of the Dignity shall not prejudice the Grant. And it was Agreed by all the Iustices If the said Fine had been pleaded at it is recited in the Indenture mistaking the Plaintiff and Deforceant he who had so pleaded it had failed of his Record But in the Case at Bar the reciting who was Plaintiff who Defendant was matter of surplusage and therefore it shall not hurt the party As 23 Eliz. Dyer 376. A. seised of a House in D. which he purchased of Tho. Cotton he made a Feoffment thereof by these words A House in D. late Richard Cotton's And notwithstanding this variance it was good enough
of the said Lands A. brought an Action of Covenant The Defendant pleaded That before the day of payment the Plaintiff put the said B. out of his Farm It was moved by Godfrey That the same is no plea For this is a Collateral sum and not for Rent issuing out of the Land Also the Defendant is a stranger to the Contract for the Farm. But the Opinion of the whole Court was clear to the contrary For the Defendant hath Covenanted That the Lessee shall pay for the said Farm and Occupation 40 l. so as it is as a Conditional Covenant and here is Quid pro quo and here the Consideration upon which the Covenant is conceived scil the Farm and the Occupation of it is taken away by the Act of the Plaintiff himself and therefore the plea is good and the Action will not lie CCVII. The Archbishop of York and Morton's Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Archbishop of York recovered in an Assise of Novel Disseisio against one Morton before the Iustices of Assise 1 Len. 55. upon which Iudgment Morton brought a Writ of Error retornable before the Iustices of the Common Pleas And after many Motions at the Bar it was adjudged That a Writ of Error upon such Iudgment doth not lie in the said Court. Which see 8 Eliz. Dyer 250. See also N. B. 22. e. That upon Erroneous Iudgment given in the King Bench in Ireland Error shall be in the Kings Bench in England 15 E. 3. Error 72. And Fenner who was of Counsel with the Archbishop demanded of the Court How and in what manner the Record shall be sent back to the Iustices of Assise so as the said Archbishop might have Execution To which the Court answered That the surest way is to have a Certiorari out of the Chancery into the Common Pleas directed to the Iudges there and then out of the Chancery by a Mittimus to the Iustices of Assise But Fenner made a doubt to take such Course for such remanding Then Anderson Chief Iustice said Sue Execution out of the said Record for in as much as the Record came before us by Writ of Error it shall also be removed and sent back by Writ And so it was done CCVIII The Queen and Hurleston's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 194. THe Queen brought a Scire facias against Hurleston to Repeal a Patent made to him of the Constableship of Chester and Iudgment was given for the Queen And now Hurleston brought a Writ of Error against the Queen in the Kings Bench. And it was moved by Gawdy Serjeant That the Writ did not lie for the manner for that he ought first to have sued to the Queen by Petition See 22 E. 3. 3. 23 E. 3. Fitz. Error 9. If the King recover by an Erronious Iudgment a Writ of Error cannot be granted upon such a Recovery sine gratia Regis speciali And he said That in Chester they have Courts of Common Pleas Kings Bench Exchequer and Chancery And that if Iudgment Erronious be given in the Chancery at Westminster It cannot be reversed but by Parliament and so it is of an Erronious Iudgment given in the Chancery at Chester Also he said They have a Custom in London That within one month they may reverse their own Iudgment See 23 Eliz. Dyer 376. Erronious Iudgment given in the 5 Ports cannot be reversed in the King Bench but it is reversable in the Court of the Guardian of the 5 Ports Clench Here both the parties claim by the Queen therefore there needeth no Petition for valeat quantum valere poterit it is no prejudice to the Queen Cook There needs no Petition here for the Attorny General hath subscribed our Writ of Error Egerton Sollicitor General It was the Case of Eliz. Mordant who was to reverse a Fine levied during her Nonage and the proceedings were stayed because she had not sued to the Qeen by Petition See the Case of 24 E. 3. 35. the Case of William de Ingularby who sued to reverse a Iudgment given against him in a Writ of Conspiracy in the Eyre of Derby and there it was said by Thorp Iustice That he must first sue to the King by Petition Wray An Outlawry may be reversed by bringing a Writ of Error without suing Petition to the King. CCIX. Beckwith's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 5 Co. 19. ROger Beckwich by Indenture Tripartite between him of the first part William Vavasour Frances Slingsby and Elizabeth Sister of Roger of the second part George Harvey and Frances Wife of the said George the said Frances being another of the Sisters of the said Roger of the third part Covenant with the aforesaid William Vavasour and Frances Vavasour his Daughter and with the aforesaid George and Frances cum quolibet qualibet eorum That the said Roger at the sealing and delivery of the said Indenture was lawfully and solely seised of the Rectory of Aldingfleet in the County of York discharged of all Incumbrances Francis Vavasour took to Wife Frances Slingsby And Note That by the same Indenture Roger Beckwith Conveyed the said Rectory to the said Francis Vavasour Francis Slingsby and Frances his Wife brought an Action of Covenant against the said Roger Beckwith and assigned the Breach in this That the said Roger was not seised of the said Rectory And Note That the Plaintiff declared of an Indenture bearing date at the Castle of York And upon the breach of the Covenant they were at Issue which was found for the Plaintiff and damages assessed and Iudgment given for the Plaintiff And Note That the Venire facias was de Vicineto Castri de York And upon that Iudgment a Writ of Error was brought in the Exchequer upon the new Statute and Error was assigned because all the Covenanters ought to have joyned in the Action of Covenant notwithstanding those words cum quolibet cum qualibet which words do not make the Covenant to be several And for that cause the Iudgment was Reversed Another Error was assigned because the Issue is not well and duly tryed For the Issue is upon the seisin of the Rectory of Aldingfleet in which case the Venire facias ought to have been de Vicineto de Aldingfleet And of that Opinion was Manwood and Anderson Iustices CCX Young and Ashburnsham's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action of Debt brought by the Administrators of Young against Ashburnham The Defendant pleaded Nihil debet And the Enquest was taken by default And upon the Evidence given for the Plaintiff the Case appeared to be this That the said Young was an Innholder in a great Town in the County of Sussex where the Sessions used to be holden And that the Defendant was a Gentleman of Quality in the Country there And he in going to the Sessions used to lodge in the house of the said Young and there took his lodging
and have day to plead CCXX Dicksey and Spencer's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case between Dicksey and Spencer see H. 29 Eliz. Notwithstanding the Opinion of the Court of Common Pleas The Mayor and Aldermen of London reversed the Iudgment given in an Assise of Freshforce Vpon which Dicksey sued a Commission directed to Anderson Manwood and Periam to examine the said Iudgment ad errorem corrigendum And the Case was often Argued The principal matter was That Lessee for years in an Action of Debt brought against him for the Rent reserved claimed Fee by bargain and sale of his Lessor the which bargain and sale the Plaintiff traversed And it was argued Because this bargain and sale was traversed there was not any forfeiture in the Case for upon that both parties are at large As in a Praecipe quod reddat The Tenant disclaims and the Demandant avers him Tenant he shall not enter for that Disclaimer But all the three Iustices were clear of Opinion That notwithstanding the Traverse it is a forfeiture for the very claim is a forfeiture which cannot be saved by matter subsequent See 9 H. 5. 14. If Tenant for life be impleaded in a Writ of Right and joyns the Mise upon the meer Right it is a forfeiture Another Error was assigned Because where it is found that both the Defendants Disseisiverunt the Plaintiff but Spencer only with force and the Iudgment in the Assise of Freshforce was that ambo Capiantur where no force is found in Clark one of them yet such a Iudgment is good enough For the Assise have found a Ioynt Disseisin and that Clark was present at the said Force and then he particeps Criminis And of that Opinion were all the 3 Iustices And it way Objected That forasmuch as Clark is Convicted of force upon the matter for both ought to be taken therefore the Damages ought to be trebled against both And the Court was in some doubt of that But clearly the Incrementum shall be trebled as well as the Damages taxed by the Assise And after many Arguments the said Iustices moved the parties to a friendly course to compound the matter For if we reverse the Iudgment given in the Hustings Then Spencer may have his Writ of Error upon the Iudgment in the Assise of Freshforce sic infinite And afterwards the parties put themselves to the Mediation and Order of the said 3 Iustices who at length made an end of the matter betwixt the said parties CCXXI The Lady Newman and Shyriff's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Star-Chamber 4 Len. 25. THe Lady Newman Sister of James Wingfield lately deceased Exhibited a Bill of Complaint in the Star-Chamber against one Shyriff dwelling in Ireland and two others setting forth That the said Shyriff had forged a Deed purporting That the said James had by the same given to him all his goods and also that the said James had assigned to the said Shyriff a Lease for years of Lands in Ireland And also that the said Shyriff had procured the said two other Defendants to depose upon their Oath before the Town-Clerk of London That the said Deed was sealed and delivered by the said James as his Deed. It was moved by the Counsel of the Defendant's That these matters of Forgery are not within the Statute of 5 Eliz. nor also the Perjury or the procurement of it Whereupon the Lords of the Council referred the Consideration of the said Statute to both the Chief Iustices who the next Court-day declared their Opinions upon the said Matters 1. That the said Statute did not extend to forgery of a Deed conveying a gift of Chattels personals Which see by the Statute which as to that point extends but to Obligations Bills Obligatory Acquittance Release or other discharge And also a Deed of an Assignment of a Lease of Land in Ireland is not within the said Statute And also the said Iustices were of Opinion That this Perjury and the procurement of it is not punishable by the said Statute because the Oath was taken Coram non Judice For the Town-Clerk of London cannot minister an Oath in such case no more than a private person But because the Bill in the perclose and Conclusion of it was contrary to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm The said Chief Iustices were of Opinion That the said Court might punish those offences as misdemeanors at the Common Law but not according to the Statute And afterwards Shyriff paid for a Fine 3 l. and by Order of the Court was set in the Pillory CCXXII Middlemore's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. MIddlemore brought an Action upon the Case for these words scil Middlemore is a Cosening Knave for he had me to Coventry and there cosened me of 40 s. And afterwards had Iudgment to recover And now the Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer-Chamber and there the Opinion of the whole Court was That the said words were not actionable And the Case of one Egerton was remembred Thou art a Cosening Knave Coroner For thou hast Cosened me of my Land. The Plaintiff in that Case could not have Iudgment For he was not particularly charged in respect of his Office. And Note That in this Case of Error the Defendant pleaded an Outlawry in the Plaintiff and being barred in that he pleaded now an Excommengement in the Plaintiff and shewed the Letters of Excommunication Vpon which it appeared That the Plea was pleaded before the Outlawry was pleaded And it was Ruled by the whole Court That this Plea lieth not for the Defendant For he cannot have two Pleas to the person of the Plaintiff but where his second Plea is matter of later time since the first Plea And afterwards the said Iudgment was reversed CCXXIII. Barns Executor of the Bishop of Durham and Smith's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer EManuel Barns Executor of Barns late Bishop of Durham 2 Len. 21. brought Debt for Arrearages of Rent reserved upon a Lease for years of certain Mines demised to Smith scil Mines called Argill and Mines called Greenbourn and it was against the Executors of Smith The Defendant pleaded as to parcel Non detinet and as to other parcel of the Arrears That in the Indenture of demise there is a Covenant Quod si contigerit that the said Lessee impeditus fuerit quominus Mineris praedict gaudere possit That then so much of Rent should be deducted amounting to the value of the Mines he could not enjoy c. And pleads in facto quod impeditus fuit quo minus gaudere potuit Mineris praedictis c. And it was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved by Cook in arrest of Iudgment That here is not any place shewed where these Mines were so as Non constat from what place the Visne shall come As if in an Action as here the Plaintiff Declares of a Lease made of Land called R. in
Gravenor and Parker 3 4 Mar. Dyer 150. A Lease was made to A. for life by Indenture and by the said Indenture a Proviso was That if the Lessee died within the Term of 60 years then next ensuing that then his Executors should have it in right of the Lessee for so many of the years as should amount to the number of 60 years to be accounted from the date of the Indenture And it was holden That the secondary Interest to the Executor was void And that the words concerning the same went only in Covenant CCXLV The Lord Compton's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 211. Kellow 41. 4 Inst 85. NOte It was holden by the Lord Anderson Chief Iustice in this Case That if Cestuy que Use after the Statute of 1 R. 2. Leaseth for years and afterwards the Feoffees Release to the Lessee and his Heirs having notice of the Vse that that Release is to the first Vse But where the Feoffees are disseised and they Release to the Disseisor although that they have notice of the use yet the same is to the use of the Disseisor And no Subpoena lieth against the Disseisor See 11 E. 4. 8. CCXLVI Sir Thomas Gorge and Dalton's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. SIr Thomas Gorge and the Lady Helene his Wife brought a Quare Impedit against Francis Dalton Who pleaded That the Queen was seised of the Mannor of D. to which the Advowson c. was appendant and so seised the Church became void And that afterwards the Queen granted the said Mannor with the Advowson to J.S. who presented the Defendant It was the clear Opinion of the Court That by that Grant of the Queen the Advowson did not pass although that the King by his Prerogative may grant a thing in Action Quod vide Dyer 13 Eliz. 300. against F.N.B. 33 16 H 7. CCXLVII. Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Copyholder with the leave of the Lord Leased for years 1 Len. 297. Hob. Rep. 177. and afterwards surrendred the Reversion with the Rent to the use of a stranger who was admitted accordingly It was moved If in this case there needed any Attornment either to settle the Reversion or to create a privity It was holden in this Case by Rhodes and Periam Iustices That the surrender and admittance ut supra are in the nature of an Inrollment and so amount to an Attornment or at the least do supply the want of it CCXLVIII Carter and Marten's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. TWo Men made an Obligation joyntly for Debt The principal in the Obligation made him who was surety only for him in the said Obligation for payment of the Mony his Executor who payed the Mony generally And whether it shall be said that he paid it as Executor or as an Obligor was a Quaere not resolved by the Court. CCXLIX Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer A. Was endebted to B. who was endebted to the Queen B. assigned his Debt unto the Queen By all the Barons Process shall be awarded out of the Exchequer to enquire what Goods A. had at the time of the Assignment and not what he had tempore Scripti praedict facti c. CCL Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer A. Was accomptable to J.S. and afterwards J.S. was Out-lawed in an Action personal A. died The Queen by her Letters Patents granted unto B. omnia bona catalla exitus proficua forisfactur advantagia quaecunque which came to her or accrued by reason of the Outlawry of the said J.S. And now B. brought an Action of Accompt against the Executors of the said A. as Executors of their own wrong The Defendants pleaded That they had Letters of Administration committed to them by the Ordinary and demanded Iudgment of the Writ The Plaintiff in maintenance of his Writ Replyed That the Defendants did Administer of their own wrong before that Administration was granted unto them Vpon which the Defendants did demur in Law. It was the Opinion of some of the Iustices That the wrong is urged by taking of Letters of Administration and now they are to be charged as Administrators only and not otherwise See 50 E. 3. 9. 20 H. 6. 1. And see the Case of the Cardinal of Canterbury 9 E. 4. 33. If one Administreth of his own wrong and afterwards takes Letters of Administration he shall be sued not as Executor but as Administrator See 21 H. 6. 8. But Gawdy Iustice conceived That the Defendants might be charged as Executors As to the Grant of the Queen of this Action of Accompt See Br. Pat. 98. 32 H. 8. that the King may grant a thing in action which is personal as debt and damages or the like Or a thing mixt as the Wardship of the body but not a thing real as an Action concerning Lands Rights Entries But it was agreed on all sides That if this Action had been granted specially it had been clearly good And it was Observed That in the principal Case the Accomptant was dead before the Grant so that his Executors were chargeable to the Queen to render an Accompt and the Queen was entituled to it It hath been Objected That this Action of Accompt came to the King by reason of his Prerogative Royal and in vertue thereof the Executors are accomptable to her and therefore the Queen cannot grant the same over to a Subject Certainly the same is not an Incident inseparable from the Crown nor a Flower of the Crown as the King cannot grant over to a Subject power to pardon Felons for that is proper and peculiar to the person of the King nor that a Subject may have a Court of Chancery And although this matter of Accompt is at the first i. e. at the time of the Grant uncertain yet by matter ex post facto it may be reduced to certainty i.e. by the Accompt and although the Accompt be not expresly named in the Letters Patents yet the words of the Grant ut supra do amount to as much And Gawdy Iustice conceived That this Accompt ought to be brought in the name of the Queen And all the Iustices were of Opinion That if the said A. had been living at the time of the said Grant of the Queen the Grant had not been good for then the Action against the Executors which is the matter of Prerogative had not been vested in the Queen CCLI Specot's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 5 Co. 57. HUmphry Specot and Elizabeth his Wife brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Exceter c. of the Church of Tedcole in the County of Devon The Bishop pleaded That the Plaintiffs presented to him one John Holmes quem super Examinationem invenit Scismaticum inveterat ' and so non habilem to be instituted vel ad acceptandum aliquod Beneficium cum Cura Animarum for which he refused him and of such Refusal gave notice to
bring a new Writ But Gawdy said That the Writ brought was good enough CCCXVII Pike and Hassen's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Action upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. touching buying of Titles And the Bargain was laid in Norfolk but the Land c. was in Suffolk And the Issue was tryed in Norfolk and the value of the Land also And as to the 5 Acres they found the Defendant guilty and found also the value of them And for the Residue a Special Verdict was given and for the 5 Acres the Plaintiff had Iudgment presently And by the special Verdict it was found That the Defendant had occupied the Residue of the Land for two years before c. as Tenant at sufferance and afterwards sold the Inheritance Wray Chief Iustice Tenant at sufferance is in truth a Tort feasor by which his taking of the profits is not such as is intended by the Statute But yet he afterwards looking into the words of the Verdict which were That the Defendant tenuit the Lands for two years ex permissione of another thereupon it ought to be intended That he was Tenant at will. CCCXVIII Sparry and Warfield's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN False Imprisonment against the Defendant and others they pleaded The Charter of Bridewell and that the Plaintiff was mali nominis famae and that certain Goods were stollen from J.S. and upon search the Plaintiff was found suspitiously c. And that thereupon they put him into Bridewell It was the Opinion of the Iustices That the Plea was not good CCCXIX. Bragg's Case Pasch 32 Eliz. Rot. 318. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass by Strait against Bragg Quare Clausum fregit containing one Acre in C. in the County of H. and for the taking of a Horse The Defendant pleaded That long time before the Trespass The Dean and Chapter of Pauls were seised of the Mannor of C. in the said County in Fee in the right of their Church whereof the place where is parcel c. And so seised King E. 4th by his Letters Patents dated Anno 1 of his Reign granted to them all the Fines pro Licentia Concordandi of all their Homagers and Tenants resiants or not resiants within their Fee And shewed That for all that time they have used to have such Fines of their Tenants And shewed further That 29 Eliz. A Fine was levied in the Common Pleas between the Plaintiff and one A. of 11 Acres of Land whereof the place where the Trespass was done was parcel and the Post-Fine assessed to 15 s. And afterwards Scambler the forreign Opposer allowed to them the said 15 s. because the said Land was within their Fee and afterwards in the behalf of the said Dean and Chapter he demanded of the Plaintiff the said 15 s. who refused to pay it for which he by the Commandment and in the right of the Dean and Chapter entred and took the said Horse in the name of a Distress as Bailiff to the said Dean and Chapter for the said 15 s. and afterwards sold it c. upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law And it was moved That here it is not averred That the Land whereof the Fine was levied was within their Fee but they say That Scambler allowed it because it was within their Fee. And that is not a sufficient averment quod curia concessit And also the opinion of the Court was Ante 56. 2 Len. 179. That the Dean and Chapter cannot distrain for this matter but they ought to sue for the same in the Exchequer as it appeareth 9 H. 6. 27. in the Duchess of Summersets Case Gawdy Iustice The Grant doth not extend to the Post-Fine for the Fine pro licentia Concordandi is the Kings Silver and not the Post-Fine Wray Iustice All passeth by it for it is about one and the same matter And they in Opinion to have given Iudgment for the Plaintiff Quaere of it CCCXX South and Marsh's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer NOte It was holden by the Court That where Marsh was endebted unto South without any Obligation for it but only by a Note in writing signed with the Hand of Marsh scil By me W. Marsh but not sealed that such a debt might be assigned to the Queen although that before the Assignment against a Creditor he might have waged his Law for in as much as by these Notes and Bills the certainty of the debt appeareth and being true debts they may well be assigned See 21 H. 7. 9. An Obligation may be assigned to the Queel without Deed enrolled and where the Obligee is not endebted to the Queen But it cannot be assigned to a subject Noy 52. if not for a debt due by the Assignor to the Assignee for otherwise it is Maintenance And in this Case it was holden That where the King sues for a debt assigned to him the Obligor cannot plead Nihil debet for now by the Assignment it is become matter of Record CCCXXI. Trapp's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. RObert Trapps 1 Eliz. seised of 15 Messuages in Clarkenwell in the Occupation of 15 several persons viz. A.B.C. c. and named them certain demised them to one Cox And afterwards conveyed the Inheritance of them to one Brian Trapps in Fee who afterwards demised to J.S. all those 15 Messuages in Clarken-well which Robert Trapps did demise inter alia to Cox by Indenture dated 1 Eliz. now in the Occupation of A.B.C. c. And one of the Occupiers names was left out in the recital And it was holden by the whole Court That notwithstanding the said Omission the said Messuage did pass for there was sufficient certainty before and the falsity came after the verity CCCXXII Brewin and Mansfield's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That A. was endebted to him in 10 l. and made the Defendant his Executor and died And that the Defendant in Consideration that the Plaintiff would forbear the Defendant for a certain time promised to pay it at two several days and shewed which in certain And it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That it is not set down in the Declaration by what portions the 10 l. shall be paid Clench Iustice conceived That the Defendant had liberty to pay it in what portions he pleased Gawdy He ought to pay it by equal portions as a Rent reserved payable at two Feasts without saying by what portions it shall be paid And he said That if the plea for the cause aforesaid had been defective yet now after Verdict all is helped for it is but form And afterwards the Opinion of the whole Court was That the matter shewed was not good to stay Iudgment Wherefore the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover CCCXXIII Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was The Plaintiff in a
Mich. 29 El. C.B. p. 168. C. 219 Weshborn and Mordants Case Mich. 29 Eliz. B. R. p. 174. C. 225 Williams and Linkfords Case Trin. 29 Eliz. B.R. p. 177. C. 229 Welcot and Powells Case Pasch 30 El. B.R. p. 206. C. 263 Wigmore and Wells Case Pasch 30 El. B. R. p. 206. C. 264 Willoughbies Case Trin. 30 Eliz. B. R. p. 216. C. 285 Wood and Payns Case Trin. 31 El. B.R. p. 228. C. 306 Sir Walter Wallers Case Trin. 32 Eliz. Exchequer p. 241. C. 333. p. 259 C. 345 Woodward and Baggs Case Hill. 32 El. B. R. p. 257. C. 341 Witherington and Delabars Case Mich. 33 Eliz. B. R p. 268. C. 360 Y. YOung and Ashburnhams Case Hill. 29 Eliz. C. B. p. 161. C. 210 Yates Case Trin. 31 Eliz. B.R. p. 231 C. 312 THE THIRD PART OF THE REPORTS OF Several Excellent Cases Argued and Adjudged in the several COURTS of LAW at Westminster In the Time of the Late Queen ELIZ. From the First to the Five and Thirtieth Year of her Reign In the Time of Edw. the Sixth I. 6 Edw. 6. In the Common Pleas. A Man had a Warrren in Fee extending into three Towns Benlow's Rep. 12. Owen Rep. 10. 1 And. 26. 13 Co. 57. 1 Inst 148. a. 7 Co. 23. b. Goldb 44. and Leased the same by Deed to another rendring Rent And afterwards granted by Deed the Reversion of the whole Warren in one of the said Towns to another and the Lessee attorned It was holden by all the Iustices in the Common Pleas That neither the Grantor nor the Grantee should have any part of the Rent during the same Term Because no such Contract can be apportioned II. 6 Edw. 6. In the Common Pleas. A Man by Deed Indented 1 And. 27. Bargained and sold Land unto another in Fee and Covenanted by the same Deed to make to him a good and sufficient Estate in the said Land before Christmas next And afterwards before Christmas the Bargainor acknowledged the Deed and the same is enrolled It was the Opinion of all the Iustices of the Common Pleas That by that Act the Covenant aforesaid was not performed For the Bargainor in performance of the same ought to have levied a Fine made a Feoffment or done other such Acts. III. 6 Edw. 6. In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 32. IN Dower the Tenant made default at the Summons and now at the Grand Cape he came and said That he could not come because he was in great infirmity at the time of the Summons so as he could not appear It was the Opinion of the whole Court That that matter should not save his Default because it cannot be tryed as creit de Eue and Imprisonment may be IV. 6 Edw. 6. In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 32. DEbt against Executors who pleaded Riens enter Maynes which was found against them The Plaintiff sued forth a Writ of Execution Vpon which the Sheriff retorned Nulla bona Testatoris within the County It was the Opinion of the Court That the same was a good Retorn for it may stand with the Verdict for it may be that they have Assets in another County See 3 H. 6. 11. Where the Retorn is general Quod non habent Executores aliqua bona Testatoris that it was holden insufficient but here in this Case the Retorn is special scil in the same County In the Time of Queen Mary V. 1 and 2 Philip and Mary In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 31. TEnant in tail had Issue two Sons and enfeoffed his younger Son and died The younger Son died without Issue leaving his Wife priviment ensient with a Son the elder Brother entred It was holden in this Case That he was Remitted and although that afterwards the Son was born yet the same should not avoid the Remitter VI. Stapleton and Truelocks Case Mich. 1 and 2 Phil. and Mary More Rep. 11. WIlliam Stapleton Executor of John Scardenyll brought an Action of Debt against John Truelock Administrator of the Goods of William Truelock who died Intestate upon a Bill sealed The Defendant demanded Oyer of the Testament By which it appeared That the said Scardenyll had made the Plaintiff and the said William Truelock his Executors And in the said Will was this Clause I Will That my Friend William Truelock shall pay to my other Executor all such debts as he oweth me before he shall meddle with any thing of this my Will or take any Advantage of this my Will for the discharge of the same debts for that I have made him one of my Executors And upon this matter It was clearly Resolved that the said William Truelock could not Adminster nor be Executor before he had paid the debts And the Defendant said That the said William Truelock in his life had paid unto his Co-Executors all such debts which in vita sua debuit to the said Scardenyll And also that the said William Truelock in his life time had Administred the Goods of Scardenyll with his Co-Executors And in this Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and that for default of pleading For the Defendant ought to have shewed Acquittances of the payment of the debts to his Co-Executors and also ought to have shewed in Certainty what debts they were VII Hecks and Tirrell's Case 3 and 4 Phil. and Mary DEbt by Hecks and Harrison against Tirrell as Heir Who pleaded Nothing by Descent The Plaintiff Replyed 1 And. 28. Assets at such a place within the Cinque-Ports And so it was found by a Iury of the County adjoyning and Iudgment given of the moyety of his Lands aswell those by descent as by purchase And a Writ awarded to the Constable of Dover to extend the Lands within the Cinque-Ports But it was said That first the Plaintiff ought to have a Certiorari to send the Record into the Chancery and from thence by Mittimus to the Constable of Dover VIII The King and Due and Kirleys Case 4 and 5 Phil. and Mary THe King and Queen brought a Writ of Disceit against Due and Kirley and declared More Rep. 13 That one Colley was seised of certain Lands in Fee and held the same of the King and Queen as of their Mannor of Westbury the which Mannor is Ancient Demesne and so seised levies a Fine thereof to the said Due Sur Conusans de Droit come ceo c. Due rendred the Land to Colley for life the Remainder over to Kirley in Fee Colley died Kirley entred as in his Remainder Kirley pleaded That the Land whereof c. is Frank Fee c. Vpon which they are at Issue Which Issue depending and not tryed Due died It was moved in this Case That the Writ might abate But that was denyed by the Court. For this Action is but Trespass in its nature for to punish this Disceit and no Land is to be recovered but only the Fine Reversed IX Eliot and Nutcombs Case Mich. 4 and 5 Phil. and Mary
of Bargain and Sale and he hath not election to take the Land by way of Livery But when all is in one Deed and takes effect equally together in such case the Grantee hath Election but here in this Case the Bargain and Sale the Deed being Inrolled doth prevent the Livery and taketh his full effect before And by Wray and Catline If he in the Reversion upon a Lease for years grants his Reversion to his Lessee for years by words of Dedi Concessi Feoffavi and a Letter of Attorny is made to make Livery and Seisin the Donee cannot take by the Livery for that the Lessee hath the Reversion presently XL. Mich. 14 Eliz. IN an Ejectione Firmae the Case upon Evidence appeared to be thus The Bishop of Rochester Anno 4 E. 6. Leased to B. for years rendring Rent and afterwards granted the Reversion to C. for 99 years rendring the ancient Rent To have from the day of the Lease without impeachment of Waste which Grant was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter But B. did not Attorn And for default of Attornment It was holden by the whole Court That the Lease was void for it is made by way of grant of a Reversion and to pass as a Reversion But by Catline If the Bishop had granted the Reversion and also demised the Land for 99 years it should pass as a Lease to begin first after the former Lease determined And as to the Attornment it was given in Evidence That B. after the notice of the Grant to C. spake with C. to have a new Lease from him because he had in his Farm but 8 years to come but they could not agree upon the price And the Iustices were of Opinion That that was an Attornment because he had admitted the said C. to have power to make a new Lease unto him Also the said B. being in Company with one R. seeing the said C. coming towards him said to the said R. See my Landlord meaning the said C. Bromley Sollicitor That is no Attornment being spoken to a stranger Barham contrary because he was present And it was held by the whole Court to be a good Attornment But it was holden That if the Attornment was not before that the Bishop was translated to Winchester That the Lease should be void and although that the Confirmation of the Dean and Chapter was before the Attornment so as no Estate had vested in C. yet it is good enough for the assent of the Dean and Chapter is sufficient whether it be before or after by Catline Southcote and Whiddon Wray contrary XLI Mich. 14 Eliz. THe King seised of a Mannor to which an Advowson is appendant a Stranger presents and his Clerk is in by 6 months The King grants the Mannor with all Advowsons appendant to it to B. The Incumbent dieth The Grantee may present For the Advowson was always appendant and the Inheritance thereof passeth to the Grantee and is not made disappendant by the usurpation as in the case of a common person for the King cannot be put out of possession But the Patentee shall not have a Quare Imped of the first disturbance for that presentment doth not pass to him being a thing in Action without mention of it in his Grant. And if the Patentee bringeth a Quare Impedit of the second Avoydance he shall make his Title by the presentment of the King not making mention of the usurpation yet if the Bishop presenteth for Lapse in the case of a common person he ought to make mention of it for that is his Title to the Presentment c. XLII Humfrey and Humfrey's Case Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. BEtween Humfrey and Humfrey the Case was That the Defendant in Debt after Iudgment aliened his Land and the Plaintiff sued forth Execution upon the new Statute And the Court of the Request awarded him to the Fleet because that he sued forth Execution Whereupon the Iustices of the Common Pleas awarded a Habeas Corpus and discharged the Plaintiff It was said by Bendloes Serjeant That the Chancery after Iudgment could not enjoyn the party that he shall not sue forth Execution for if they do the party shall have his remedy as above XLIII Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Man seised of Copyhold Lands Deviseth a certain parcel of them to his Wife for life the remainder to his Brother and his Heirs And afterwards in the presence of 3 persons of the Court said to them I have made my Will and I have appointed all things in my Will as I will have it And afterwards he said And here I surrender all my Copyhold Lands into your hands accordingly And it was moved If all his Copyhold Lands should be to his Wife or by those which were specified in the Will. And the Opinion of the whole Court was That the Surrender is restrained by the Will so as no more passeth to the Wife upon the whole matter but that which is mentioned in the Will and the general words shall not enlarge the matter XLIV Hill. 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LAnds were devised to the Mayor Chamberlain and Governors of the Hospital of St. Bartholomew in London whereas in truth they are Incorporated by another name yet the Devise is good by Weston and Dyer which Manwood also granted because it shall be taken according to the intent of the Devisor And it was said by Weston If Lands be devised to A. eldest Son of B. although that his name be W. yet the Devise to him is good because there is sufficient certainty c. XLV Pasch 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A. seised of Lands deviseth the same to his Wife for life the remainder to his three younger Sons and to the Heirs of their bodies begotten equally to be divided amongst them by even portions and if one of them die then the other two which survive shall be next Heirs The Devisor dieth One of the Sons dieth and by Dyer and Weston Iustices The 3 Brothers were Tenants in Common in remainder But contrary it is where such a Devise is made between them To be divided by my Executors c. there they are Ioynt-Tenants until the division is made but here although the words are Equally to be divided the same is not intended of a Division in fact and possession but of the Interest and Title For if a Man bringeth a Praecipe quod reddat de una parte Manerii de D. in 7 parts to be divided it is not intended divided in Possession but divided in Interest and Title And it was said by the said Iustices That although one of the Brothers dieth the two surviving Brothers have his part by purchase and not by descent and they are Ioynt-Tenants of it And this was the Case of one Webster and Katherine his Wife the late Wife of John Bradbury XLVI Pasch 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was Lessee for years of the
the Land descends to her and her Sister as unto one moyety of the Land the Lease is determined but not as to the other moyety Whiddon Iustice Where a Devise is for the benefit of a stranger there the Heir shall take by the Devise and not by descent As if a Lease be made for years the remainder to the Heir there the Heir shall take the Land by the Devise Catline She hath it be Descent and not by the Devise But if he deviseth the Land to the Heir in tail with this That he shall pay a certain sum of Mony unto another there the Heir shall take by the Devise for the benefit which may accrue to the stranger and not by descent for otherwise the Will should not be performed But where the Estate of the Heir is altered by the Will nor any benefit doth accrue unto another after that the Lands come to the hands of the Heir in that case he shall have the Land by descent And so here in this case for as much as the Devise is That the Daughter shall enter they both being but one Heir to their Father shall have the Land by descent and the words of the Will That he shall enter into the moiety shall be void as if the Devise had been to the Heir for life there the same is void because the Fee-simple which descendeth to her doth drown the particular estate for life And therefore in the principal case here the Vncle shall have but the moyety of the moyety which is so devised and the other Sister shall have the other moyety of the Land and as to that moyety which is devised to the Wife for years the same shall enure according to the Common Law that the Vncle shall have the moyety of that and the other Sister the other moyety LIV. Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THis Case was moved to the Court by Lovelace Serjeant A Man Covenants with another to make and execute an estate of such Lands as should descend to him from his Father and Grandfather by a certain day the same Lands to be of the clear yearly value of 40 Marks And the Question which he moved to the Iustices was That if the party had more Lands which came to him from his Grandfather and Father than did amount to the yearly value of 40 Marks If he was to make assurance of all the Lands or of so much thereof only as amounted to the value of 40 Marks And Manwood Iustice conceived That he should make assurance of Lands only which were of the value of 40 Marks per annum For the words such which do not go so largely as if he had said All my Lands which shall descend or to me be descended for then the yearly value were but a demonstration and all his Lands ought to be assured But here the Intent of the Indenture cannot be taken otherwise than to have but an Assurance of so much Land as if he had said Of such Lands and Tenements as were my Grandfathers and Fathers amounting to 40 Marks by the year for there by those words he shall have but 40 Marks by the year Lovelace It hath been taken That where the Queen made a Lease of all her Lands in such a Town amounting to the yearly value of 40 l. that that valuation is not a demonstration and shall not abridge the Grant precedent to have all in the Town which should be of the value of 40 l. but her Grant shall be taken and construed according to the words precedent Manwood The Common case of assurance upon a settlement of Marriage is That he shall stand seised of so much of his Land as shall be of the clear yearly value of 40 Marks If the marriage take effect The Question hath been If they to whom the assurance is made may enter into any part of the Land at their election and take that which is the best Land to the value of 40 Marks per annum and hold the same in severalty or if they shall be only Tenants in Common with the other And also it hath been a Question Whether they may choose one Acre in one place and another Acre in another place and so through the whole Land where they please because the Grant shall be taken strong against him that granteth But I conceive that it should be a hard case to make such Election of Acres But it was said by some Serjeant at the Bar That if a Man granteth to another to take 20 Trees in his Lands that the Grantee may cut down one Tree in one place and another in another place Manwood agreed that Case but of the other Case the Court doubted of it The principal case was adjourned LV. Vernon and Vernons Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte That in the Case of Dower between Vernon and Vernon and the Argument of it the Plaintiff would have been Nonsuit Dyer Iustice said It should be an ill President if a Nonsuit should be after Demurrer And therefore he said That for his part he would not agree that any Nonsuit should be upon it but he said he would be advised and take better Consideration of it If the Nonsuit should be awarded or not And afterwards at another day Manwood and Dyer took a difference where the Nonsuit is the same Term and where in another Term and said It is like unto the Case where a Man would Wage his Law and is present ready to do it that there the Plaintiff cannot be Nonsuit because it is in the same Term but he shall be barred But in another Term afterwards he might be Nonsuit if the Defendant take day over to wage his Law until another Term and so they said it should be in this case LVI Sir Peter Philpots Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THis Case was moved by Meade Serjeant to the Iustices of the Court of Common Pleas viz. That Sir Peter Philpot Knight seised in Fee of divers Mannors and Lands suffered a Recovery and made a Feoffment thereof unto divers persons To the use of himself for life the remainder to his right Heirs And after the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Wills He devised all his said Mannors and Land to his Wife for life and it was expressed in his Will That he could not devise all his Lands by reason of the Statute of 32 H. 8. that his Will was That his Wife should have so much which might be devised by the Laws of the Land And there was another Clause in the said Will That his Feoffees should stand seised of the same Mannors and Lands after the death of his Wife To the use of one Hurlock and others for years for the payment of his Debts and for the raising of Portions for the preferment of his Daughters in Marriage And further by his said Will he willed That if the Law would not bear it That Hurlock and the others should have the Interest Then he
Whereupon Vaughan asked him Wherefore he paid the Rent To whom the Lord Windsor answered That he paid the same during the lives of the Feoffees but after their deaths he paid nothing but notwithstanding that payment that the Feesimple remained in him and that his Counsel advised him to pay the Rent to the Heirs of Lewknor who was the Wife of the said Vaughan And Catline said That if a Fine be levied upon a Release in a Scire facias against the Conusor he shall not plead that the Conusor had not any thing in the Land at time of the Fine levied And he said further That if a Disseisor be and the Disseisee levieth a Fine upon a Release that thereby his Right is gone And Note That as to the principal Case Southcote was of Opinion That the Fee was not gained by the Fine levied by a stranger to him who had the Vse before the Statute of 27 H. 8. and that if no Feesimple was in the Lord Windsor at the time of the Lease made by him that the Lease could not be good nor the Action maintainable And because the Court was divided in Opinions in both Points Catline commanded the Iury to find a Special Verdict LXII Mich. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte That it was said by the whole Court That if a Man delivereth Mony to another Man to buy Cattel or to Merchandise with although that the Mony be sealed up in a Bag yet the property of the Mony is to the Bailee and the Bailor cannot have an Action for the Mony but only an Accompt against the Bailee although that he never buyeth the Cattel or other things for the Auditors upon the Accompt shall allow him the sum and such other allowances as they shall think fit And that a stranger takes away the Mony after the death of the Bailee or in his life-time the Bailor shall not have an Action against the stranger but the Executors of the Bailee or the Bailee himself during his life And yet if the Bailee dieth no Action of Accompt lieth against his Executors because the Testator had the property of the Monies And therefore if he who takes the Mony from the Bailee promiseth the Bailor to pay him the like sum of Mony as the Bailee had received of him in his life and as should be truly proved by the Bailor there upon that Promise an Action upon the Case doth not lie against him who took away the Mony as Catline said In an Action upon the Case brought by the Master of the Rolls and another who supposed that they delivered 100 l. to one Moore and that he is dead and that the Mony came unto the hands of the Defendant and that thereupon he promised to pay the like sum which might be proved that Moore had of the Plaintiffs It was holden That the Action upon the Case did not lie Southcote Iustice said That although the property of the Mony be changed as before and that no Accompt lieth against a stranger Yet when he hath the Mony and for that cause promiseth to pay it as before it is reason that an Action upon the Case should lie upon his promise although the Law will not charge him nor the Executors upon an Accompt LXIII The Lord Cromwells Case Mich. 15 Eliz. Dyer 321 322. 2 Roll. 560 561. JEffery recited That a Replevin was brought by Franklin The Defendants made Conusans as Bailiffs of the Lord Cromwell because that the said Lord was seised of the Mannor of North-Elmes and that the Custom of the said Mannor is That the Homagers have used to make By-Laws when necessity shall be within the same Mannor and upon a pain and forfeiture and that the Lord of the Mannor for the time being might distrain in the Land of any for the Forfeiture And further saith That in Anno 6 of Ed. the 6th the Homage then whereof Franklin the Plaintiff was one made By-Law That none should put his Sheep to feed in the Pasture or Lands of the Lord upon a pain c. And that the said Franklin in the 13th year of the Reign of the Lady the Queen that now is had put his Sheep into the Pasture and Lands of the Lord to feed and for that they avow the taking in the right of the Lord Cromwell for not payment of the said Forfeiture And Jefferies of Council with the Plaintiff said That the Avowry nor the Conusans were not good For the Custom is as they themselves have shewed That the By-Law shall be made when necessity requireth and without necessity a By-Law cannot be And it is not alledged here That there was a necessity at the time of this By-Law made and then if there be no necessity they cannot make the By-Law Also it is not alledged that there were any Sheep there And when a Custom is pleaded it shall be pleaded stricti juris And at the Common Law you may see divers Cases That when a Man is to have one thing for the cause of another that he must alledge the thing for which he must have it As in 9 H. 6. Where an Abbot had granted to one That he should have Common wheresoever the Cattel of the Abbot should go there if the Commoner will justifie or make Avowry for his Common he must aver that the Beasts of the Abbot went then in such a place Field or Pasture for if they did not go there at the time that he justifieth or avoweth his Iustification or Avowry shall not be good And there it was said by Babbington Chief Iustice That if a Man grants Common whensoever his Cattel shall go in such a Pasture If the Grantor doth never put his Cattel into the Pasture the Grantee shall not have Common there and therefore he must say That he put his Beasts into the Pasture And in 15 H. 7. in the Case of an Annuity granted until he be promoted to a Benefice in a Writ of Annuity brought he must say That he is not promoted c. And if an Obligation be made to you to you my Lord for Mony when J.S. shall return from Rome you shall not have an Action upon the Bond for not payment of the Mony without alledging that J.S. is retorned See 33 H. 6. Hillary 's Case And before the Statute of Quia Emptores terrarum If a Man had made a Feoffment to hold by Fealty and the Guarding of his Castle In an Avowry for the Castle Guard that there was then War and so cause of necessity for in time of Peace he shall not be bound to Guard it And so it appeareth 34 H. 8. Where a Feoffment was made before the Statute to hold by Fealty and every year to marry a poor Maiden within the Mannor if he doth avow for not marriage he ought to alledge that there was a poor Maid that year within the Mannor So if the Tenure be to repair a Bridge that is for the Common wealth and he and all others
former Lease determined And as to the Attornment it was given in Evidence That B. after the notice of the Grant to C. had speech with C. to have a new Lease from him because he had in his Term but 8 years to come but they could not agree upon the price And it was the Opinion of the Iustices That the same was an Attornment because he had admitted the said C. to have power to make to him a new Lease Also the said B. being in Company with one R. and seeing the said C. coming towards him said to the said R. See my Landlord meaning the said C. Bromley Sollicitor The same is no Attornment being spoken to a Stranger Barham contrary Because that C. was present And it was holden to be a good Attornment But if that Attornment was not before that the Bishop was translated to Winchester the Lease should be void And although the Confirmation of the Dean and Chapter was before the Attornment so as no Estate was vested in C. yet it was good enough For an assent of the Dean and Chapter is sufficient be it before or after as it was holden by Catline Southcote and Whiddon But Wray contrary XCI Norwich and Norwich's Case Trin. 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. HEnry Norwich was bound by Obligation to Symon Norwich upon Condition To stand to the Award of J.S. who awarded That the said Henry should pay to Symon 150 l. at such a day And that the said Henry should find 3 Sureties to be bounden with him to the said Symon for the payment of another sum of Mony to the said Symon In Debt upon this Obligation Henry pleaded As to the 150 l. payment and as to the other point That he was always ready to become bounden c. And as to the finding of Sureties he demanded Iudgment for that as to that the Arbitrament is void See 22 H. 6. 45. 17 E. 4. 5. 21 E. 4. 75. It was holden That in such a case of such Award to find Sureties the Defendant is not to find Sureties but is only to tender his Obligation And of that Opinion was the whole Court Because it was an Act to be done by a stranger to the Award But if the Award had been of an Act to be done to a stranger by him who was party to the Award then the Award had been good But if the stranger will not accept of the Monies awarded his Obligation is saved So if the Award be That one of the parties to the Award shall discontinue a Suit which he hath against another If the Court where the Action is depending will not suffer the discontinuance of it the Award is performed And in the principal Case It was ruled accordingly Note The same day another Case was in the same Court Between Dudley and Mallery The Condition was to perform an Award c. The Defendant pleaded performance of the Award The Plaintiff assigned the breach of the Award in this because the Award was That the Servant of Mallery should pay to the Servant of Dudley 5 l. which the Defendant had not paid It was the Opinion of the Court That the Bond was not forfeited for the Servants utriusque are strangers to the Submission But if the Award had been That Mallery should pay to the Servant of Dudley 5 l. it had been good for that Mallery is a party to the Submission c. XCII Rivers and Pudsey's Case Hill. 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. JOhn Rivers Alderman of London brought a Writ of Accompt against Pudsey who said That at the time c. and now he is the Plaintiffs Apprentice and demanded Iudgment c. And it was holden by Wray Iustice That it is no Plea for although an Apprentice cannot be charged by this Action for ordinary Receipts upon his Masters Trade yet upon collateral Receipts which do not concern the ordinary Trade of his Master he shall be charged as well as another See 8 E. 3. tit Acc. 94. And F.N.B. 119. XCIII Potkins Case Hill. 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Debt upon an Obligation by Potkin The Defendant pleaded That he himself borrowed of one Watson a certain sum of Mony paying for the forbearance thereof excessive Vsury And that the Plaintiff was bound with the said Defendant to the said Watson for the payment thereof and that he himself by this Obligation upon which the Action is brought was bound to the said Plaintiff to save him harmless against the said Watson c. And because that this Bond was a Counter-Bond for the payment of Excessive Vsury c. And it was holden by Manwood That the same was a good Bar for here the Plaintiff when he was impleaded upon the principal Bond might have discharged himself upon this matter and therefore his Lachess shall turn to his prejudice and therefore the Issue was joyned upon the excessive Vsury XCIV Abrahall and Nurse's Case Hill. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. JOhn Abrahall brought a Writ of Right-Close against John Nurse in the Court of George Earl of Shrewsbury and made protestation to prosecute that Writ in the form and nature of the Writ of the Lady the Queen of Assise of Novel disseisin at the Common-Law and made his Plaint accordingly And afterwards the Assise was taken who spake for the Plaintiff Whereupon Abrahall had Iudgment to recover After which Nurse brought a Writ of False Judgment and assigned Error in this That whereas the said Writ of Right-Close was directed to the Bailiffs of George Earl of Shrewsbury of his Mannor c. that the said Bailiffs should do full Right c. that it appeareth by the Record that the Plea was holden before the Suitors and not before the Bailiffs of George Earl of Shrewsbury For all the Precepts in the Plea aforesaid are Quod sint hic ad proximam Curiam coram Sectatoribus tenend An other Error was in this and false Iudgment was given therein because that the Roll is Praeceptum est Ministro Curiae praedict that he cause to come 12 Free and lawful Men c. videre illud tenementum c. nomina eorum imbreviare c. and the Minister of the Court retorned 12 Recognitors of the Assise aforesaid whereas by the Law of the Land 24 Recognitors in a Plea of Land ought to be retorned But notwithstanding that these Exceptions were taken Yet upon due consideration of the Court notwithstanding these Exceptions the Iudgment was affirmed See the Record Mich. 17 18 Eliz. Rot. 1301. XCV The Master and Scholars of Linckfords Case Hill. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae the Case was That the Master and Scholars of Linckford were seised of the Mannor of Haldesley in the Town of Laberhurst which Town extended into the County of Sussex and also in the County of Kent and they made a Lease to one Clifford of all their Lands in the Town of Laberhurst except the Mannor of Haldesley whereas in truth
Plaintiff had acquitted and discharged him of the Reparations Vpon which the Plaintiff demurred in Law. Manwood The same is an Acquittal and Discharge of the Reparations as well for the time past as for the time to come by force of the said Covenant and amounts to as much as if he had Released the Covenant And it was moved If the Covenant being broken for want of Reparations If now that Acquital and Discharge or Release of the Covenant should take away the Action upon the Obligation which was once forfeited before And it was the Opinion of Manwood That it should not For if one be bound in an Obligation for the performance of Covenants and before the breach of any of them the Obligee releaseth the Covenants and afterwards one of the Covenants is broken the Obligation is not forfeited for there is not now any Covenant which may be broken and therefore the Obligation is discharged But if the Release had been after the Covenant broken otherwise all which Dyer and Mounson Concesserunt CVI. Mich. 20. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HVsband and Wife seised in the right of his Wife of certain Customary Lands in Fee he and his Wife by Licence of the Lord make a Lease for years by Indenture rendring Rent have Issue two Daughters The Husband dieth The Wife takes another Husband and they have issue a Son and a Daughter The Husband and Wife die The Son is admitted to the Reversion and dieth without Issue It was holden by Manwood That this Reversion shall descend to all the Daughters notwithstanding the half-blood For the Estate for years which is made by Indenture by Licence of the Lord is a Demise and Lease according to the Order of the Common Law and according to the nature of the Devise the possession shall be adjudged which possession cannot be said possession of the Copyholder For his possession is Customary and the other is meer contrary therefore the possession of the one shall not be said the possession of the other and therefore there is no possessio fratris in this Case But if he had been Guardian by the Custom or this Lease had been made by surrender There the Sister of the half-blood should not inherit And Meade said That the Case of the Guardian had been so adjudged Mounson to the same intent And if the Copyhold descend to the Son he is not Copyholder before admittance 1 Len. 174 175. but he may take the profits and punish Trepass c. CVII Hinde and Lyons Case Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 11. Dyer 124. Ante 64. DEbt by Hinde against one as Son and Heir of Sir John Lyon who pleaded Nothing by descent but the third part of the Mannor of D. The Plaintiff replyed Assets And shewed for Assets That the Defendant had the entire Mannor of B. by descent Vpon which they were at Issue And it was given in Evidence to the Iury That the Mannor was holden by Knights-Service and that the said Sir John the Ancestor of the Defendant by his Will in writing devised the whole Mannor to his Wife until the Defendant his Son and Heir should come to the age of 24 years And that at the age of the Son of 24 years his Wife should hold the third part of the said Mannor for the Term of her life and his Son should have the residue And if his Son do die before he come to the age of 24 years without Heir of his body that the Land should remain over to J.S. the Remainder over to another The Devisor died the Son came to the age of 24 years Dyer and Mounson Iustices conceived That here was not any Estate tail and then for two parts he is not in by descent For no Estate tail shall rise unless that the Son dieth before his said age and therefore the Tayl never took effect and the Feesimple descends and remains in the Son if not that he dieth before the age of 24 years and then the whole vests with the Remainder over but now having attained the said age he hath a Fee and that by descent of the whole Mannor and then his Plea is false that but the third part descended And a general Iudgment shall be given against him as of his own debt And an Elegit shall issue forth of the moyety of all his Lands as well those which he hath by descent from the same Ancestor as of his other Lands And a Capias lieth also against him But Manwood Iustice conceived That if a general Iudgment be given against the Heir by default in such case a Capias doth not lie although in case of a false Plea it lieth But Dyer held the contrary And the Writ against the Heir is in the debet detinet which proves That in Law it is his own Debt And he said That he could shew a President where such an Action was maintainable against the Executor of the Heir CVIII Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Seised of Lands in Fee Devised them to his Wife for life and after her decease she to give the same to whom she will Latch 9,39 had issue two Daughters and died The Wife granted the Reversion to a stranger and committed Waste And the two Daughters brought an Action of Waste It was holden by the Iustices That by that Devise the Wife had but an Estate for life but she had gained authority to give the reversion by his Will to whom she pleased And such a Grantee should be in by A. and his Will For A. had given expresly to his Wife for life and therefore by Implication she should not have any further Estate But if an express Estate had not been appointed to the Wife by the other words an Estate in Feesimple had passed CIX Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Lessor Covenanted with his Lessee That the Lessee should enjoy the Lands demised without any lawful Eviction And afterwards upon a Suit depending in Chancery by a stranger against the Lessor for the Land demised The Chancellor made a Decree against the Lessor and that the stranger should have the Land. It was moved If that Decree were a lawfull Eviction by which the Covenant was broken It was holden by the Lord Dyer That the same was not any Eviction For although that in Conscience it be aequum that the said stranger have the possession yet the same is not by reason of any right paramount the title of the Lessor which was in the party for whom it was decreed CX The Marquess of Northamptons Case Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. PArre Marquess of Northampton took to Wife the Lady Bouchier the Heir of the Earl of Essex 1 Roll. 430. who levied a Fine of the Land of the said Lady Sur Conusans de droit c. with a Grant and render to them for life the Remainder to the right Heirs of the body of the Lady And afterwards by Act of
confirms it is a void Confirmation And 7 E. 6. Br. Grants 154. A Man possessed of a Lease for 40 years grants so many of the said years which shall be to come at the time of his death it is a void Grant for the incertainty Afterwards Shuttleworth moved another point viz. The Plaintiff hath declared of a Trespass done 1 Januarii 23 Eliz. The Defendant shews in Evidence a Lease for years to him made 14 Januarii the same year which is 13 days after the Trespass whereof the Plaintiff hath declared and it shall not be intended that the Plaintiff had another Title than that which he hath alledged and forasmuch as he hath not disclosed in himself any Title Tempore transgressionis the Plaintiff should punish him in respect of his first possession without any other Title And although it may be Objected That where the Defendant hath given in Evidence That Williamson leased to the Defendant that is not sufficient and the words subsequent 14 Januarii are void as a nugation and matter of surplusage Truly the Law is contrary for rather those words ante Transgressionem shall be void because too general and shall give way to the subsequent words after the videlicet because they are special and certain As the Case late adjudged The Archbishop of Canterbury leased three parcels of Land rendring Rent of 8 l. per annum viz. for one parcel 5 l. for another 50 s. and for the third 40 which amounts to 9 l. 10 s. It was adjudged That the videlicet and the words subsequent concerning the special reservation of the Rent was utterly void because contrary to the premisses which were certain viz. 8 l. and that the Fermor should pay but 8 l. according to the general reservation but in our case the words precedent are general i. e. ante Transgressionem and therefore the words subsequent which are special and certain shall be taken and the general words rejected As in Trespass the Defendant pleads That A. was seised of the Land where and held it of the Defendant and that the said A. 1 die Maii 6 Eliz. aliened the said Land in Mortmain for which he within a year after viz. 4 Maii Anno 7 Eliz. entred now the same is no bar for upon the evidence it appeareth that the Lord hath surceased his time and the words within the year shall not help him for they are too general and therefore at the subsequent words viz. c. Cook on the Defendants part took Exception For it appeareth here upon the Evidence of the Defendant which is confessed by the Demurrer of the Plaintiff That upon this matter the Plaintiff cannot punish the Defendant for this Trespass for he was not an immediate Trespassor to the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff hath declared upon a Trespass done 1 Januarii 23 Eliz. And it is given in Evidence on the part of the Defendant and confessed by the Plaintiff c. That 22 Eliz. Cordell Savell levied a Fine to Williamson by force of which the said Williamson entred and was seised and so seised 14 Januarii 23 Eliz. leased to the Defendant Now upon this matter the Plaintiff cannot have Trespass but the Defendant for Williamson was the immediate Trespassor to him for he entred 22 Eliz. And at length after deliberation had of the premisses by the Court The Court moved the Plaintiff to discontinue his suit and to bring de novo a new Action in which the matter in Law might come into Iudgment without any other Exception But the Plaintiff would not agree to it Wherefore it was said by Wray Chief Iustice with the consent of his Companions Begin again at your peril for we are all agreed That you cannot have Judgment upon this Action CXXVI Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was A. made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of his younger Son in tail and after to the use of the Heirs of his body in posterum procreand and at the time of the Feoffment he had Issue two Sons and after the Feoffment had Issue a third Son The younger Son died without Issue Vpon a Motion at the Bar it was said by Wray Iustice That after the death without Issue of the second Son the Land should go to the third Son born after the Feoffment for this word in posterum is a forcible word to create a special Inheritance without that it had been a general tail CXXVII Smith and Smith's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LAmber Smith Executor of Tho. Smith brought an Action upon the Case against John Smith That whereas the Testator having divers Children Enfants and lying sick of a mortal sickness being careful to provide for his said Children Enfants The Defendant in Consideration the Testator would commit the Education of his Children and the disposition of his Goods after his death during the minority of his said Children for the Education of the said Children to him promised to the Testator to procure the assurance of certain Customary Lands to one of the Children of the said Testator And declared further That the Testator thereupon Constituted the Defendant Overseer of his Will and Ordained and appointed by his Will That his Goods should be in the disposition of the Defendant and that the Testator died and that by reason of that Will the Goods of the Testator to such a value came to the Defendants hands to his great profit and advantage And upon Non Assumpsit pleaded It was found for the Plaintiff And upon Exception to the Declaration in Arrest of Iudgment for want of sufficient Consideration It was said dy Wray Chief Iustice That here is not any benefit to the Defendant that should be a Consideration in Law to induce him to make this promise For the Consideration is no other but to have the disposition of the Goods of the Testator pro educatione Liberorum For all the disposition is for the profit of the Children and notwithstanding That such Overseers commonly make gain of such disposition yet the same is against the intendment of the Law which presumes every Man to be true and faithful if the contrary be not shewed and therefore the Law shall intend That the Defendant hath not made any private gain to himself but that he hath disposed of the Goods of the Testator to the use and benefit of his Children according to the Trust reposed in him Which Ayliffe Iustice granted Gawdy Iustice was of the contrary Opinion And afterwards by Award of the Court It was That the Plaintiff Nihil Capiat per Billam CXXVIII Amner and Luddington's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. Rot. 495. In the Kings Bench. A Writ of Error was brought in the Kings Bench by Amner against Luddington Mich. 26 Eliz. Rot. 495. 2 Len. 92. 8 Co. 96. And the Case was That one Weldon was seised and leased to one Peerepoint for 99 years who devised the same by his Will in this manner viz. I Bequeath to my Wife the
Plaintiff ad requisitionem dicti Davidis repararet And the Plaintiff declares That reparavit generally without saying 2 Cro. 404. That ad requisitionem Davidis reparavit And that is not the Reparation intended in the Consideration i. e. reparatio ad requisitionem c. but a Reparation of his own head and at his pleasure And for this Cause the Iudgment was stayed CXXXII Wrennam and Bullman's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 52. 1 Len. 282. WRennam brought an Action upon the Statute of 1 2 Phil. Mar. against Bullman for unlawful impounding of Distresses and was Nonsuit It was moved by Shuttleworth Serjeant If the Defendant should have Costs upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. And it was Adjudged That he should not And that appears clearly upon the words of the Statute c. for this Action is not conceived upon any matter which is comprised within the said Statute and also the Statute upon which this Action is grounded was made after the said Statute of 23 H. 8. which gives Costs and therefore the said Statute of 23 H. 8. and the remedy of it cannot extend to any action done by 1 2 Phil. Mary And Rhodes Iustice said It was so adjudged in 8 Eliz. CXXXIII Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 161. Dyer 291. IN a Formedon of a Mannor The Tenant pleaded Ioynt-Tenancy by Fine with J.S. The Demandant averred the Tenant sole Tenant as the Writ supposed and upon that it was found and tryed for the Demandant Vpon which a Writ of Error was brought and Error assigned in this Because where Ioynt-Tenancy is pleaded by Fine the Writ ought to have abated without any Averment by the Demandant against it and the Averment had been received against Law c. Shuttleworth At the Common-Law If the Tenant had pleaded Ioynt-Tenancy by Deed the Writ should have abated without any Averment but that was remedied by the Statute of 34 E. 1. But Ioynt-Tenancy by Fine doth remain as it was at the Common Law For he hath satis supplicii because by his Plea if it be false he hath by way of Conclusion given the moyety of the Land in demand to him with whom he hath pleaded Ioynt-Tenancy And the Law shall never intend that he would so sleightly depart with his Land for the abatement of a Writ As in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant confesseth himself to be a Villein of a stranger the Writ shall abate without any Averment Free and of Free estate for the Law intends that the Tenant will not inthral himself without cause Wray to the same purpose But the Demandant may confess and avoid the Fine as to say That he who levied the Fine was his Disseisor upon whom he hath before entred And if Tenant in Feesimple be impleaded and he saith That he is Tenant for life the remainder over to A. in Fee and prayeth in Aid of A. the Demandant shall not take Averment That the Tenant at the time of the Writ brought was seised in Fee. Note In this Formedon Ioynt-Tenancy was pleaded but as to parcel And it was holden by Wray and Southcote That the whole Writ should abate the whole Writ against all the Defendants And so where the Demandant enters into parcel of the Land in demand if the thing in demand be an entire thing the Writ shall abate in all In this Writ the Demandant ought to have averred in his Writ an especial foreprise of the Land parcel of the Land in demand whereof the Ioynt-Tenancy by the Fine is pleaded For this dismembring of the Mannor and distraction of the Land of which the Ioynt-Tenancy is pleaded is paravail and under the gift whereof the Formedon is conceived and therefore in respect of the title of the Demandant it remains in right parcel of the Mannor and therefore ought to be demanded accordingly with a foreprise But if A. giveth unto B. a Mannor except 10 Acres in tail there if after upon any Discontinuance the issue in tail is to have a Formedon in such case there needs not any foreprise for the said 10 Acres for they were severed from the Mannor upon the gift But if Lands in demand be several as 20 Acres except 2 Acres this foreprise is not good See Temps E. 1. Fitz. Brief 866. Praecipe c. unam bovatam terrae forprise one Sellion and the Writ was abated for every demand ought to be certain but a Sellion is but a parcel of Land uncertain as to the quantity in some places an Acre in some more in some less Another Point was Because the Tenant hath admitted and accepted this Averment scil sole Tenant as the Writ supposeth And the Question was If the Court notwithstanding the Admittance of the Tenant ought without Exception of the party Ex Officio to abate the Writ And it was the Opinion of Wray Chief Iustice That it should For it is a positive Law As if a Woman bring an Appeal of Murder upon the death of her Brother and the Defendant doth admit it without a Challenge or Exception yet the Court ought to abate the Appeal 10 E. 4. 7. See the principal Case there Non ideo puniatur Dominus c. And if an Action be brought against an Hostler upon the Common Custom of the Realm and in the Writ he is not named Common Hostler yet the Court shall abate the Writ Ex Officio See 11 H. 4. and 38 H. 6. 42. CXXXIV Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seised of Lands in the right of his Wife for the Term of the life of the Wife made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of his said Wife for her life It was holden in that Case That the Wife was remitted And it is not like Amy Townsends Case Plow Com. 1 2 Phil. and Mar. 111. For in the said Case the Entry of the Wife was not lawful for she was Tenant in tail which Estate was discontinued by the Feoffment of her Husband And Periam Iustice cited a Case Sidenham's Case Bacon seised in the right of his Wife for the Term of the life of the Wife They both surrendred and took back the Lands to them and a third person And it was holden That the Wife was not presently remitted but after the death of her Husband she might disagree to the Estate CXXXV Harper and Berrisford's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Writ of Partition The Defendant demanded Iudgment of the Writ because the Writ is Quare-cum A. teneat c. pro indiviso c 4 mille acras whereas it should be Quatuor Mille acrarum And many Grammarians were cited all which agreed That it was good both ways viz. Mille Acras or Mille Acrarum And Rhodes Iustice said That Cowper in Thesauro suo Linguae Latinae saith Quod Mille fere jungitur Genitivo Ergo non semper Wherefore Anderson with the assent of the other Iustices Ruled
That the Defendant should answer over CXXXVI Hering and Badlock's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 80. IN a Replevin the Defendant avowed for Damage-feasant and shewed That the Lady Jermingham was seised of such a Mannor whereof the place where c. and leased the same to the Defendant for years The Plaintiff said That long time before King Henry 8th was seised of the said Mannor and that the place where c. is parcel of the said Mannor Demised and Demiseable by Copy c. and that the said King by such a one his Steward demised and granted the said parcel to the Ancestor of the Plaintiff whose Heir he is by Copy in Fee c. And upon that there was a Demurrer because by this Bar to the Avowry the Lease set forth in the Avowry is not answered for the Plaintiff in Bar to the Avowry ought to have concluded and so was he seised by the Custom until the Avowant praetextu of the said Term for years entred c. And so it was adjudged CXXXVII Rosse's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Ante 83. IN Trespass brought by Rosse for breaking of his Close and beating of his Servant and carrying away of his Goods Vpon Not guilty pleaded the Iury found this special matter scil That Sir Thomas Bromley Chancellor of England was seised of the Land where c. and leased the same to the Plaintiff and one A. which A. assigned his moyety to Cavendish by whose Commandment the Defendant entred It was moved That that Tenancy in Common betwixt the Plaintiff and him in whose right the Defendant justifies could not be given in Evidence and so it could not be found by Verdict but it ought to have been pleaded at the beginning But the whole Court were clear of another Opinion and that the same might be given in Evidence well enough It was further moved against the Verdict That the same did not extend to all the points in the Declaration but only to the breaking of the Close without enquiry of the battery c. And for that cause it was clearly holden by the Court That the Verdict was void And a Venire facias de novo was awarded CXXXVIII Gurney and Saers Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Ejectione firmae was brought by Gurney against Saer who pleaded That Verney was seised and leased the same to Baker for 21 years 8 Eliz. Baker 14 Eliz. assigned his Interest to Rolls who 15 Eliz. leased the same to Topp for 10 years and afterwards Rolls granted the residue of his Term to A. Verney 16 Eliz. leased the same Land to Stephen Gurney for 21 years to begin after the determination surrender or forfeiture of the first Lease rendring Rent with Clause of Re-entry And afterwards Verney granted over the Reversion in Fee to Hampden To which Grant A. and Topp attorned Topp leased to B. at Will A. and Topp surrendred B. held himself in by force of the Tenancy at Will And the said Surrender was made privily and secretly without the notice of the said Stephen Gurney The Rent reserved upon the Lease made to Stephen Gurney is demanded as now begun by the said Surrender Hampden entred as for the Condition broken for the non-payment of the said Rent And the Lease made to the said Stephen Gurney was pleaded Quod praedictus Johannes Verney per Indenturam suam sigillo ipsius Stephani Gurney sigillat demisit c. And that was holden a material Exception For here upon the matter doth not appear any Lease made by Verney For here upon the pleading it appeareth That Verney had accepted a Deed of Gurney purporting a Demise by Verney to Gurney which Gurney had sealed but there did not appear any such Deed sealed by Verney and therefore no Lease ut supra And although a Condition may be pleaded by Indenture sealed with the seal of the other party yet a Conveyance cannot be pleaded by Deed as it is here unless sealed with the seal of the party Agent scil the Feoffor Grantor Lessor And for that cause Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Another Exception was taken because that after the Grant of the Reversion by Verney to Hampden the surrender of A. and Topp is pleaded whereas A. ought not to surrender for his Estate was not a Reversion for years but a Lease in Reversion and a Lease for years to begin at a day to come which could not be surrendred See 4 H. 7. 10. But if A. had granted his Interest by way of Reversion where Attornment had been as one Releaseth to him the Reversion for years it is good contrary to him who hath a Lease in Reversion But as to that it was said by the Court That this surrender by A. was good enough for in as much as the Interest which A. had at the time of the surrender was in Rolls a Reversion after his Grant to Topp and there it remained and continued in its nature as to that point notwithstanding that by the Grant it passed in another manner than as a Reversion Another Exception was taken because that in the pleading of the Surrender it is not alledged That at the time of the Surrender Hampden was seised of the Reversion 7 E. 3. 3. He who claims by Cestuy que use ought to alledge the Seisin and Continuance of Seisin to the said use at the time of the Feoffment or Grant notwithstanding that Seisin was alledged before And 10 H. 7. 28. Hewbade's Avowry he there pleaded That A. was seised of a Mannor and thereof levied a Fine to B. that C. the Tenant upon whom the Avowry was made attorned c. And Exception taken because it is not shewed in the Avowry That B. the Conusee was seised of the Mannor at the time of the Attornment And it was holden a good Exception On the other side it was said and affirmed by the Court That in all Cases where an Inheritance is once alledged in a Man the Law shall presume the Continuance of it there until the contrary be shewed See 1 Eliz. the Case between Wrotesley and Adams Plow Com. 193. And 15 Eliz. between Smith and Stapleton Plow 431. Which Wray and Gawdy Iustices granted Ayliff Iustice to the contrary Another point was moved If upon this secret Surrender notice ought to have been given to Gurney who had an Interest for years to begin upon the said Surrender For some conceived That Gurney without notice given him of the said Surrender should not be prejudiced by the Condition aforesaid And of that Opinion clearly was Wray Chief Iustice Note In this Case That Saer the Defendant presently after the Iudgment entred cast in a Writ of Error into the Court and assigned an Error in fact scil That Gurney the Plaintiff in the first Action within age appeared by Attorny whereas he ought by Gardein or Prochein Amy. And it was the Opinion of the Iustices upon the first Motion
That that matter could not be assigned for Error for it is not within the Record and we cannot reverse our own Iudgment but only for matter of Process See for that Fitzh Na. Br. 21. f. CXXXIX Partridge and Pooles Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. TRespass of Battery was brought by Partridge against Poole 2 Len. 79. 1 Cro. 842. and supposed the Battery at D. in the County of Middlesex The Defendant justified by reason of an Assault at S. in the County of Gloucester absque hoc that he beat the Plaintiff at D. in the County of Middlesex Vpon which traverse the Plaintiff did demur in Law. It was argued by Popham the Queens Attorny General That the traverse of the County is good And he put the Case of 21 H. 6. 8 9. In Trespass of Battery at D. in the County of York the Defendant justified by an Assault at London in such a place in such a Parish c. absque hoc that he was guilty de aliqua transgressione in Comitatu Eborum Vpon which issued a Venire facias into Yorkshire and as the Book is This traverse as to the County was taken with great deliberation See also 22 E. 4. 39. And this traverse de jure ought to be allowed For the Iury in Middlesex are not bound to find the Assault in the County of Gloucester See 2 Mar. Br. Jurours 50. In Actions upon transitory matters although they be layed in Forreign Counties yet the Iurors if they will may thereof give their Verdict but they are not bound to do it Egerton Sollicitor General to the contrary And he put a difference where the justification is local and where transitory As in False Imprisonment the Defendant justifies as Sheriff the taking of the Plaintiff by force of a Capias directed to him at D. within his County of G. Where the Plaintiff declareth of an Imprisonment in another County there the traverse of the County is good for the Defendant cannot take the Plaintiff by force of the said Process in any other County than where he is Sheriff and so the Iustification is local 11 H. 4. 157. But in our Case the matter of the Iustification is meerly transitory And at last after many Motions It was adjudged for the Plaintiff Gawdy Iustice being of a contrary Opinion And by Wray Chief Iustice clearly The Iurors upon pain of Attaint are to take notice of such a transitory thing done in another County See 2 Mar. Br. Attaint 104. 9 H. 6. 63. CXL Gerrard's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 168. 4 Len. 7. GErrard Master of the Rolls presented Chatterton Bishop of Chester to the Church of Bangor to which Church also one Chambers presented his Clerk by which several Presentments the same Church became Litigious The Archbishop of York being Ordinary of the place awarded Jure Patronatus c. depending which the Archbishop admitted the said Bishop upon which the said Chambers Libelled in the Spiritual Court against the said Bishop For that the said Archbishop praedicto Episcopo plus aequo fidens admisit dictum Episcopum pendente the Jure Patronatus in which Case by the Law of the Church the Admittance is void For pendente Lite nihil movetur And now came the said Bishop and upon this matter prayed a Prohibition and he had it because that the right of the Patronage came in debate After which came the said Chambers and prayed a Consultation because he medled not with the right of Patronage but only with the wrongful admittance To whom it was said by the Court That the awarding of the Jure Patronatus is not a thing of necessity but at the Will of the Ordinary and for his better Instruction But if he will at his peril take notice of the right of the Patronage he may receive which of them he will without a Jure Patronatus awarded And it may be in this Case That after the Jure Patronatus awarded and before any Verdict given upon it the Archbishop was satisfied of the right of the now Plaintiff in the Prohibition to the Patronage and thereupon admitted the Clerk And by the clear Opinion of the Court the Consultation was denyed CXLI Rampston and Bowmer's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That whereas the Plaintiff occupied a Brew-House And whereas one Gilbert Bowmer was the Beer-Clark of it and had the government and disposition of the Beer brewed there by reason whereof he became indebted to the Plaintiff in such a sum For which the Plaintiff procured the said Gilbert to be Arrested and put into the Prison of the Marshalsey And whereas the said Gilbert in dicta prisona existente the Defendant tunc ibidem in Consideration that the said Plaintiff would let the said Gilbert out of Prison Promised That if the said Gilbert should not accompt with the Plaintiff and pay him all the Arrearages which upon such Accompt should be found before such a day That then the Defendant would pay it Vpon which the said Gilbert was dismissed ad largum And further declared That no Accompt had been made by Gilbert or any other satisfaction And upon Non Assumsipt the Iury found That the said Gilbert so endebted to the Plaintiff was arrested at the Suit of the Plaintiff and that after the Defendant came unto the Baily of the Marshal who arrested the said Gilbert and took upon him to the said Baily That the said Gilbert should be at the next Court holden for the said Marshalsey by force and reason of which promise the Baily suffered the said Gilbert to go at large to his House c. and that after and before such Court the Defendant promised the Plaintiff modo forma as the Plaintiff had surmised in his Declaration And upon that Verdict the Plaintiff could not have Iudgment For here the Consideration layed in the Declaration is not found by the Verdict For Gilbert was discharged of the Imprisonment before the promise of the Defendant to the Plaintiff And the Declaration is That in Consideration quod dictus Gilbertus ad largum dimitteretur c. And Iudgment was given Quod Querens Nihil Capiat per Billam CXLII Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. ONe recovered certain Copyhold Lands in the Court of the Lord of the Mannor by plaint in the nature of a Writ of Right It was moved in the Common Pleas If a Precept might be made and awarded out of that Court for to execute the said Recovery and to put him in possession who recovered with the Posse Manerii as in such Cases at the Common Law with the Posse Comitatus But it was clearly Resolved It could not be done For force in such cases is not justifiable but by Command out of the Kings Courts CXLIII Iplett and Williams's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. I Plett brought an Action upon the Case against
hath not any estate in the later Acre for the cause aforesaid Afterwards It was moved What thing passed to the second Son by that Devise And the Lord Anderson conceived That the words in the Will Usually Occupied with it did amount to as much as Land let with it and then the 60 Acres were not let with it and therefore did not pass Windham Iustice held the contrary and he said Although they do not pass by the words Occupied with it yet it shall pass to the Son by the name of Jacks or the Lands appertaining to Jacks To which Anderson mutata opinione afterwards agreed CLXXXIV Wroth and the Countess of Sussex Case Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Co. 6. Rep. 33. 1 Len. 35. 4 Len. 61. THe Case was this In Anno 4 5 of King Philip and Queen Mary A private Act of Parliament was made by which it was Enacted That the Mannor of Burnham was assured to the Countess of Sussex for her Ioynture with a Proviso in the Act That it should be lawful for the Earl of Sussex to may a Lease or Leases for 21 years and afterwards a year before the first Lease was ended he made another Lease for 21 years and this second Lease was to begin and take effect from the end of the first Lease And if this second Lease were a good Lease within the intent and meaning of the Act was the Question Popham the Queens Attorny General said That it was not 1. Because it was a Lease to begin at a day to come And 2. Because it was made before the first Lease was ended But he said It may be Objected That the Act saith Lease or Leases It is not the sense of the Act that he might make Leases in the Reversion but the sense and meaning of the Makers of the Act was That he might make Leases in possession and not Leases in futuro for if it should be so then he might make a Lease for 21 years to begin after his death which should be a great prejudice to the Countess and against the meaning of the Act which was made for her advantage The Lord Treasurer and Sir Walter Mildmay Knight have a Commission from the Queen to make Leases of the Queens Lands for 21 years because the Queen would not be troubled It was holden That by virtue of that Commission they could not make any Leases but Leases in possession only But all other Leases which did exceed the Term of 21 years and in Reversion were to pass by the hands of the Queen and her Attorny General and not by them only by virtue of their said Commission And if I grant to one power before the Statute to make Leases of my Land for 21 years he cannot make any Lease but only Leases in possession and he cannot Lease upon Lease for by the same reason that he might make one Lease to begin in futuro by the same reason he might make 20 several Leases to begin in futuro and so frustrate the Intent of the Act. It was Marshall's Case upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. of Leases to be made by Bishops The Bishop of Canturbury made a Lease to him for one and twenty years and afterwards he made a Lease unto another for 21 years to begin at the end of the first Lease And it was holden That the second Lease was void But in the great Case which was in the Exchequer-Chamber upon this Point There the second Lease was in possession and to begin presently and to run on with the other Lease and therefore it was adjudged to be good because the Land was charged with more than 21 years in the whole And if the Earl had done so here it had been a good Lease Wray Iustice said That if the second Lease had been made but two or three years before the expiration of the first Lease that then it had been utterly void but being made but 2 or 3 days or months before the expiration of the first Lease he doubted If it should be void or not The Statute of 32 H. 8. makes Leases for 21 years to be good from the day of the date thereof And a Lease was made to begin at a day to come And yet it was holden by two of the Iustices in the Court of Common Pleas That it was a good Lease And by two other Iustices of the same Court it was holden the Lease was not good And Clench Iustice said That there was no difference If it be by one Deed or by two Deeds And therefore he held That if the Earl had made a Lease for 21 years and within a year another the same had been void if it were by one Deed or two Deeds for that he did exceed his authority And he said In the principal Case If there had not been a Proviso he could not have made a Lease and therefore the Proviso which gave a power to make a Lease for 21 years should be taken strictly There was a Case of the Lord Marquess of c. that it should be lawful for him to make Leases for 21 years by a Statute And he made another Lease to begin after the end or expiration of the first Lease and it was doubted Whether it were a good Lease or not because he had not made any Lease before But if both were made by force of the Statute all held That the second Lease was void At another day the Case was argued by Daniel for the Lease in Reversion to begin at a day to come And he said That in a Statute the words alone are not to be considered but also the meaning of the parties and they are not to be severed Also he said That a Statute-Law is to be expounded by the Common-Law And by the Common-Law If one giveth power unto another to make Leases of his Lands he might make Leases in Reversion because an Authority is to be taken most beneficially for them for whose cause it was given So that if a Man grant an authority to another to make Estates of his Lands by those general words he may make Leases for years or for life Gifts in tail Feoffments or any Estates whatsoever If one gives a Commission to another to make Leases for one and twenty years of his Lands he may make a Lease in Reversion and so it was holden in the Dutchy in the Case between Alcock and Hicks Also he said That this Lease was a good Lease by the Statute-Law For the Statute of Rich. 3. gives authority to Cestuy que Use that he may make Estates in Reversion The Statute of 27 H. 8. which gives authority to the Chief Officer of the Court of Surveyors to make Leases if it had stayed there he might have made Leases in Reversion Therefore the Statute goes further and saith Proviso That he shall not make a Lease in Reversion See 19 Eliz. Dyer 357. The Statute of 35 H. 8. of Leases to be made by the Husbands
here it is found That she clearly departed out of London but they have not found that she dwelt in the Country c. but only that she went to Melton but she ought to do doth before her Estate shall cease It was argued by Towse for the Plaintiff That the Defendant ought to be found guilty of the Ejectment For it is found That the Defendant entred before the Commandment of Anne but they have not found that Anne was alive Fenner Iustice the same is well enough and so it was holden 18 Eliz. in this Court for although her life be not found yet it shall be intended that she was alive For the Iury did not doubt of it and the Conclusion of the Verdict is That if it shall seem to the Court that his Entry is lawful Then the Defendant is not guilty So as the doubt of the Iury is only upon that point Which Wray concessit Gawdy Iustice If one Deviseth Land to one for life upon Condition That his Estate shall cease which is all one with the Case at Bar and after the breach of the Condition he continueth in possessions he is not Tenant for life but Tenant at sufferance Wray Chief Iustice Tenant for the life of another continues in possession after the death of Cestuy que vie he hath not any Freehold remaining in him for if he dieth nothing descends And so it was lately adjudged by all the Iustices of England upon a Conference had between them And the Book of 18 E. 4. is not Law. Which Gawdy Iustice concessit See 35 H. 8. 57. acc And he said That the same shall be as a Limitation by which the Estate shall cease without an Entry And here in this Case because they have not found That Anne had dwelt in the Country here is no breach of the Condition in the Case And afterwards by the Advice of the whole Court Iudgment was given for the Defendant Quod querens nihil Capiat per Billam CCV Cadee and Oliver's Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Ejectione Firmae by Cadee against Oliver 1 Cro. 152. Roll. Tit. Grant. 48. of a House in Holborn c. The Case was The Lord Mountjoy and the Lady Katherine his Wife seised of the said House and of other Lands in Fee in the right of the Wife 6 Eliz. acknowledged a Statute-Staple of 1200 l. to Sir Lyonel Ducket Afterwards 9 Eliz. the said Lord Mountjoy and his said Wife Leased the said House to Hoskins for 21 years And afterwards by Indenture 11 Eliz. they Leased the same to Sir Tho. Cotton for 99 years to begin at Michaelmas last past 12 Eliz. Sir Lyonel Ducket extended his Statute and the Land extended was delivered to him at 53 l. 7 s. per annum who held the same until 22 Eliz. Anno 23 Eliz. the Lord Mountjoy and his Wife levied a Fine to Perry to the use of Perry and his Heirs 27 Eliz. Sir Thomas Cotton not being upon the Land granted omnia tunc bona catalla sua to Robert Cotton his Son 28 Eliz. the Lady Mountjoy died Mich. 29 Eliz. the Lease to Hoskins expired Perry entred and Leased the House to Oliver the Defendant for 21 years And afterwards Robert Cotton entred and Leased the House c. to the Plaintiff It was first moved by Brantingham and argued by him If this Lease for 99 years which was made to begin after the Lease made to Hoskins should pass to Robert Cotton by the words aforesaid But the Court eased him from arguing of that point for it was holden That it passed notwithstanding the word tunc 1 Cro. 386. Another matter argued by him was because at the time of the Grant the Lands were in extent and so the said Sir Thomas Cotton had but a possibility If therefore the said Grant made during the Extent was good And he argued That it was for it is more than a bare possibility for it is an Interest vested And in some Cases a possibility may be granted As 19 H. 6. 2. The King granted to a Prior That when any Tenth is granted to the King by the Clergy his House shall be discharged of it c. And 19 E. 2. Avowry 224. The Lord grants to his Tenant That if he dieth his Heir within age that such Heir shall not be in Ward So 21 E. 4. 44. A Grant unto an Abbot to be discharged of the Collectorship of Tenths when it shall be granted by the Clergy It hath been Objected That the Term for 99 years is suspended therefore it cannot be granted during the suspension But the same is not so for a thing suspended may be granted As 15 Eliz. Dyer 319. Husband and Wife Ioynt-Tenants of Lands in Fee The Queen having a Rent out of it in Fee giveth the Rent to the Husband and his Heirs now the Husband Deviseth the said Rent and dieth the same is good a Devise notwithstanding the suspension And he cited the Cases 16 E. 3. Quid juris clamat 22. And 20 E. 3. ibid. 31. A Lease is made to one for life and if he dieth within 20 years that his Executors and Assigns shall hold the Land until the expiration of the 20 years the said Interest may be granted Which Wray Chief Iustice denyed See Gravenors Case 3 4 Ma. Dyer 150. such Interest is void It was further moved by him and argued If the Conusee of the Fine might avoid the Lease made to Sir Thomas Cotten And he said He could not for he is in under the Lessors So is 34 E. 1. Recovery in value 36. see the Case there And here although the Wife after the death of her Husband may affirm or disaffirm the Lease at her Election yet this Election is not transferred to the Conusee by the Fine but the Conusee shall be bound by the Fine See 33 H. 8. Dyer 51. As Tenant in tail makes a Lease for years not warranted by the Statute and dieth the Issue alieneth the Land by Fine before affirmation or disaffirmation of the Lease by acceptance or Entry the Conusee cannot avoid this Lease for the Liberty is not transferred Which Gawdy Iustice concessit And Election cannot be transferred over to the prejudice of another person As if a Rent de novo be granted to the Father in Fee who dieth before Election the Heir cannot make it an Annuity to defeat the Dower of the Wife quod Curia concessit It was also moved by Brantingham If the Lessee might enter upon the Conusee of the Statute after his Extent expired without suing forth a Scire facias But the Court discharged him from arguing that Point for that by the Death of the Lady Mountjoy the Extent was void and therefore the Feoffee or Conusee might avoid it by Entry And so Wray Chief Iustice said it had been adjudged in the Court of Common Pleas. At another day the Case was argued by Stephens on the part of
and his diet for himself his servants and horses Vpon which the Debt in demand grew but the said Young was not at any price in certain with the Defendant nor was there ever any agreement made betwixt them for the same It was said by Anderson Chief Iustice That upon that matter an Action of Debt did not lie And therefore afterwards the Iury gave a Verdict for the Defendant CCXI. Heidon and Ibgrave's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 148. A Writ of Right was brought by Heidon against Ibgrave and he demanded the third part of 40 Acres of Land in the County of Hertford and they were at Issue upon the meer Right Vpon which the Grand Assise appeared And first the 4 Knights were specially sworn to say upon their Oath Whether the Tenant hath better right to hold the Land than the Demandant to demand it And afterwards the rest of the Iurors were sworn generally as in other Actions And there was some doubt made Whether the Demandant or the Tenant should first begin to give Evidence And at the last it was Ruled by the Court That the Tenant should begin because he is in the affirmative And it was said by Periam Iustice That so it was late adjudged in the Case betwixt Noell and Watts And upon the Evidence the Case was That King Hen. the 8th by his Letters Patents gave to the Demandant the Mannor of New-Hall and all the Lands in the Tenure and Occupation of John Whitton before demised to Johnson and in the Parish of Watford And the truth was That the said 40 Acres whereof now the third part was in demand were in the Occupation of the said John Whitton but were never demised to Johnson nor in the Parish of Watford And by the clear Opinion of the Court the said 40 Acres did not pass for the circumstances of the Deed are not true scil the Demise to Johnson and the being in the Parish of Watford but both were false But if the said Land had had an especial name in the Letters Patents then it had been well enough notwithstanding the misprision in the rest And by Anderson If upon the particular it had appeared that the Demandant had paid his Mony for the said 40 Acres peradventure they had passed CCXII. The Dean of Gloucester's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Dean and Chapter of Gloucester brough a Writ of Partition against the Bishop of Gloucester upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Partition And it was moved That upon the words of the Statute that the Action did not lie in this Case for the Statute doth not extend but to Estates in Ioynt-Tenancy or in Common of Lands whereof such Ioynt-Tenants or Tenants in Common are seised in their own right And also it is further said That every such Ioynt-Tenant or Tenant in Common and their Heirs shall have Aid to deraign the warranty without speaking of the word Successors And by Periam and Windham Iustices The Writ doth not lie But Anderson seemed to be of a contrary Opinion CCXIII. Hare and Meller's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HUgh Hare of the Inner-Temple brought an Action upon the Case against Philip Meller and declared Ante 138. That the said Defendant had exhibited to the Queen a scandalous Bill against the Plaintiff charging the said Hugh to have recovered against the said Defendant 400 l. by Forgery Perjury and Forswearing and Cosenage And also that he had published the matter of the said Bill at Westm c. It was said by the Court That the exhibiting of the Bill to the Queen is not in it self any cause of Action for the Queen is the Head and Fountain of Iustice and therefore it is lawful for all her Subjects to resort to her to make their complaints But if a Subject after the Bill once exhibited will divulge the matter comprised in it to the disgrace and discredit of the person intended the same is a good cause of Action And so was the Case of Sir John Conway who upon such matter did recover And as to the words themselves It seemeth to the Court That they are not Actionable For it is not expresly shewed That the Plaintiff had used Perjury Forgery c. And it may be that the Attorny or Sollicitor in the Cause hath used such indirect means the Plaintiff not knowing it and in such case the Plaintiff hath recovered by Forgery c. and yet without reproach And by perjury he could not recover for he could not be sworn in his own Cause And Stanhops Case was remembred by the Court which was That Edward Stanhop of Grays-Inn brought an Action upon the Case against one who had Reported That the said Edward Stanhop had gained his Living by swearing and forswearing And by the Opinion of the Court The Action did not lie for those words do not set forth any actual forswearing in the person of the Plaintiff but it might be in an Action depending between the Plaintiff and a stranger that another stranger produced as a Witness had made a false Oath without any procurement or practice of the Plaintiff in which Case it might be that the Plaintiff had gained by such swearing CCXIV. Cheverton's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HEnry Cheverton brought a Quare Impedit and Counted That he was seised of the moyety of the Church of D. that is to say To present qualibet prima vice and that J.S. is seised of the other moyety that is to say To present qualibet secunda vice c. And Exception was taken to the Count Because it was not shewed how the special Interest did begin scil by Prescription Composition or otherwise for it is clearly against common Right and therefore that ought to be shewed See Dyer 13 Eliz. 229. CCXV Edmond's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Case against Edmonds the Case was That the Defendant being within age requested the Plaintiff to be bounden for him to another for the payment of 30 l. which he was to borrow for his own use to which the Plaintiff agreed and was bounden ut supra Afterwards the Plaintiff was sued for the said Debt and paid it And afterwards when the Defendant came of full age the Plaintiff put him in mind of the matter aforesaid and prayed him that he might not be damnified so to pay 30 l. it being the Defendant's Debt Whereupon the Defendant promised to pay the Debt again to the Plaintiff Vpon which promise the Action was brought And it was holden by the Court That although here was no present consideration upon which the Assumpsit could arise yet the Court was clear That upon the whole matter the Action did lie and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCXVI Farrington and Fleetwood.'s Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer BEtween Farrington and Fleetwood the Case was upon the Stat. of 31 H. 8. of Monasteries 2
Case 18 Eliz. Plow Com. 485 486. Where it is holden That upon Attainder of Treason by Act of Parliament the Lands were not in the King without Office in the life of the person attainted upon the words of the Act shall forfeit See Stamford 54 55. acc 3. He conceived That this Interest which came to the King by this Attainder was but a Chattel and then it is released by the Pardon And so he conceived If it be a Freehold For the words of the General Pardon are large and liberal Pardon and Release all manner of Treasons c. And all other things causes c. and here forfeitures are pardoned And also this word Things is a transcendent c. And although it be a general word yet by the direction of the General Pardon it ought to be beneficially expounded and extended as if all things had been especially set down Also the words are Pardon them and their Heirs therefore the same extends to Inheritances for any Offence not excepted for there is the word Heirs And the third branch doth concern only Chattels and that is by the word Grant where the former is by the words Release and Acquit See Br. Charter of Pardon 71. 33 H. 8. Tenant of the King dieth seised the Heir intrudes Office is found in that case by Pardons of all Intrusions the Offence is pardoned but not the Issues and Profits But by the Pardon aforesaid all is pardoned And here in our Case the Office is void For the Statute makes all Precepts Conditions void c. being awarded upon such Forfeitures See also in the second Branch Vexed and inquieted in Body Good Lands c. And see also amongst the Exceptions That persons standing endicted of wilful Murder and forfeiture of Goods Lands Tenements grown by any Offence committed by such person By which he conceived That if that Exception had not been the Land of such a person if he had been attainted upon such Indictment should be forfeited As to the Traverse he conceived That in as much as the Office is true our plea is a Monstrans de Droit although it concludes with a Traverse We vary from the Office in number of persons and in the day of the Feoffment and every Circumstance in the Kings Case is to be traversed and our plea in substance doth confess and avoid the Office. Although the King here be entituled by double matter of Record i. e. the Attainder and the Office yet one of the said Records is discharged by another Record i. e. the Pardon and then there is but one Record remaining scil the Office and therefore our Traverse doth lie And he conceived That at the Common Law there was a Traverse as where it was found by Office That the Lessee of the King had done Waste or cessed for two years and there it is said That the Lessee and Tenant in an Action brought against them may traverse the Office Therefore traverse was at the Common Law where the King was entituled by single matter of Record So upon an Office finding an Alienation without Licence Traverse was by the Common Law. See Traverse in such Case in the Case of William de Herlington 43 Ass 28. See Br. Traverse 54. Petition is by the Common Law and Traverse by the Statute Frowick in his Reading See Stamf. Prerogat 60. That Traverse in the Case of Goods was at the Common Law but Traverse for Lands found by Office by 34 E. 3. Cap. 14. therefore the remedy was by Petition See now Cook 4. Part the Sadler's Case 55 56. Traverse was at the Common Law concerning Freehold and Inheritance but that was in special Cases when by the Office the Land is not in the Kings hands nor the King by that is in possession but only by the Office and entituled to the Action and cannot make seisure without suit there in a Scire facias brought by the King in the nature of such an Action to which he is entituled the party may appear unto the Scire facias and traverse the Office by the Common-Law CCXXXVII Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Writ was awarded out of the Court of Admiralty against Sir Tho. Bacon and Sir Tho. Heydon to shew cause wherefore Whereas the Earl of Lincoln late High Admiral of England had granted to them by Patent to be Vice Admirals in the Counties of Norfolk and Suffolk the said Letters Patents ought not to be repealed and annulled And so the said Writ was in the nature of a Scire facias It was moved by Cook That although the Admiral had but an Estate for life yet the Patent did continue in force after his death As the Iustices here of the Common Pleas although they have their places but for life may grant Offices which shall be in force after their death And because the same matter is determinable at the Common Law he prayed a Prohibition For in the Admiralty they would judge according to the Civil Law The Court gave day to the other side to shew cause why the Prohibition should not be awarded CCXXXVIII Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Len. 302. Ante 150. Post 230. ACcompt was brought by Harris against Baker and damages were given by the Iury It was moved to the Court That damages ought not to be given by way of damages but the damages of the Plaintiff shall be considered of by way of Arrearges But see the Case Hill. 29 Eliz. in C. B. betwixt Collet and Andrews And yet 10 H. 6. 18. in Accompt the Plaintiff Counted to his damage but did not recover damages 2 H. 7. 13. 21 H. 6. 26. The Plaintiff shall not recover damages expresly but the Court shall given Quoddam incrementum to the Arrearages Cook said That it had been adjudged That the Plaintiff should recover Damages in an Accompt ratione Implicationis non Detentionis CCXXXIX Long 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was holden in this Case If a Feoffment in Fee be made of a Mannor to which an Advowson is appendant and Livery is made in the Demesnes but no Attornment that in such case the Advowson shall pass but none of the Services CCXL Barns Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. BArns brought an Action of Trespass for taking of his sack of Corn The Defendants justified in the behalf of the Town of Lawson in the County of Cornwell because That King Phil. and Queen Mary granted to them of the said Town a Market to be holden within the said Town and that the Plaintiff came to the said Town with a sack of Corn and the Vendor would not pay Toll for which cause they took the said sack of Corn. And Iudgment was given for the Defendant Vpon which Error was brought and assigned for Error because that the Defendant pleads the Letters Patents with the date of the place year and day without saying Magno sigillo Angliae sigillat For it was holden that
the Plaintiffs and of the cause of it upon which the Plaintiffs did demur in Law. It was argued by Fleetwood Serjeant for the Bishop but to little purpose therefore I will report but certain passages of his Argument He conceived That that general Pleading of Schismaticus inveteratus was good enough as if the Bishop certifieth Bastardy It is sufficient to say Bastardus sive Spurius without other Circumstances as to say On the body of such a Woman begotten Lollard derivatur à Lollio i. e. Anglice Tares Sampson was Dean of Christ Church in Oxford and was convented before the Ordinary for Schism because he would not use a Surplice and for that he was condemned for a Schismatick and deprived of his Deanery in the time of the Queen that now is Shuttleworth Serjeant for the Plaintiffs That the Bishop in his Plea ought to have shewed specially how and in what point the Presentee of the Plaintiffs was Schismaticus There are divers manners of Schisms 1. In Doctrine 2. In manners and of each kind there are many c. And therefore for doubt of enveigling the Metropolitan who is to try that Issue the Defendant ought to have shewed the Schism in certain in which the Metropolitan was to examine the Clerk readily See 38 E. 3. 2. the Case of the Countess of Arundel where in a Quare Impedit the Ordinary pleaded That the Presentee was Criminosus Perjurus and shewed the Cause in what and when he was Perjured And although this Issue is to be tryed by the Metropolitan yet it ought to be formally pleaded in the Temporal Court and with certainty As where a Divorce is pleaded It is not sufficient to say That a Divorce was had but the party ought to shew for what cause and before what Iudge the Divorce was had which see 18 E. 4. 29. where the Divorce is specially pleaded for cause of Consanguinity for by one Divorce the Issues are bastardized by others not See as to the Pleading of a Divorce 11 H. 7. 9. Profession although it be a Spiritual thing yet the general Pleading of it is not good but he who pleads it ought to shew of what Order and under whose Obedience 40 E. 3. 37. which see the Book of Entries 444. Intravit Religionem viz. in Domo Carmelitarum de London ibi fuit professus sub Obedientia R. Prioris Domus illius So Deprivation shall not be generally pleaded which see Book of Entries 458. Ecclesia vacavit per Privationem c. per J.S. Legum Doctor Delegat c. so of Resignation 7 E. 4. 16. Resignavit in manus I.L. Bishop of London Ordinary of the said place Now It is to see If by this general Demurrer the matter in Fact be confessed scil That the Presentee was Schismaticus inveteratus and as to that the Rule is That all matters in Fait which are well and duly pleaded by a general Demurrer be confessed but that which is not well alledged by no Demurrer shall be holden confessed Which Learning see in the Commentaries in Partridge and Stranges Case And here for as much as Scismaticus is not not well pleaded for the cause aforesaid it shall not be holden confessed Now It is to see If upon the Statute of 27 Eliz. this defect be helped and he conceived it was not for here the defect is in matter and not in form As if in Trespass of his Close breaking the Defendant justifies by a Lease for years and doth not shew the place where the Lease was made and the Plaintiff demurrs generally upon it the said defect is not helped by the said Statute for that it is Matter So in a Formedon in Discender The Defendant pleads a Warranty with Assets without shewing the place where the Assets is and the Demandant demurrs upon it generally the same defect is not helped by the said Statute See a good Case adjudged upon the Statute Mich. 28 29 Eliz. between Henly and Broad Periam and Windham Iustices conceived That the Plea of the Bishop is not good because it is not shewed in what point the Presentee was Schismaticus for by this genral Pleading if it should be allowed the Metropolitan to whom the Tryal of the Cause belongeth shall be driven to peruse all Schisms in the Examination of the Presentee which is a thing infinite and inconvenient Rhodes and the Lord Anderson to the Contrary And Rhodes vouched an Old Book 30 E. 1. out of a written Book of the Lord Catline In a Quare non admisit the Defendant pleaded That the Clerk presented was Schismaticus Adulter and the Court commanded that he hold himself to one of them for which he said Adulter so as the Court did not mislike the Plea for the generality but for the doubleness And by Anderson Our Case is not like the Cases put by Shuttleworth for they concern things tryable by our Law in which Case to have convenient tryal all matters issuable ought to be specially alledged but here the Case is otherwise and no peril of Tryal And by the said Statute of 27 Eliz. we ought to judge according to the right of the Cause and matter in Law. See this Case adjudged upon a Writ of Error brought in the Kings Bench. Hill. 32 Eliz. in Cook 5 Part 57. Specot's Case CCLII Estrigge and Owles's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case by Estrigge against Owles It was holden by the Iustices Ante 73. That forbearance per paululum tempus is a good Consideration Then it was moved That in the Action the Request was not sufficiently laid in respect of the place and time And Cook said That the difference had always been agreed That where the promise is to do a Collateral thing upon Request there in the Declaration the place and the time ought to be certainly set down As it was holden in the Case of Alderman Pulison where he promised to give a Cun of Wine upon request Ante 73. in such case the request is traversable and therefore it ought to be certainly shewed for the request is parcel of the Issue But if such Action be brought and the Plaintiff declares upon an Indebitatus then if the Plaintiff prove the Debt it is not material to prove the promise for every Contract executory implyes a promise and in such case the request is not traversable And the truth of the Case was That one Tickil was endebted to the Plaintiff in 30 l. and died Intestate B. his Wife took Letters of Administration and took to Husband the Defendant And he for the Consideration aforesaid and that the Plaintiff would forbear his Debt for a little time promised to pay it And further declared That he had forborn c. from such a day until such a day but yet the Defendant would not pay it licet saepius requisitus And upon this Declaration the Plaintiff had Iudgment And now a Writ of Error was brought
that the Queens Attorny said That it is true that Thomas Robinson was possessed but it is further said That Thomas granted it to Paramour and so the Interest of Thomas is confessed on both sides and therefore the Iury shall not be received to say the contrary But the Opinion of Manwood Chief Baron was That if the parties do admit a thing per nient dedire the Iury is not bound by it but where upon the pleading a special matter is confessed there the Iury shall be bound by it And afterwards the Issue was found against Robinson the Defendant CCLXXIII Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Debt by A. against B. upon an Obligation the Defendant pleaded tender of the Mony according to the Condition upon which the parties were at Issue And after the Defendant pleaded That after the Darrein Continuance the Debt now in demand was Attached in the Defendants hands according to the Custom of London for the debt of C. to whom the Plaintiff was endebted It was the Opinion of the Court That the Plea was insufficient for it is altogether contrary to the first Plea. And also the Court held That in an Action for the debt depending here in this Court the debt cannot be attached and the Court would not suffer a Demurrer to be joyned upon it but over-ruled the Case without any Argument For it was said by Wray Chief Iustice That it was against the Iurisdiction of the Court and the Priviledge of it CCLXXIV Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was holden by the Court That if a Copyholder in Fee dieth seised and the Lord admits a stranger to the Land who entreth that he is but a Tenant at Will and not a Disseisor to the Copyholder who hath the Land by descent because he cometh in by the assent of the Lord c. CCLXXV Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Ejectione firmae was brought de uno Cubiculo and Exception was taken to it But the Exception was disallowed The Declaration was special viz Leas unius Cubiculi per nomen unius Cubiculi being in such a House in the middle story of the said House And the Declaration was holden good enough and the word Cubiculum is a more apt word than the word Camera And such was the Opinion of Wray Chief Iustice And it was said That Ejectione firmae brought de una rooma had been adjudged good in this Court. CCLXXVI Johnson and Bellamy's Case Rot. 824. Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae It was holden by Special Verdict 1 Cro. 122. That W. Graunt was seised of certain Lands and by his Will devised the same to Joan his Wife for life And further he willed That when Rich. his Brother should come to the age of 25 years that he should have the Land to him and the Heirs of his body lawfully begotten W. Graunt died having Issue of his body who was his Heir Rich. before he attained the age of 25 years levied a Fine of the said Lands with proclamations in the life and during the seisin of Joan to A. sic ut partes finis nihil habuerunt And If this Fine should bar the Estate in tail was the Question And the Iustices cited the Case of the Lord Zouch which was adjudged Mich. 29 Eliz. Where the Case was Tenant in tail discontinued to E. and afterwards levied a Fine to B. That although that partes finis nihil habuerunt yet the said Fine did bind the Estate tail But the Serjeants at the Bar argued That there was a difference between the Case cited and the Case at Bar For in the Case cited the Fine was pleaded in Bar but here it was not pleaded but found by Special Verdict To which it was said by the Court That the same is not any difference For the Fine by the Statute is not any matter of Estoppel or Conclusion but by the Statute binds and extincts the entail and the right of it And Fines are as sufficient to bind the right of the entail when they are found by Special Verdict as when they are pleaded in Bar. And Periam Iustice said A Collateral Warranty found by Special Verdict is of as great force as pleaded in Bar. And afterwards Iudgment was given That the Estate tail by that Fine was utterly barred and extinct CCLXXVII Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was A Man made a Lease for life rendring Rent at Michaelmas and further Leased the same to the Executors of the Lessee until Michaelmas after the death of the Lessee It was affirmed by Cook That in that Case it was adjudged That the word Until shall be construed to extend to the Term unto the end of the Feast of St. Michael and so the Rent then due payable by the Executors for without such Construction no Rent should be then due because the Term ended before Michaelmas CCLXXVIII Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ONe was bounden to stand to the Award of two Arbitrators who awarded That the party should pay to a stranger or his Assigns 200 l. before such a day The stranger before the day died B. took Letters of Administration The Question was If the Obligee should pay the Mony to the Administrator or if the Obligation was discharged It was the Opinion of the whole Court That the Mony should be paid to the Administrator for he is an Assignee And by Gawdy If the word Assigns had been left out yet the payment ought to be made to the Administrator Which Cook granted CCLXXIX Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Defendant in Debt being ready at the Bar to wage his Law was examined by the Court upon the points of the Declaration and the cause of the Debt upon which it appeared that the Plaintiff and Defendant were reciprocally endebted the one to the other And accompting together they were agreed That each of them should be quit of the other It was the Opinion of Periam and Anderson Iustices That upon that matter the Defendant could not safely wage his Law For it is but an agreement which cannot be executed but by Release or Acquittance CCLXXX Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in tail Covenanted with his Son to stand seised to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his Son in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Father The Father levied a Fine with proclamations and died It was moved by Fenner If any Estate passed to the Son by that Covenant for it is not any discontinuance and so nothing passed but during his life and all the Estates which are to begin after his death are void Anderson Iustice The Estate passeth until c. And he cited the Case of one Pitts where it was adjudged That if Tenant in tail of an Advowson in gross grants the same in Fee and a Collateral Ancestor releaseth with warranty and dieth
that the same is a good bar for ever CCLXXXI Ognell's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin against Ognel who avowed for Rent Clayton Rep. 91. the Plaintiff was Nonsuit the Question was Whether the Court might assess Damages without a Writ of Enquiry of Damages It was the Opinion That they might for they are not in respect of any local matter but they accrue to the Avowant for the delay in the non-payment of the Rent Contrary where Iudgment is given for the Plaintiff there the Court shall not assess the Damages for he ought to recover for the taking of his Cattel of which the Iudges cannot take notice and the Damages may be greater or less according to the value of the Cattel and the Circumstances of the taking and delaying of them CCLXXXII Hitchcock and Harvy's Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. HItchcock brought an Action of Trespass for breaking of his Close and spoyling of his Grass against Harvey and the Case was That A. was seised of the Land in which c. and granted to the Plaintiff proficuum of such a Mead called Tentry Mead post falcationem inde scil the Ear-grass And it was found by Verdict That Ear-grass is such Grass which is upon the Land after the mowing until the Feast of the Annunciation after It was moved If such a Grantee might have Trespass Quare Clausum fregit And it was the Opinion of the Court 1 Cro. 421. That he could not but for spoiling the Grass he might Clench Iustice If a Man be Outlawed in an Action personal The Queen hath the profits of the Land and lets the same to another He shall have an Action of Trespass Quare Clausum fregit Which Shute granted And afterwards because the Iury had given Damages entire as well for the breaking of the Close as for the spoyling of the Grass the Plaintiff could not recover the Damages CCLXXXIII Chard and Tuck's Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 41. 1 Cro. 15 16 114 170.130 Shep. Touch. 94. Bro. Tit. Judgment 83. IN an Ejectione firmae by Chard against Tuck It was found by special Verdict That A. was seised of a Messuage and of a Curtilage and of a Garden to the same belonging in Fee and that the Curtilage was on the back side of the said House and the Garden next beyond the said Curtilage the Garden being divided from the Curtilage by a Wall and a Door through the Wall into the Garden from the said Curtilage and no Way to either of them but through the House And it was further found That the said A. by his Will devised the said Messuage to B. The Question was If by that Devise the Curtilage and Garden did pass Vide inde Br. 23 H. 8. Feoffments 53. Where a Feoffment is made of such a Messuage cum pertinentiis they shall pass Curtilage is a member at the least an Appendix of a Messuage And by the clear Opinion of the whole Court in the Case at Bar It was Resolved That by this Devise the Curtilage and Garden did pass And it was said by Wray Chief Iustice It matters not Whether the Curtilage and Garden be before the House or behind it for in both Cases they shall pass CCLXXXIV Baxter's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer AN Information in the Exchequer was exhibited against Baxter of Cambridge upon the Statute of 7 E. 6. Cap. 5. of Wines and the selling of them against the purview of the said Statute To which the Defendant pleaded That King Rich. the second in the 5th year of his Reign Granted unto the Chancellor and his Deputy and the Scholers of the Vniversity of Cambridge Custodiam assisae panis vini Cervisiae correctionem punitionem eorundum 4 Inst 229. And that the Queen that now is confirmed the said Grant in the third year of her Reign by her Letters Patents which were after confirmed by Act of Parliament 13 Eliz. And so pleaded to the Iurisdiction of the Court. Vpon which It was demurred in Law. Harris argued for the Queen and said That the Defendant could not plead that matter to the Iurisdiction of the Court at that time for it is now too late for that he hath oftentimes imparled and that generally In which case the Court having general and ordinary Iurisdiction and Authority to hold plea of such matters shall have Conusans of them notwithstanding the matter which hath been shewed and set forth On the other side It hath been said Quod Assisa venit de assidendo that is to have the Assise as well in respect of the price as of the measure Which although it be admitted yet the same shall not help them For they of Cambridge have not Assisam ipsam but only Custodiam assisae i.e. that the Assise set down by the Queen and her Councel be well kept And that no other price or measure be used in the uttering of Wines Popham The Queens Attorny to the same intent The Statute of 51 H. 1. Ordains That when Wheat is at such a price in the Market then every penny Loaf is to weigh so much and so when Barley is at such a price then so much Beer shall be sold for a penny And that was the general Assize limited by the said Statute In these Cases the Vniversity cannot appoint another Assize than that which is set down by the said Statute but to take care that the said Statute be well executed in such Assise See the Statute of 31 E. 1. of Wines scil That Wines shall be sold according to the Assize of the King i. e. 12 d. the Gallon And in that matter the Vniversity hath Custodiam only i.e. the survey of the Assize and the execution of it and authority to punish the Offences against the said Statutes as well in the price as in the measure according to the said Statutes and not otherwise c. And as to the Statute of 7 E. 6. Cap. 5. By which it is provided That the said Statute shall not be prejudicial to any of the Inhabitants of Oxford or Cambridge or unto the Chancellor or Scholers there to impair their Liberties c. The same ought to be intended that the Liberties and Franchises which the Vniversities had before by the Grant ut supra c. i. e. to punish such Offences against the Assise according to the old Statutes For the said Statute of 7 E. 6. Cap. 5. being in the Affirmative doth not take away the punishment appointed by any other Statute but doth continue the same And a further penalty is appointed propter ulteriorem poenam And as to that which hath been said That by the said Grant of Rich. the 2d 3 Cro. 52 62 they have granted to them Cognitionem omnium Actionum personalium inter partem partem That will not help the Vniversity in this Case For the Informer by the Statute hath Liberty to
sue in what Court he will in any of the Kings Courts of Record And in this Case the Queen is quodam modo a party For she is to have the moyety And so this cause is not meerly betwixt party and party c. CCLXXXV Willoughby's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 117. WIlliam Willoughby and two other were Endicted That where the Parson of the Church of D. and all his predecessors have used to have Common in such a place The said Defendants Willoughby and others had enclosed the same and that enclosure was upon their own Land. It was moved That upon this matter they ought not to have been endicted but the party grieved was put to his Action As where a presentment is made of a Disseisin See 27 Ass 20. And it was the Case of one Marden 29 Eliz. upon the stopping of a High-Way upon his own Land and if it were upon other Land it were not material for it is but an Impeachment to take Common which cannot be Vi et armis c. Also this Endictment is Recorded and Certified as found before Iustices of Assize and Gaol-Delivery and they cannot take such presentment And although the Iustices of Assize and Gaol-Delivery were in rei veritate also Iustices of Peace yet the Endictment being recorded and certified to be taken before them in quality of Iustices of Peace shall not help it for the Court shall not respect any Authority but that which appears upon the Record And for these Causes the parties were discharged CCLXXXVI Gates and Hollywell's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Man having Issue two Sons devised That his eldest Son with his Executors should take the profits of the Lands until his younger Son should come to the age of 22 years and then the younger Son should have the Lands to him and his Heirs of his body It was the clear Opinion of all the Iustices That the eldest Son should have a Feesimple in the Lands until the younger Son came to the said age of 22 years CCLXXXVII Cony and Beveridge's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 146. IN Debt upon an Obligation the Case was That the Plaintiff Leased to the Defendant certain Lands in the County of Cambridge rendring rent And afterwards the Defendant became bounden to the Plaintiff in an Obligation for the payment of the said Rent upon which Bond the Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt in the County of Northampton To which the Defendant pleaded payment of the Rent without shewing the place of payment and upon that they were at Issue And it was found by Nisi prius in the County of Northampton for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That the Issue is mis-tryed for here the payment of the Rent being pleaded without shewing the place of payment it shall be intended that the Rent was paid upon the Land which is in the County of Cambridge and there the Issue ought to be tryed See 44 E. 3. 42. And it was the Opinion of Anderson Chief Iustice That no Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff for the Cause aforesaid But Rhodes and Windam Iustices were of a contrary Opinion For it doth not appear That the Issue is mis-tryed because that no place of payment is pleaded and it may be for any thing that is shewed That the Rent was not paid in the County of Northampton CCLXXXVIII The Blacksmith's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Blacksmith of South Mimmes in the County of Middlesex took an Obligation of another Blacksmith of the same Town upon Condition that he should not exercise the Trade or Art of a Blacksmith within the same Town nor within a certain precinct of the same And upon that Obligation the Obligee brought an Action of Debt in the Common Pleas depending which Suit the Obligor complained to the Iustices of Peace of the County against the Obligee upon which the matter being found against him by Examination the Iustices committed the Obligee to Prison and now upon the whole matter Puckering Serjeant prayed a Habeas Corpus for the said Obligee to the Sheriff of Middlesex and hat it And Fleetwood Recorder of London being at the Bar the Court openly admonished him of that matter For by the Law Iustices of Peace have not Conusans of such Offences nor can entermeddle with them for their power is limited by the Commission and the Statutes And the Recorder relyed much upon the Opinion of Hull in 2 H. 5. 5. But it was said by the Court Although that this Court be a high Court to punish such Offences appearing before them of Record yet it doth not follow That the Iustices of Peace may also do so But as to the Obligation it self the Court was clear of Opinion That the same was void and against the Law. CCLXXXIX Russell and Broker's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 209. IN Trespass for cutting down of 4 Oaks The Defendant pleaded That the place where c. And that he is seised of a Messuage in D. and that he and all those whose Estate he hath c. habere Consueverant rationabile estoverium suum for fuel ad Libitum suum Capiendum in boscis subboscis arboribus ibidem crescentibus and that in Quolibet tempore anni unless in Fawning time The Plaintiff by Replication said That the place where is in the Forrest of D. c. And that the Defendant and all those whose Estate c. habere Consueverunt rationabile estoverium suum de Boscis c. per Liberationem Forestarii aut ejus Deputati prout Boscus pati potuit non ad exigentiam petentis And upon that Replication the Defendant demurred in Law. And it was the clear Opinion of the Court That Iudgment should be given against the Plaintiff For if he would have ousted the Defendant of his Prescription by the Law of the Forrest he ought to have shewed the Law of the Forrest in such Case Lex forestae talis est For the Law of the Forrest is not the Common Law of the Land and we are not bounden to take notice of it but it ought to be pleaded Or else the Plaintiff ought to have traversed the Prescription of the Defendant For here are two Prescriptions one pleaded by the Defendant by way of Bar The other set forth by the Plaintiff in his Replication without any traverse of that which is set forth in the Bar which cannot be good But if the Plaintiff had shewed in his Replication Lex forestae talis est then the Prescription of the Defendant had been answered without any more for none can prescribe against a Statute Exception was taken to the Bar because the Defendant hath justified the cutting down of Oaks without alledging That there was not any Vnderwoods But that Exception was not allowed for he hath his Choice ad libitum suum Another Exception was taken
Demands or Grants Omnia terras tenementa sua But general words qualified with a restraint where the Limitations are effectual As if the King Grants Omnia terras tenementa sua in D. which he hath by the Attainder of J.S. or which were the possessions of such dissolved Monasteries such Grants are good And where the Case is That Queen Mary hath the Lands in possession of the annual value of 19 l. and other Land there in Reversion of the annual value of 6 l. and then she Grants Omnia terras tenementa nostra rendring 19 l. per annum I conceive That upon these words the Land in possession only passeth because that the said general words may be aptly served and satisfied with the Lands in possession if no other Lands pass And I agree That this word Nostra extends as well to the Lands in Reversion as to Lands in possession but most properly to Lands in possession for Land in Reversion cannot dici simpliciter Nostra but quodam modo tanquam terra revertens and not to take the natural profits of it for the Termor hath such properly that he shall have an Action of Trespass Quare clausum fregit But the intent and meaning of the Queen is to be regarded and that is the surest way to have right intelligence of the Grants of the King For here the Queen hath reserved but 19 l. Rent which is the proper and ancient Rent of the Lands in possession and if Lands in Reversion should also pass the Rent of which was 6 l. per annum then upon the whole Grant but 19 l. being reserved the Queen should lose 6 l. per annum of her ancient Rent which should be contrary to the intent and meaning of the Queen and the intent of the Grantor even in the Case of a Subject shall direct the construction of Grants As 9 H. 6. Br. Grants 5 by Babington A Man grants Common in his whole Lands he shall not have Common in his Orchards Gardens or Meadows for such was the meaning of the Grantor a fortiori in the Case of the King. It hath been argued That the former Lease ought not to be recited because that after the first Lease made by King Henry the 8th the Inheritance hath been in a Subject that is the Bishop of Bath and Wells but the same is not so For if the King makes a Lease for years and afterwards Grants the Reversion upon Condition which after is broken and so found by Office by which the Reversion is reduced to the King If now the King will make a new Lease he ought to recite the former Estate notwithstanding the mean grant of the Reversion or else such second Lease is void Another matter hath been Objected wherefore the former Lease ought not to be recited and that is because it is determined by surrender in Law before that the new Lease takes effect Sir the same is not so for the former Lease is in being as the Case betwixt Fulmerston and Steward 1 Mar. Plow Com. 106. upon the Statute of Monasteries 31 H. 8. See the words of the Statute whereof and wherein any Estate or Interest for years at the time of the making of any such Lease had his being or continuance And an Abbot made such a Lease to one who had a term for years of a former Grant although here be a Surrender yet this Case is within the said Statute and the said former Lease shall be said to have his being at the time of the making of the later Lease and the Surrender shall not be said so to preceed the making of the Lease but that the former Lease shall be said in Esse at the time of the making of the later Lease And in our Case it shall not be taken for any Surrender for then the Queen shall lose 6 l. of her ancient Rent and Revenue and always when the Title of the King and of the Subject concur the Title of the King shall be preferred as 43 E. 3. The King Lord Mesne and Tenant The Tenant pays his Rent at the day to the Mesne before Noon and then the same day before Night the Mesne dieth his Heir within age the King shall be paid the Rent again for here the Title of the King and the Subject concur together at one time and in that the King shall be preferred and so he prayed Iudgment for the Defendant And afterwards at another day the Iustices declared their Opinions and by Wray Chief Iustice We all agree That the first Lease ought to be recited and the reason which hath been urged against that point hath reduced us to be of that Opinion scil That the second Lease was made to the first Patentee and the King doth not make the recital but the party ought to inform the King of all former Estates of the said Lands and that he might well do for he is well knowing of them and although that the Reversion after the first Lease made hath been conveyed to a Subject the same is not material here forasmuch as the second Estate is made to him who had the first Estate and might know whether the first Estate were determined or not Also by the re-purchase the King is in Statu quo prius Gawdy Iustice although that the former Term be drowned by the taking of the second Lease yet it was in being at the time of the taking of it as it is holden by Bromley in the Case of Fulmerston and Steward It is determined by the second Lease and yet it was in being at the time of the making of it Fenner Iustice to the same intent Clench Iustice If the Grant of the Queen shall enure to two intents then the Queen should lose 6 l. per annum of her ancient Revenue It was agreed by all the Iustices That the general words in as much as they are restrained to a certainty would pass the thing si caetera essent paria contrary if they had remained in the generalty and afterwards Iudgment was given Quod querens nihil Capiat per Billam CCCXXXVIII Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 4 Len. 233. A Man 30 Eliz. made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his Son and his Heirs The Father and the Feoffees before issue for Mony by Deed granted and enfeoffed J.S. and his Heirs who hath not notice of the first use The Tenant for life hath issue and dieth the issue entreth Glanvil the use limited to the first Son is destroyed for without regress of the Feoffees it cannot rise and it is gone by their Livery See the Case in Plowden 349. and also he vouched the Case of the Earl of Kent where by the Release of the surviving Feoffee 2 Roll. 797. Plow 347. a Sleeping-Vse was destroyed and could not after be revived Harris the use may rise without entries of the Feoffees and he put a difference between an
Eliz. Leon. 166. Lib. 1. was this Term adjudged upon the Devise That the Survivour shall be each others Heir It was holden That all the surviving Brothers are Ioynt-Tenants and although this word Survivour be in the singular number yet in sense upon the whole matter it shall be taken and construed as for the plural number Survivour shall be each others Heir i. e each Survivour i.e. every Survivour i.e. All the Survivours and then in this case The Plaintiff and the Defendant being Ioynt-Tenants cannot maintain an Action of Trespass one against the other CCCLIII Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. BY the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 37. The Executors of a Grantee of a Rent-Charge may distrain for the Arrearages of the said Rent in the life of the Testator so long as the Land charged doth continue in the seisin or possession of the Tenant in Demesne who ought immediately to have paid the said Rent or in the seisin of any other person or persons claiming the said Lands only by and from the said Tenant by purchase gift or descent in like manner as the Testator might or ought to have done in his life-time It was now moved If A. grant a Rent-charge to B. the Rent is behind B. dieth A. enfeoffeth C. in Fee who divers years after enfeoffeth D. who divers years after enfeoffeth E. It was holden in this Case by Walmesley Periam and Windham Iustices That E. should be chargeable with the Arrearages to the Executors Anderson Chief Iustice held the contrary But they all agreed That the Lord by Escheat Tenant in Dower or by the Curtesie should not be chargeable for they did not claim by the Party only but also by the Law. CCCLIV. Leverett and Townsend's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case for disturbing him of hs Common 3 Cro. 198. 2 Len. 184. The Plaintiff declared That he was seised in Fee of a Messuage and certain Lands And that he and all those whose Estate he hath have Common of Pasture in 16 Acres of Lands called D. from the time that the Corn is reaped until it be sowen again And also Common of Pasture in Land called R. omni tempore anni as appendant to the said Messuage and Land and that the Defendant had plowed the said Lands and so disturbed him of his Common It was moved in stay of Iudgment That it appeareth here that the Plaintiff was seised in Fee and so he ought to have an Assise and not an Action upon the Case But the Exception was disallowed by the Court. Vide inde Ante 13. 2 H. 4. 11. 8 Eliz. Dyer 250. 11 R. 2. Tit. Action upon the Case 36. CCCLV. The Chamberlain of London's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THE Chamberlain of London brought an Action of Debt in the Mayors Court in Guild-hall 5 Co. grounded upon an Act of Common Council See C. 5 Part The matter was removed into the Kings Bench by Corpus cum causa Fleetwood Recorder of London prayed a Procedendo It was Objected That they of London could not make Ordinances to bind the Subjects as an Act of Parliament To which It was said by Fleetwood That the Custom of the City is That the Mayor and Aldermen and four persons chosen out of each Ward by the Communalty may make Ordinances which they call Acts of Common Council and they shall bind every Citizen and Free-man and all their Customs are confirmed by Act of Parliament and by Magna Charta which hath been confirmed 52 times and also by the Statute of 7 R. 2. For that King seised their Liberties and drove them to pay for the Redemption of them 100000 Marks and then the said King confirmed them unto them for ever and therefore this Ordinance being made according to our Custom ought not to be impeached As in Case of matters of the Forrest If one be punished for offending against an Ordinance made for the governing of the Affairs of the Forrest you cannot remove the matter before you So is the Law called Lex Idumaea concerning Rivers and Fishing in which are divers Ordinances That none shall kill Salmons at certain Seasons of the year and so of other Fishes If one be punished by force of such Law he shall not be relieved here for the Law of the Land hath always allowed such particular Customs And see F. B. If two Merchants put their Stocks together and so Traffick together and the one dieth The Survivor shall not have the whole Stock as the Common Law is but the Executor of him that dieth shall have an Accompt against the other and that is per Legem mercatoriam Cook to the same intent This Act of Common Council is good and according to the Law that is of Common Right There are divers Statutes made for the true making of Cloth and to take away the abuses and deceit in the making of it and this Act of Common Council is for the well executing of the said Statutes and I conceive there is a difference in making of Laws by a Corporation A Corporation may make an Act for the better executing of any Law established at the Common Law but new Laws they cannot make As those of a Town who have used to have Common in certain Lands they cannot make a By-Law That such a one in such a Town shall not have Common there but that none shall use his Common but at such a time such a By-Law made is good See 15 H. 7. 21 H. 7. 40. See 8 E. 2. tit Assise 413. A Town had Common of Turbary in a Marsh and divers of the Inhabitants of the Town had made Trenches in the said Marsh and some had not a full Foot of Land in the Town and such persons by their Trenches which they had made there used to carry Turffs out of the said Marsh by Boats and sell them unto the value of 20 Marks per annum to their great private profit and to the great grievance of the others For which cause It was provided by common assent of the Freeholders of the Lord of the said Town That all the Trenches in the said Marsh should be stopped so as from thenceforth no Turffs be carried in Boats by the Trenches And there it was holden That if the greater part of the Commoners assent the same shall bind the others who have not assented for ubi major pars ibi totum And then if such Towns may make Laws a fortiori The City of London Secondly This Law is good by Custom for they have used to make such Acts and Ordinances time out of mind c. and these Customs are confirmed by Act of Parliament and also they may appoint a penalty for to what purpose otherwise should they make an Act Oderunt peccare mali formidine poenae Also this Action is maintainable for an Amercement in a Court Baron an Action of Debt lieth Gawdy Iustice 44 E. 3. 19.
1 And. 234. every one ought to assent Wray There the Ordinance made was to charge the Inheritance but here it is only to charge their Goods wherefore the assent of the greater part is sufficient And afterwards a Procedendo was granted CCCLV. Pendleton and Green's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. PEndleton sued Green in the Spiritual Court for Tythes Ante 203. 1 Len. 94. who pleaded That Pendleton was not lawful Incumbent but one Taylor and that plea those of the Spiritual Court would not allow to the Parishioner to plead to the right of the Incumbency and thereupon he prayed a Prohibition for otherwise he should be twice charged for Tythes and therefore a Prohibition was granted CCCLVII Knevytt and Cope's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. KNevytt brought Ejectione firmae against Cope and declared Quod 4 Len. 59. cum John Hopkins by his Indenture bearing date the 20 of May 32 Eliz. had let to him his House and two Yard-Lands containing 40 Acres of Land Meadow and Pasture apud Tythingham de Forecomb in parochia de S. c. upon Not guilty pleaded The Venire facias was de Tythingham de Forecomb Exception was taken by Cook That the Declaration had not any certainty for it is not shewed in certain How much there was of Meadow how much of Land and how much of Pasture there was contained in the said two Yard-Lands and the Iury may find the Defendant guilty as to the Land only but not to the residue Also he hath not shewed in the Declaration When the Lease was made but only saith That by Indenture bearing date the 20 of May c. but doth not shew any day of delivery of the Indenture for then the Lease takes effect To which Exception It was said by the Court That the Declaration as to that was good enough for it shall be intended to have been delivered at the day of the date Ante 193. Another Exception was taken to the Visne Because that the Visne ought to be of the Parish and not of Tythingham c. See 11 H. 7. 23 24. Forcible Entry in the Mannor of B. in B. the Visne shall not be of the Mannor of B. but of B. Gawdy Iustice You shall never have a Visne of the Parish for divers Towns may be in one Parish but here the Visne is good of Tythingham c. for it may be that it is a Town Cook It is but a Ville Conus from which a Visne cannot come CCCLVIII Taylor and Fisher's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. TAylor brought an Action of Trespass against Fisher for entring into his House and taking and carrying away of his Goods To which the Defendant pleaded That before the Trespass supposed one A. was possessed of the said Goods and the said Goods being in the House of the said Plaintiff the said A. sold them to the Defendant by force whereof he was possessed And so possessed came to the Plaintiffs House where c. And by assent and licence of the Plaintiffs Wife he entred into the said House and carried away the said Goods c. Vpon which there was a Demurrer It was holden That the same is no plea for there is no Colour given to the Plaintiff and the licence given by the Wife is not any matter for the justifying of the Entry And as to the Goods the plea was holden good For if A. might sell them being in the House of another and not in his own possession is scrupulous to the Lay-people Wray If the Goods of the Defendant were in the House of the Plaintiff with the knowledge of the Defendant it had perhaps been a good plea but that is not alledged here Cook 30 E. 3. 23. In Trespass for breaking of his Pound the Defendant said That he came to the place where the Cattel were impounded and there found the Plaintiffs Wife to whom he offered Pledges for the Cattel impounded to make Amends according to reason and prayed to have deliverance of the Cattel and the Plaintiffs Wife delivered them without that that he brake the Pound c. And it was said That this want of Colour is but matter of form which he ought to have alledged upon his Demurrer or otherwise he shall not have advantage of it Wray Iustice The Defendant in his plea doth not meet with the Plaintiff Therefore the plea is not good in substance It was Adjourned CCCLIX Downhall and Catesby's Case Pasch 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Formedon by Downhall against Catesby 4 Len. 113. the parties were at Issue And it was tryed by Nisi prius It was moved in Banco because that some of the Iurors did eat and drink before that they gave their Verdict That the Court would not receive the Postea The Court said That we cannot do here for we do not know if your Information be false or not and that matter ought to have been examined by the Iustices of Nisi prius and they ought to certifie us of it and then we shall have good cause to stay it And it was then said there That if any of the Iurors eat and drink before the Verdict at their own Costs that the same doth not make the Verdict void but otherwise if it be of the Costs of the Plaintiff or the Defendant CCCLX Withrington and Delabar's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Appeal of Murder by Withrington against Delabar of the death of her Husband The Defendant pleaded never accoupled in lawful Matrimony And pleaded over Not guilty The Plaintiff replyed Lawfully accoupled but did not reply over to the Felony It way moved as a discontinuance of the whole Wray If the Defendant pleads matter tryable at the Common Law and over to the Felony there the Plaintiff ought to reply to both but where the first matter is not tryable by the Common Law there the same is not needful Quod caeteri Justiciarii concesserunt CCCLXI. Lake's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. STephen Lake Commissary of the Bishop of Canterbury Fr. Alredge Register and R. Hunt Apparitor were endicted of Extortion that they colore officiorum suorum had malitiose accepted and received 11 s. 6 d. for the Absolution of one B. who was excommunicated where they ought to have but 2 s. 6 d. And Exception was taken to this Indictment because that all their Offences are put together scil colore Officiorum suorum whereas the particular Offence of every Offendor ought to be specially set down but here they are confounded Which see by the Statute of 25 E. 3. 9. That Ordinaries shall not be impeached by such general Indictments unless they say and put in certain In what thing and of what and in what manner the said Ordinaries have committed Extortion But that Exception was not allowed for of that the party grieved cannot have notice for they took in gross and afterwards parted it betwixt
the acknowledgment of a Deed to himself A. 184. No Action or Indictment lies against one for an offence done as Judge A. 295 323 324. Upon a Justicies the Sheriff in person is Judge else all is coram non Judice B. 34. If Justices of Assise and Gaol-Delivery can take an Indictment of Trespass B. 117. A Justice of Peace cannot commit one for making a Contract against Law B. 210. What Indictment cannot be taken before Judges of Assise and Gaol-Delivery C. 216. Iusticies None but the Sheriff himself can hold Plea thereby B. 34. No Capias in Execution thereupon B. 86. Iustification By a Constable in false Imprisonment for that the Plaintiff would leave her Child to the Parish A. 327. By Prescription for a Way the Defendant must shew a quo ad quem locum certain the Way leads B. 10. By the Bailiffs of a Corporation to imprison any Subject at their pleasure for a misbehavior not good B. 34 35. If the Constable plead that he set one in the Stocks for not Watching he must aver that the party dwells in his Parish C. 208 209. K. King. See Prerogative WHat is given to the King by a Statute of Attainder which gives all rights c. A. 272. Not necessary to summon the King for matter in the Kings Bench for he is there always present A. 325. Quid operatur by assignment of a Debt to the King B. 31 55 67. C. 234. A Bond for performance of Covenants may be assigned to the King but no Execution before the party be warned B. 55. The Kings Widow cannot Marry without the Kings consent B. 141. If he may alter the Tenure notwithstanding the Stat. Quia emptores terrarum B. 151 163. C. 58. Takes nothing but by Record B. 206 207. No usurpation puts the King out of possession of an Advowson C. 17 18. What Debts may be assigned to the King B. 55. C. 234. L. Law. LEX Idumaea quid C. 264. Lex mercatoria is a publick Law and the Judges take notice so of it C. 264. Lex non praecipit inutilia If it appear the Plaintiff cannot have the thing demanded the Writ shall abate A. 330 331. Leases Power to make Leases by Stat. not pursued C. 72. Made be vertue of a power reserved to make Leases for 21 years shall not be to commence post â—xpirationem c. A. 35. Of Sheep and a Farm A. 42. What kind of property the Lessee hath in the Trees A. 49. Without Impeachment of Wast how construed Ibid. Excepting Woods Timber-Trees c. if the Soil it self is excepted A. 116 117 247. Where a Licence to occupy amounts to and shall be pleaded as a Lease A. 129. Covenant that the Covenantee shall enjoy c. is a good Lease Contra that a Stranger shall c. A. 136. For years may commence in futuro A. 171. Upon a Lease for years in remainder there must be Attornment Ibid. What words amount to a Lease A. 178. By Baron and Feme not good without Deed A. 204. For years if the Lessee so long live and if he die within the Term the remainder to J. S. The remainder is void A. 218. C. 154. Where an uncertain commencement may be ascertained by the entry or election of the Lessee A. 227. B. 1. Must have an end and beginning certain A. 245. C. 86. Lease for life cannot commence in futuro unless by way of remainder A. 275 276. None can take by it but those who are party to the Deed A. 287 288. What are void what only voidable A. 307. One Man exposuit ad culturam his Land to two the two have no Estate A. 315. To commence after a former if the former were void ab initio or since the first shall begin presently B. 11. What is a Lease for years or at will B. 78. By a several Habendum to commence after the expiration of several former Leases whether the new Lease begin till all the other be expired B. 106. Lease for so many years as J. S. shall name is good if he name in the life of both parties C. 86. Lease out of a Lease for so many years as shall be to come at the Lessors death Ibid. Lease of Lands by Lessee for years worth 8 l. per annum until the Lessee levy 100 l. what interest is left in the Lessee C. 157. Lease for 60 years and if the Lessee die within the Term that then his Executors shall have until the end of the Term C. 196 197. Leet Who is Judge there and what things are incident to a Leet A. 217 218. When to be holden by the Common Law and by the Statute B. 74. Legacy What is a good assent by an Executor to a Legacy A. 129 130. C. 6. Not payable without demand A. 17. Where and what election shall make one who is Executor and Legatee to be in by the Devise or as Executor A. 216. Payable to an Infant at his full age his Executor may sue for it before the time of his age A. 278. What Devise is a Legacy what not B. 119 120. Lieu and County Where Plea shall be ill after Verdict for want of alledging a place B. 22 76 77 146 147. C. 10. Where necessary in an Indictment B. 183. No place necessary where a Feoffment or Lease for life was made B. 31 32. Where the taking of the profits of Lands is alledged it must be said to be done at the Vill where the Lands lie N. 238. Limitation of Estates To A. and B. his Wife for years if they or any of their Child or Children live so long A. 74. What words make a Condition what a Limitation A. 167 168 244 245 298 299. B. 38 114. To the Feoffor for life and after his death to his Executors for 20 years in whom the Term is vested B. 5 6. C. 21 22. To A. for life and if A. die within 20 years to his Executors for so many years B. 6 7. C. 21 22. One having Issue a Son and a Daughter by several venters Devised to his Son and the Heirs of the Body of the Father how adjudged B. 24 25 26. Mannor of O. in S. use limited of all Lands in O yet the Mannor passeth not B. 47. The moiety of Lands to his Wife for years and his eldest Daughter to enter into the other moiety and the Daughter married and died without Issue having another Sister C. 25 26. To J.S. and his Issue imposterum procreand the present Issue take nothing C. 87. Lands given to A. for the Life of C. and B. the death of either determines the Estate C. 103. Grant to two habend moiety to one and moiety to the other good But grant of two Acres habend to two habend one to one and the other to the other is void C. 126. Limitation of Time. If a Corporation must alledge Seisin within the time limited by the Statute in real Actions A. 153. Livery of Seisin Made before enrolment