this rent for this is forced in by the name of land which is absurd and contrary and here is not any fine levied directly of the rent nor any Silver of the King paid for that but only by the judgement of consequence and now for the Statutes of fines whether it is a fine within these Statutes and I hold that it is not and I am of opinion that if the rent had been behinde before all the dayes of proclamation pass and the issue had accepted that he is remitted and the same law is if Tenant in taile of such a rent and he acknowledge such a fine with proclamations and the proclamations pass now if his issue had accepted the rent before the proclamations passed he is remitted and now for the Statute of 32. H. 8. that is not taken by equitie because it is a Statute of explanation which regularly may not be inlarged and so appears in Butler and Bakers case and now for the agreement it self that is not any thing for this is by a contrary name which may not be good like to the case of the Lord Cromwel for there was an agreement to raise a rent by fine but here is an agreement to pass a rent by another name and will any man say that if a man agree to levie a fine of rent by the name of an advowson that this will pass the rent and I think that the case of Thornton is good law and so is also the case which is put after that of the advowson and yet I agree if Tenant in tail do accept a fine with render to another for years that shall bar him because that doth not work a discontinuance but otherwise where it is for life and so in my opinion the rent remains and the avowant shall have judgement The argument of the Lord chief Justice Hobert HObert to the contrary the short question is whether the rent is extinct by the fine of the land and I hold that it is and it is agreed it is a bar against the parties themselves though not against the issue and that being granted I see no second reason wherefore the issue shall not be barred and first I am of opinion that this plea of not comprised it is not good because this fine doth work by way of release but it was said at the bar that things ought to pass litterally in a fine which I denie and also every informalitie of a fine which is cause to reject that is not a cause to frustrate that when that is levied and the words of the Statute are of any lands Tenements or hereditaments any wise intailed and if there be any word in the conveyance which will carry that it is sufficient and it shall be put upon the construction of the law and as to that that the fine shall be according to the writ of covenant but I say if there be no writ of covenant then there is no departure but it was said that the Silver of the King was not paid which I also denie for it was paid inclusively and the words of the Statute are of any thing any wise intailed and Tenant in taile had as great power to pass that by fine as Tenant in fee simple and for the case of Thornton I know he was a learned man but let it suffice that he was so esteemed but for his opinion I do utterly denie that and I do denie the case put by my brother Hutton of the Piscary for I hold if a man had a Piscary in another mans land and levies a fine of that by the name of land this will pass the Piscary clearly and so the same if a man have an office appertaining to land intailed and a fine is levied of that by the name of the land this shall bar the issue and I denie that Statutes of explanation shall alwayes be taken litterally for it is impossible that an Act of Parlâ—ament should provide for every inconvenience which happens and so the case of Godfrey and Wade adjudged that the fine of the youngest son may not bar the eldest and yet within the words the eldest was heir to him but this word heir shall be expounded as his heir and so we use to expound the Statute of 4. H. 7. which is an original Statute and bindes parties and privies and here the eldest brother is not privie for he claimes before him and so I conclude that the rent is gone and judgement was given accordingly Sir Robert Hitcham against Brooks SIr Robert Hitcham Serjeant of the King brought an action upon the case against Brooks and set forth in his declaration that he was one of his Majesties Serjeants at law and that the Defendant spoke these words of him I doubt not but to prove he innuendo Sir Robert Hitcham hath spoken treason and upon not guiltie pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement by Hendon first because it is not a direct affirmation that he spake treason but he doubts not but to prove that like to Penticosts case which was adjudged here where one Baker said of him I will prove that Penticost was perjured and no action will lie because he did not directly affirm that he was perjured Secondly because he had not shewed when he spoke those words and perchance it was in his infancie or lunacie or before the general pardons Thirdly here is not any allegation of any conference had of the King before and the speach of Treason is not Treason but when there is an intent to commit that and words shall be taken in the best sence as the case of Stanhop Cook 4. and so in the case between the Earl of Shrewsbury and Sir Thomas Stanhop one laid to Sir Thomas Stanhop that the Earl is a subject nay said Sir Thomas that is his grief and adjudged those words are not actionable and yet the words might be taken as if he had repined to have a Soveraign but the words were taken in the best sence Finch to the contrary this is more then a bare affirmation for he said he doubted not but to prove that asmuch as if he had said I am sure of that and Mich. 16. Iac. Sidnams case where one said I think in my conscience that if Sir Iohn Sidnam might have his will he would kill the King and all his good subjects and adjudged upon a writ of error brought of that the words are actionable and so in Whorewoods case so sure as you beleeve that God rules the world and that the King rules the Kingdome so sure did Whoorwood steal such goods and adjudged to be actionable and yet perchance the partie to whom he spake did not beleeve either of them and so Woods case 18. Iac. I will call him in question for killing of a man I will pawn my shirt but I will hang him and so here and prayed judgement for the Plantiff Ashley Serjeant contray words which may be taken
it is that if the Lord had seisin of more then the very services in this case it may not be avoyded in avowry and no fall tenure shall be avoyded c. but when he joyns another falsity and that is in the quantity of land now the false quantity of the rent had made the tenure traversable and the judgement was commanded to be entred accordingly Trin. 19. Jac. Thomas Bull Executor c. against Fankester THomas Bull Executor of William Bull brought an action against Fankester and declared that the Defendant enfeoffed his Testator in certaine land and that he covenanted for him and his heirs that he was seised of a good estate in fee and he alleadged the breach upon which they were at issue and now Attoe moved in arrest of judgement first because the Plantiff sueing as Executor had not shewed the Will for it hath been adjudged here that if a man bring an action as executor and do not shew the Will that the Defendant may demurre upon that because it is matter of substance but Hobert said it is very good because the Defendant had admitted him to be responsible but it is true he might have demurred upon the declaration as we often times adjudged here secondly Attoe said that the covenant being made with the heire the executor shall not have an action of covenant for it is annexed to the land which was granted by Hobert and Winch being only present in the Court. Note that it was said at the barre and agreed by Hobert that if the debtor make the dettee his executor he may now retain in debt against him and safely plead plene administravit if he had no other goods and shall not be driven to his special plea and so it had been agreed often times in this Court Parson and Morlees case PArson and Morlees case it was said that the Lord Chancellour presented to a venefice which belonged to the King which was above the yearly value of 20. l. per annum and this was referred to Hobert chief Iustice and to Tanfield chief Barron to certifie whether this was meerly void it remained good till it was avoyded Harris against Wiseman HArris had procured a prohibition against Wiseman who had libelled in the spiritual Court against the Plantiff for a frat in the Church which did belong to his house and it was said by Hobert and Winch only present that a man or a Lord of a mannor who had any Isle or a seat in the Church c. and he is sued for that in the spiritual Court he shall have a prohibition but not every common parishioner for every common seat and upon the first motion at the barre in this case day was given over to the Defendant to shew cause wherefore that a prohibition shall not be granted and the Defendant not having notice of that after the day the Plantiff had a prohibition and now after the day he shewed a good cause and upon that a supersedeas was granted to stay the prohibition in that case Aylesworth against Harrison AYlesworth against Harrison in debt against an executor the question was whether he may plead plene Administravit and give in evidence a debt in which the Testator was indebted to him or whether he may plead the special matter that plea amounting but to the general issue and it was argued by Harris Serjeant the Defendant may plead the special matter and shall not be bound to the general issue to leave that to the lay people who may suppose such a retainer to be an administration and he vouched the 15. E. 4. 18. if a man illiterate seale a deed which is read to him in another manner c. and he delivers that as an escrow to be delivered over as his deed upon conditions performed and this is delivered over before the conditions performed he may in this case plead the special matter and conclude so not his deed or if he will he may plead the general issue of non est factum and so is 39. H. 6. in dower the Tenant said that before marriage the husband infeoffed him and that after the Tenant let to him at Will and that the husband continued possession during his life absque hoc that he was seised of such an estate of which she might have dower and exception was taken there because that this only amounts to the general issue and yet ruled to be good for the lay people may conceive such a continuance of possession during the life of the lessee to be such an estate of which the wife may have dower if this were put upon the general issue and in our case because he had liberty to plead specially or generally he prayed that the Defendant may be admitted to plead specially and that he may not be bound to the general issue Serjeant Hendon to the contrary if one plead a plea which amounts to the general issue see Layfields case Coo. 10. and though in Woodwards case commentaries there was such a plea pleaded yet this doth not prove the contrary for in the same case no exception was taken by the Plantiff and presidents do prove that the Defendants in this kind have been compelled to plead the general issue Hobert if no special matter may be alleadged to the contrary the Defendant shall be compelled to plead the general issue and this is good discretion in the Court to take away the perplexity of pleading because one plea is as good as the other to which Winch being only present agreed and it was ordered that the Defendant here plead accordingly In debt against the heire upon the obligation of his father and in the declaration the Plantiff omitted these words obligo me et hered es meos c. and after error brought the Plantiff prayed that this might be amended because it was the misprision of the Clark only Hobert and Winch said that this shall not be amended for it is a matter of substance but because the clark who made this misprision was a good clark day was given over c. Widdow Archers case IN debt against the Widdow of Archer being executrix of her husband and the Plantiff declared that neither the Testator in his life nor the executrix after his death had paid that omitting those words licet saepius requisitus c. and evil but this omission was amended Sir Edward Grubham against Sir Edward Cooke SIr Edward Grubham brought an audita querela against Sir Edward Cooke upon a recognizance of 4000. l. and this was acknowledged to the use of his Mother and shewed that the conusor had infeoffed him and another in the land and that the conusee had sued execution only against him and it was found for the Plantiff and it was so moved in arrest of judgement by Ashley Serjeant first because he had not shewed in this audita querela when the Statute was certified nor yet the Teste nor yet the return of the writ of extent
sold them the debtor may accompt it his follie that he sold them not before the day of the suit but if in our case the money is payable presently he had then no time to sell them for certainly the meaning of the Statute was in this to give time to the Conusor to allien and to sell his goods and so of a recognisance taken before the chief Iustice upon the Statute of the 23. H. 8. without question a day ought to be limitted when that shall be paid and there ought to be the seal of the partie and the seal of the King and the day of the payment specified and my first reason wherefore this Statute is void is because when an act of Parliament limits jurisdiction or power to any inferiour man he ought to pusue his limitted jurisdiction precisely in all the substantial points as the Statute of Magna Charta limits that he shall hold his turn viz. the Sheriff within one moneth after Michaelmas or Easter now if he hold that but 2. dayes after it is void And the reason is he ought to pusue this limitted jurisdiction and then what difference is between those several jurisdictions and I cannot compare that to a better case Cook 10. then to Neufages case upon the Statute of the 23. H. 6. if the Sheriff do take an obligation for an appearance if it do not appear in the condition when the day of appearance is then this obligation is void for the day of appearance ought to appear expresly and not to leave this to the construction of the law and then what difference is there between our case indeed contracts may be many times made good by reference but so may not a Recognizance and yet 17. Edw. 4. a man made a contract to give so much for Corn when he saw that and the contract by the Iustices was awarded void because that no day was set when that should be paid and see the book which is I conceive that if the contract had been to pay when he took the Corn it had been good and so here if a man had such a jurisdiction he ought to pursue that precisely and for that the day in all those cases ought to be observed and a fortiori in our case and an other reason is out of the presidents in all times and though there may be some few which doth pass sub silentio yet I do not value them according to Slades case Cook 4. and 5. Edw. 4. and all the subsequent Statutes since the Statute of Acton Burnel are but declarations and additions to this Statute and as Grants case upon the Statute of 32. H. 8. nay that is not only a Statute of explanation but is also an original Statute but the Statute of 34. H. 8. of Wills is meerly a Statute of explanation and for that reason in Buckler and Bakers case is Cook 3. that Act to be construed precisely according to the word and no new interpretation may be made of that and for an answer to that which my brother Iones said that here is a day equevolent to an express day for it is implied in law to be paid presently according to the case of an obligation but I say that in this case there is a diversitie in our books in the case of an obligation 14. Edw. 4. 14. H. 8. 29. and other books whether this is payable presently or upon request and therefore in a case so dubious it is not fit to make an ignorant Maior to judge another case by the rule of this case being so dubious and so doubtful for if in this case it be not payable without a request then this is matter of fact and not triable before him nay the Statute of mercatoribus it self appoints that the day be mentioned and so both the Statutes do mention that there ought to be a day of payment appointed and fixed in the Statute and then wherefore shall we make construction that an implyed day will so serve the turn and in the Statute de mercatoribus the form of the writ is set down which doth expresly mention a day and so I think there is not any doubt but that if it were a Recognisance upon the Statute of of 23. H. 8. for default of day it shall be void and so in our case and so he said the audita querela lies well The argument of Justice Winch. VVInch to the contrary and because the effect of his argument was to the same purpose with that of justice Iones and of the Lord Hobert I will report that but briefly and he said that he held this to be within the Maiors jurisdiction for the purpose and the entent of this Statute is to give securitie to the Merchant creditor and for that reason the day is not material but I will insist upon two things veritatem facti and considerationem legis here is a good contract and for that it ought to be paid presently and if there had been no other matter but this that it had been payable at a day past this had been good for the mistake of the Clark must not make any Statute to be void but yet I grant if this were part of the jurisdiction this ought to be pursued precisely as the law doth prescribe but a pettie addition or omission so that be not in point of substance will not hurt that and this is not part of the jurisdiction but it is to the Statute according to the intentions of the parties and the day is only part of their agreement but it hath been said that this had been idle for the Statute shall not be taken so to pay presently but I say the contrary for though he had not his money in his hand yet he will not trust him but will have his securitie and yet I agree to the difference before that there ought to be a time certain and not to be proved after by averment and here when no time is fixed this is payable presently but there shall need to be a request then I hold it is out of the Statute and when Satutes are obscure they ought to be interpreted according to the rules of the common Law and as to the case of an obligation it is payable presently and we ought to intend that the Maior takes notice that this ought to be paid presently for ignorance of the law is not supposed of any besides if this Statute be absolutely void then the partie is without remedy and in such a case we ought to bâ— favourable in our expression and so I conclude against the audita querela The argument of the Lord chief Justice Hobert HObert chief Iustice to the same intent I hold that the Statute is good and we ought to beware how we destroy assurances except it be upon good and sure grounds and it is a perilous case to make an ignorant man to lose his right by a slip and we ought to be the more warie
then she granted the next avoydance that in this case the grantee shall have the next which may be granted and the reason is because she may not dispose of the estate of another but if in this case the course be evict by title Paramount of the King then the grantee had lost that and he cited the case of Brook presentation 52. and Gilbie and Iuxtons case which was directly adjudged with the case of Brook in which he was in councel as he said and he said that the book of 15. H. 7. is not to be relied upon for Law and he cited quare Impedit 154. and said that the King in this case shall not have the presentation against the devisee for he had a title setled before the title of the King for though the prerogative of the King is more antient yet his title is subsequent and he cited divers cases where the title of the subject was before the title of the Kâ—ng and so the case of the 15. H. 7. was adjudged that he may not out the grantee of the next avoydance and I think there is much difference between a patron of inheritance and he who had only a turn to present for there if the prerogative shall hold place he had lost all the fruite of his title and he said our antient books are that the King shall not have any prerogative except he himself be patron but admit he had then he had dispenced with that for the Commendam may not be for years and the Commendam did not make any alteration but only a dispensation and the case in Dyer shews that he remained parson to resign and shews plainly that the King had lost it true it is there are some few precedents of these Commendams but there are none in our books and for the assumption of the Bishoprick it is all one with England for the 17. Ed. the third the Bishopricks are donatives and Fitz N. B. 169. 14. Ed. 3. 26. Plowden 44. and the books are the Common Law that we have and he shewed some precedents of these Commendams to the Court and shewed the case of the Earl of Kildare where the incumbent had a Church with cure in England and an other in Ireland and void for the Pluralitie and 16. Eliz. Thorn-Borrow Parsonage was void when the incumbent was made Bishop of Ireland and Bancrofts case who was Deau in Ireland and then was made Bishop of London and it waâ— holden his Deanry was void and 4. Iac. Dod was made Bishop of N. and the Chancellor here in the right of the King presented to the living and if a beneficed man do take a Bishoprick by the very taking of that his benefice is void by the consecration clearly by the Lawes of the land for they are two incompatible benefices and may not by any means stand together and so upon the whole matter in regard that by the assumption of the Bishoprick the benefice was void by the very consecration and if the King had any title this was satisfied by his Licence and dispensation to hold that in Commendam and so he held the Plantiff shall be barred The argument of the Lord chief Justice Hobert HObert chief Iustice of the same opinion and after a Brief Recital of the case said that his opinion was that the Plantiff shall be barred upon the most of his case S. admitting that Clardon did live above the 6. years so that the King did present Gee in point of prerogative yet the Plantiff had not title upon the most of his matter much less upon the viciousness of his pleading and first we are to deal with the avoidance of benefices with their compatibles and then with the Commendams of the King and first I hold if a beneficed man take a Bishoprick he hath clearly lost his benefice by his consecration by the lawes of the Land for they are two incompatible benefices and they mâ—y not stand together but in this we must distinguish in this manner first a benefice may be void by subordination as where one is made Bishop of the same Diocess in which his Parsonage is this is the very reason of Dyer 158. and 8. Ed. 3. 9. where a Prebend of the same Church is made a Dean but otherwise if he be made Dean of another Church and so my opinion is if a Bishop be made an Arch-Bishop of the same province where his Bishoprick is nay if there is Parson and Vicar of the same Parish with cure and the Vicar accept the Parsonage the Vicaridge is void for the Vicaridge was derived out of the Parsonage our books say it was a long time before they would give the Vicar any estate and the reason was because here was a Corporation erected without Lawful Authoritie chiefly by the ordinary with the consent of the Patron and this case hath not his fellow in the Law and it is de novo that it is made for ab nitio non suit sic and that also had inabled him to bring an action against the Parson and also it gave to him a freehold but the chief reason was he eased the Parson in his dutie and therefore good reason he should have part in the profit but in our case the reason of the subordination doth fail for he is Bishop of another Diocess S. in Ireland and therefore we ought to search for another reason and without doubt the Law is all one in that also and this is ratione eminentiae by reason of the dignitie of a Bishop and so is Packhursts case in Dyer ruled without any exception and the case of the 44. Ed. 3. where one who had been prebend in England was made Bishop in Ireland and ruled the prebendary to be void and because the office of a Bishop and a Parson do differ in the eminencie therefore a Bishop may not be a Parson and now for the other point whether the King had a prerogative or no I spare to speak because there is no necessitie to draw that into question for the Plantiff had admitted that and the Defendant had not denied it but for the Commendam I do not make question but the King may make one and so may the Arch Bishop but the power of the Arch-Bishop is potestas limitata but the King had a double power one by antitient title before any claim made by the Pope and the other by the Statute but now for the other point I think it is a Commendam for years and first I hold if the case had been that he should hold that in Commendam with his Bishoprick in pristino Statu that had taken away the power of the King to present afterwards and the reason is plain for the prerogative is to present to that which is void by the assumption of the Bishoprick which doth never hap for by the Commendam he had that still as before but here the Commendam is for years and if he do also resign during the
TERM In the 19. of KING JAMES in COMMON BENCH Easter Term. 19. Jac. IT was said by Warberton Iustice that in the time when Anderson was chief Justice of this Court that it was adjudged that where a Coppiholder alleadged a custom within a Mannor to be that every Coppiholder may cut trees at his pleasure that this custome is against common Law and also his opinion was that where a custome was alleadged to be that if a Tenant in antient Demesne devise his land to another without other words expressing his intent that the devisee shall have the fee simple Hobert inclined to this opinion and by Hutton and Winch he shall have fee by the custome and accordingly it was adjudged Norton against Lakins Ent. Hill Jac. NOrton against Lakins Ent. Hill 18. Jac. in debt upon an obligation the condition was to stand to the arbitrement of J. S. and the Defendant pleaded that he made no arbitrement the Plantiff shewed the award and the breach And the case in effect was that the Plantiff and the Defendant put themselves upon the arbitrement of J. S. of all matters between them till the first of March 18. Iac. and he made an award that each shall release to the other matters and differences between them till the ninth day of March 18. Jac. and it was argued by Serjeant Henden that the award is void for by their release the obligation upon which this action is brought is discharged but it was ruled to be a good award for though it shall be void for that part of the award yet it shall be good for the rest but Winch doubted of the case Reynolds against Poole Ent. Hill 18. Jac. Rot. 641. REynolds against Pool Ent. Hill 18. Iac. Rot. 641. Reynolds libelled in the spiritual Court against Pool for the Tithes of a Park and Pool prayed to have a prohibition and he shewed that he and all those whose estate he had in the Park had held this as a Park till the 11. of Eliz. at which time it was disparked and that time beyond memory c. the occupiers had used to pay to the vicar of the parish a Buck in Summer and a doe in winter in lieu and satisfaction of all Tithes due to the Vicar And it was argued by Serjeant Henden that this is not a sufficient cause to grant a prohibition because that now the Park is destroyed and sowed and so the prescription fails for it was annexed to the Park secondly the question is for the Tithes of corn and those do appertain to the Parson and not to the Vicar and he cited a case between Hawk and Collins in this Court there the prescription was that he and all those whose estate he had had used to pay to the Vicar a certain thing in leâ—u and satisfaction of all Tithes due to the Parson and for this a prohibition was denyed Sherley he had preserved that he had used to pay this to the Vicar and this shall be intended for Tithes due to the Vicar and not to the Parson Serjeant Ashley to the contrary and that the prescription is good for this extends to the soyle and not to the Park Hobert said that Tithes of corn are sometime payable to the Vicar and not alwayes to the Parson for put the case that at the time of the derivation of the Vicarage out of the Parsonage the composition was that the Vicar shall have the Tithes of that Park in thâ—s case by reason of such general terms he shall have the Tithe of hay corn deer or any other thing which grows in that And the composition being made before time of memory no man can say but that it was made in such manner and the case of Okenden Cowper in this Court in which the Court was divided differed from this case for there the prescription was to pay a Buck arising and coming out of the Park and there was no deer left in the Park and Hutton agreed for there he destroyed his own prescription and he agreed with Bracies case put after for there was a contrariety in the prescription Warberton the case of Bracie in this Court was that the Parson libelled against him for the Tithe of corn where this was due to the Vicar and not to the Parson and denyed him for that reason for he may not plead the title of another man and the Parson and the Vicar ought to agree among themselves but in our case no Tithes are to be set out and for that reason he may plead this but it seems to me that the prescription shall go to the soyle and not to the Park when it is destroyed he shall pay Tithes in kind as a garden or an orchard so long as it is used as a garden or an orchard that the occupier of that shall pay a peny now if this be ploughed and converted to other use he shall pay Tithes in kinde and Hobert agreed to the case of the garden or orchard for the penny is paid for the herbs or fruite Winch was absent and Hutton said that the prescription shall go to the soyle and the Vicar by prescription may have the herbs of the glbe of the Parson Hobert the Park is only an appellation or name of land and this name or appellation may not pay Tithes but the land it self and put the case that a man had al-wayes paid 10. s. for the Tithes of a meadow and after he sowed that with corn here for the payment of this 10. s. he is discharged Warberton I deny the case of the meadow and so it was adjorned Bartlet against Bartlet Trin Jac. Rot. 1784. TR. 18. Iac. Rot. 1784. Richard Bartlet brought an action upon the case against Thomas Bartlet and he declared upon an accompt and shewed that the Defendant was found in arrerages in 20. l. which he promised to pay when he should be requested and now the Plantiff had not laid any day or place of request in his declaration and Ashley moved in arrest of Iudgement that the declaration is not good for the request is also parcel of the promise but Hobbert chief Iustice said that when a man brings an action upon the case for a thing which was originally a debt the Plantiff need not lay any time or place of the request but when the action is brought for a Collateral thing there he ought to lay a day and place of the request and so it was adjudged according in the same case King against Bowen Ent. Trin. Jac. Rot. 1755. KIng againk Bowen entered Tr. 18. Iac. Rot. 1755. William King brought an action upon the case against Iohn Bowen for these slanderous words spoken of him King is a false foresworn knave and took a false oath against me at a commission at Witham and the Defendant Iustified the words and it was found for the Plantiff and Henden said that it had been alleadged in arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable and he said
that he agreed if one say of another that he was foresworn in a Court which is not a Court of record that none action will lye because the party is not punishable for that in perjury but in our case the commission issued out of the high Commission Court which Court to the examination of witnesses is in nature of a temporal Court and had been confirmed by act of Parliment and Serjeant Harvey argued to the contrary that the first words are not actionable and then the subsequent words are uncertain and yet if one say of another that he was foresworn at the Common Pleas barre the words are actionable for it shall be intended that this was upon examination in the execution of Iustice Hobert if a man is foresworn in a Court Baron before the Steward this is perjury but in our case the words are altogether uncertain for it doth not appear what authority the Commissioners had nor yet in what manner he was forsworn and Iustice Hutton said if one man say of another he was foresworn before the Bishope of S. this is not actionable but if one say of another that he was forsworn before the Bishop of S. upon examination by him by vertue of a Commission issuing out of the Chancery this is actionable and Hutton agreed to the case of the Court Baron the same Law by him if that be in a Court Leete but in the principal case Iudgement was arrested Wase against Pretty Ent. Hill 16. Jac. Rot. 1716. WAse against Pretty Ent. Hill 16. Iac. Rot. 1716. in an ejectione firme the case was that one joynt Coppiholder did release to his companion and the question was whether this is good without surrender and admittance for it was objected if this shall be good then a Coppihold shall pass without the assent of the Lord but it was resolved by Hobert Warberton and Winch Hutton being absent that the release is good and Warberton said that by Littleton if 3. Ioyntenants are and one of them release to another he to whom the release is made is in by the releasor but if there are but two then he is in by the Lord or from the first conveyance Winch if two Ioyntenants are in capite and one release to the other the King shall not have a fine for this Alienation but Hobert said that the practice is otherwise at this day but he said that when one joynt Tenant releases to another he is in by the first conveyance and in the case in question the release shall be good without surrender and admittance for the first admittance is of them and of every of them and the ability to release was from the first conveyance and admittance it seems if a Tenant in Capite alien upon condition and afterwards he enters for the condition broken he shall not pay a fine for such an alienation Hitcham Serjeant said that if land be given to two upon condition that they shall not alien and one releaseth to the other this is no breach of the condition Hobert if the King grant you his demeasnes you shall not have his Copihold Winch said that it was adjudged in this Court that where one erected a house so high in Finsbury fields by the wind mills that the wind was stopped from them that it was adjudged in this case that the house shall be broken down Goddard against Gilbert GOddard brought an action upon the case against Gilbert for these words thou art a thiefe and hast stolen 20 loads of my furzes and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and it was moved in arrest of judgement by Hitcham that these words are not actionable for though the first words of themselves had been actionable yet when those words are coupled with other words which do extenuate them it is then otherwayes for if a man say thou art a thiefe and hast stollen my apples or my wood it shall be intended that the apples and the wood were growing and he said there is no difference to say in this case you are a thiefe and have stollen 20 loads of my furzes but it was said by Iustice Warberton that the furzes shall be intended to be cut for that is the most natural and proper signification of the words and Hobert chiefe Iustice said that it is true that it is the most proper signification of the words but yet they are furzes when they are growing as well as when they are cut down and Hobert chief Iustice said if a man say of another thou art a thief and hast stollen my corn in this case the words shall be taken in the better sence and judgement in the principal case ought to be arrested and it was the opinion of him and of Winch that there is no difference where a man said thou art a thief and hast c. and thou art a thief for c. ut supra but it was adjourned Winch Iustice said I was of counsel in the Kings Bench in a case where a man had a window in the backside of his house and another man erected a wall within a yard and half of that in his own ground and adjudged in an action upon the case that the wall shall be broken down Warberton certainly this was an antient house but Winch said that made no difference It was ruled that after imparlance in debt upon an obligation the Defendant shall be received to plead that he was alwayes ready to pay notwithstanding it was strongly urged 13. Eliz. Dyer 306. is to the contrary Gilbert Lewings against Nicholas March. GIlbert Lewings brought an action of covenant against Nicholas March and deâ—lared that Charles Cornwallis had granted the next avoydance to the Church of D. to Thomas March and that Nicholas March was his Executor and that Nicholas March assigned this to Gilbert Lewings his executors and assignes to present to the same Church when that shall become void and covenanted that the same person who shall be so presented by him shall have and enjoy that without the let or disturbance of the said Charles Cornwallis or Nicholas March or any of them or any by their procurement and after Gilbert Lewings presents I. S. and after I. W. presented an other claiming the first and next avoydance by the procurement of Charles Cornwallis and ruled that the declaration was not good for it ought to say that Charles Cornwallis granted to I. w. the next avoydance and procured him to disturbe and that by his procurement he was disturbed Athow It seems to me to be but little difference to say he disseised me by the procurement of I. S. and he commanded I. S. to disseise me and he did that accordingly at his command Sir Edward Sackvil against Earnsby VPon a motion made by Sir Randal Crew in the behalf of Sir Edward Sackvil against Earnsby the case was that two brothers were seised of land to the eldest for life the remainder to the youngest in tail and they
like to the case of a common for a man may prescribe to have common in another mans land for this is but a reception of the profits with the mouthes of his cattle but in our case it is all one as to prescribe to have the land it self and I may not prescribe to have land it self for I may not say that I and my ancestors had used to have such land for such a prescription is void to which Hobert chief Iustice and all the Court agreed as to that point and then to prove that this is all one as to prescribe to have the land it self he said that if a man lets the profits and the herbage of land for years this is a lease of the land it self as was lately adjudged in this Court which was also granted by the Court also he said that this appears by the 27. of H. 8. 12. that a man shall have a praecipe quod reddat of pasturage or herbage but not of common and a formedon lyes of pasturage 4. E. 4. 2. the Regist fo 177. Ejectione firme lyes of pasturage and so he concluded that upon the matter he prescribed to have the land it self but Hobert chief Iustice and all the Court to the contrary that the prescription is good for that may have a good beginning by grant for a man may lawfully grant the pasturage and the feeding of his land when that is not sowed and by consequence if that may be good by grant it may be good by prescription and judgement was commanded to be entered for the Defendant See prescription 51. and 52. In trespass the Defendant pleaded in barre that such a one was seised of land in the right of his wife and that his wife died seised and that he was heire to her entered and gave Colour to the Plantiff the Plantiff replied that the husband and wife were joyntly seised and that the wife died after whose death the husband was seised by Survivor-shipp absque hoc that the wife died seised and Warberton and Hutton being only present the traverse is not good that the wife did not die seised but it ought to be that she did not die sole seised In trespass for the taking of goods in a place in yorkshire and the Defendant justified as servant to the Bishop of Durham and he shewed that the Bishop of Durham had a Faire and that time beyond memory he and his predecessors had used to seise the cattle that were sold if he who bought them refused to pay toll and if the thing taken was not redeemed within such a time he might sell the same And he justified in a place in Durham absque hoc that he was guilty in Yorkshire and by Warberton and Hutton this is a good traverse to the place for it is local If a Capias issued here to have the body of such a one at Westminster such a day and the Sheriff bring the body or return the writ before the day this is good by Iustice Warberton Tutter against Fryer TUtter against Fryer a rent charge was granted for years with a nomine poenae a clause of distress if that was not paid at the day and the rent was behinde the years incurred and it was moved by Athowe that though the years are incurred that he may distrain for the nomine poenae but the Court was of a contrary opinion for that depends upon the rent and the distress is gone as to both of them Duncombe c. against the Bishop of Winchester c. DUncombe and others against the Bishop of Winchester and others Defendants in a Qu Imp. and the case was that Sir Richard Weston was seised of the said Church in fee in grosse and was convicted of recusancy and a Commission issued to certain Commissioners to seise two parts of his lands and goods and they seised this advowson inter alia into the hands of the King and the King granted the advowson to the Plantiff and the Church became void and whether the King or the university of Oxford shall have that was now the question and it was appointed to be argued the next Term. Potter against Turner IN the Kings Bench Pasch 19 Iac. the case between Potter and Turner was as I conceived to this effect A. was indebted to B. in 20. l. and C. was indebted to A. in 30. l. and A. in satisfaction of the debt which he owed to B. assigned the debt of 30. l. which C. owed to him and made a letter of attorney to sue in his name A. and B. acquainted C. with this agreement and C. promised to B. in consideration that he will forbear till such a day that he will pay him the money and upon this promise he brought the action against C. and he pleadded non assumpsit and it was found for the Plantiff And it moved in arrest of Iudgement that the consideration was not sufficient according to Banes case Coke 9. If executors who had not assets promise to pay a debt of the Testator this shall not binde them because they who made the promise were not chargeable but on the other side it was said by Whitwick of our house that this was a good consideration for the assignement of that debt was lawful and no maintenance at all as appears by 15. H. 7. 6. and a recovery by B. against C. is a good plea in barre in an action brought by A. against C. but Dodderidge Houghton and Chamberlin only present to the contrary for B. here had only an authority to sue and this is at all times Countermandable by A. As if I deliver goods to my servant to deliver over to I. S. and I. S. promise my servant that in consideration that he will deliver them to him he will give him so much money this is no consideration except that they are delivered accordingly for this is only an authority to deliver goods which is alwayes countermandable by me And Iudgement was entered for the Defendant vide 4. E. 4. 14. Ewer and Vaughan IT was said by Dodderidge and A. in the argument of the case between Ewer and Vaughan that it had been adjudged by all the Iustices in one Trewmans case that no writ of error lyes of a judgement given in the Stanneryes in Cornwal A Prohibition to the Admiralty MAny poor Marriners sued one Iones the Master of a ship for wages in the Admiral Court and judgement was given against Iones and now he prayed to have a prohibition and he suggested that the contract was made at London in England and so the suit was not maintainable in the Admiral Court but the prohibition was denyed because he had not sued his prohibition in due time viz. before a judgement given in the Admiral Court which in point of discretion they disallowed and also these are poor Marriners and may not be delayed of their wages so long and besides they may all joyn in a Libel in the Admiral Court but
if they sue here they must bring their actions several for they may not joyn here in an action and therefore it is good discretion in the Court to deny the prohibition Pastons case it was said by Hobert that a Coppiholder may hedge and inclose but not where it was never inclosed before and agreed by him and Warberton that a Coppiholder may dig for Marle without any danger of forfeiture but he ought to lay the said Marle upon the same Coppihold land and not upon other land and this was upon the motion of Hendon Serjeant In a case which concerned the Lady Mollineux and Fulgam the case was in an Ejectione firme that the Iury found the defendant guilty of 10. acres and the judgement was entered of 20. acres and upon that the defendant brought a writ of error in B. R. and now the Plantiff prayed that this might be amended and Finch argued that this ought to be amended and he cited a case Pasch 8. Iac. Rot. 525. Iohn Chilley was Plantiff in debt and recovered and the judgement was that the aforesaid Henry Chilley should recover c. and upon that error was brought in the exchequer chamber and that was assigned for error and yet after Pasch the 9th Iac. this judgement was amended in the Kings Bench and Iohn inserted for Henry and diminution was alleadged and the first judgement was affirmed in the exchequer chamber and he cited a case M. 8. Iac. Rot. 1823. in C. B. dower was brought of 4. Gardens and judgement was given to recover in 3. and upon this error was brought and yet this judgement was afterwards amended and he cited a case Pasch 17. Iac. between Sherley and Underhil in a Qu. Impedit where it was amended after error brought and he vouched one Masons case 12. Iac. in an action upon the case against the husband and the wife for words which were spoke by the wife and judgement was given against them and that the wife capiatur where it should be husband and wife Capiantur and yet this was afterwards amended Hendon contrary after error is assigned it may not be amended in point of substance and the case of Chilley may be good Law for the misnaming only et praedictus Henricus where was no Henricus before could not have other signification or intendment then Iohn who was named before in the record Warberton and Hutton the misnameing Henry for Iohn is matter of substance cleerly and then Hendon said that now the judgement shall not be amended because the prayer of the Plantiff to have that amended came too late because it is after error brought and diminution alleadged and the record certified and then both the parties are concluded but if only a writ of error was brought and no diminution was alleadged that then the judgement may be amended and he said that he had not found in any book where any amendment was after diminution alleadged as here and he cited 22. E. 3. 46. in dower it was assigned for error that no warrant of Atturney was entered for the Defendant and ruled that this may not be assigned for error aâ—ter a scire facias sued see 4. E. 4. 32. but Hobert chief Iustice said that it shall be a brave case that our judgements shall be made good or bad at the pleasure of Clarks and we shall not be able to amend them to which Warberton also agreed And day was given over to speak to that again and after in the same Term this judgement was amended per Curiam Action of debt upon a bond and the Condition was to save the obligee harmless of a nomine poenae against Mary Moore and he pleaded that he had saved him harmless and per Curiam this is not good for if he will plead in the affirmative as here he ought to shew how he had saved harmeless but if he had pleaded in the Negative as he might well then non damnificatus is a good plea generally Harrington against Harrington in accompt HArrington brought an action of accompt against Harrington and declared of the receipt of moneys by the hands of a stranger and the Defendant pleaded in barre a gift of the same money afterwards by the Plantiff to him and it was argued by Towse that this was no plea in barre of an accompt but it is a good discharge before Auditoâ—s and he cited 28. H. 6. 7. Hendon to the contrary and said the opinion of Brian chief Iustice 21. E. 4. is that he may plead that in barre of accompt and Warberton Iustice being only present agreed for by the gift it is his own moneyes and herefore he may plead that in barre It was said by Warberton that if an Advowson is holden of the King and the Tenant alien without licence that the King may not seise that without office which was granted by Hobert and by Winch only present and in the same case by Warberton that a scire facias issuing against the Alienee will not intitle the King but ought to be an office found and it was also said in the same case by Serjeant Iones that the ordinary shall have 28. dayes to examine the ability of one who is presented by the canon Law and the same Canon Law is that the Patron shall not present another during the 28. dayes Goddard against Gilbert GOddard brought an action upon the case against Gilbert thou art a thief and hast stolen 20. load of my furzes and upon non culpabilis pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement by Hitcham for where words may be taken in a double sense one actionable and another not actionable they shall all times be taken in the better sense and in our case to take furzes may be fellony and it may be not fellony for if they are growing they are not fellony and it shall be intended that they were growing rather then cut down and no man will presume that any will take 20. loads of furzes with a fellonius intent because the carriadge of them is visible to all the world for it shall not be intended that he carried those in the night and so he prayed that the Plantiff may be barred Attoe Serjeant contrary words which implies a double signification shall be taken in the worser sense which tends most to the disgrace of the party for they shall be supposed to be spoken in malice and so with a purpose to defame the party and he cited a case Trin. 2. Iac. B. R. Rot. 663. Kellam against Monest thou art a thief and hast stolen my corn and adjudge to be actionable Hobert Warberton and Winch contrary for words shall be taken in the better sense and not in a strained sense to punish the party which spake them as if one say to another I wonder you will eat or drink with him for he hath the pox now every one that heareth that will suppose that he means the french pox and yet in
a legal signification it shall not be taken but in the better sense for the small pox but Warberton said that if one say of another that he is laid of the pox an action lyes for it is intended the french pox and Winch said that those actions of slander were known to law but of late times and for that 26. H. 8. it was thought that an action would not lye for calling another thief and in the principal case judgement was commanded to be entered quod Querens capiat nihil per brevem suum and note that I saw Hobert shew presidents to Winch in a paper which were delivered to him by the Plantiff and drawn by his Councel and he said to Winch that by those it seemed that in the Kings Bench they made a difference between for and and as had been said before and he marvailed much at that In a Capias Ulagatum before judgement the Sherif returned that I. S. and I. N. rescoused the party c. and Attoe moved that the retorn was not good for there ought to be additions by which they may be sued to the outlawry but Hobert and the Court hold this to be good without addition for no statute nor book will compel the Sheriff to give additions in this case And it was said that if the Sheriff in this case retorn that the party himself simul cum I. S. and I. N. made the rescouse that this is not good but in the principal case it was ruled that the return was good and the rescousers which were present were committed to the fleet Homan and Hull were rescousers Vpon the reading of the record the case was that an executor brought an action against one upon a promise made to the Testator in which the executor was nonsuite and 3. l. costs given against him and the Defendant bruught an action of debt upon that recovery against the executors and upon this it was demurred in law and Serjeant Towse said that there are two causes of the demurrer first whether the Defendant shall be charged as executor and is not named executor and secondly whether upon the nonsuite of an executor the Defendant shall have costs by the statute of the 23. H. 8. Hobert chief Iustice said to him you say well Note that it was said by Hobert chief Iustice that if a man dies intestate and he to whom the Administration appertaines is sued by others which pretend to be Administrators and sentence is given against the right Administrator and costs given against him the costs shall not be of the proper goods of the Administrator but of the goods of the intestate as the costs which are spent in the spiritual Court for the provate of a Testament shall be only of the goods of the Testator Hutton if the Legatee sue in the spiritual Court for a Legacy and recovers the costs which he shall recover shall not be of his own goods but of the goods of the Testator and no prohibition shall be granted for any such sentence given in the spiritual Court Hobert to the contrary for if by such means the goods of the Testator are so wasted that the debts and legacies of the Testator may not be discharged a prohibition shall be granted and in every case where the sentence in the spiritual Court crosseth the common law a prohibition lyes and he said that in the case of one Barrow in this Court it was his opinion and the opinion of the rest of the judges that if Administration be committed by force of 21. H. 8. and the Administrator pay all the debts and Legacies that in this case the ordinary had not power to dispose of the rest of the goods to the children of the intestate but they shall remain to the Administrator and that by the very intention of the Statute of 21. H. 8. but Hendon said that he could shew a president of that and the Court desired that they might see that if any such president were LLewellings case VPon the reading of a Record in the case of LLewelling the condition of the obligation was that the obligor should surrender his Copihold land to the use of the obligee and he pleaded that he had surrendered that and upon that plea the Plantiff demurred and it was adjudged upon the opening of the case by Warberton and Hutton being only present in the Court that judgement shall be given for the Plantiff for the plea in barre is not good because the Defendant had not shewed when the Court of the Lord was holden Duncombe against the Vniversity of Oxford In a Qu. Impedit in which Duncombe and others were Plantiffs who were grantees of the King against the University of Oxford and the case was Hill 18. Jac. that Sir Richard weston was seised of an advowson in grosse inter alia and was convict of recusancy and a Commission issued to seise two parts of his land and goods and they seised this advowson inter alia and the King granted the advowson to the Plantiffs and the Church became void and they presented and were disturbed by the University of Oxford and their Clark upon which they brought a Qu. Impedit upon which a demurrer was joyned and Serjeant Iones argued for the Plantiff and there was two points in the case first whether an advowson in grosse is given to the King by the Statute of the 28. of Eliz. and the Statute is that the King shall seise the lands tenements hereditaments of such a recusant convict and whether by the same statute an advowson in grosse shall be seised and he held that it shall for though perchance the word lands and Tenements will not carry that being an advowson in grosse yet this word hereditament will carry it to the King by force of the Satute for it appears by dyer 350. that if the King grant an advowson by the name of an hereditament that in this case this will pass the advowson and for that Coke 10. Whistlers case the King by the grant an of hereditament grants an advowson by such words to a common person then by the same reason a common person may grant that to the King by the same words but it may be objected that because an advowson in grosse is not valuable therefore it is not given to the King and upon this doubt upon the Statute of Wills â— H. 8. the question was whether an advowson was devisable by the name de bonis et Cattallis fellon Butler and Bakers case that they are not devisable for it is not valuable but the 4th Iac. between Taverner and Gooch which case may be seen in the new book of entries that an advowson was devisable before the Statute 5. H. 7. 37. it shall be assets 9. H. 6. 55. recovery in value lyes of that but admit that this is only a thing of pleasure for the advancement of a friend yet that shall be given by the Statute to the King But the second
objection is that though it is given to the King yet it is not extendable upon the Statute by the Commissioners for answer to that see Sir Christopher Hattons case 13. Eliz. cap. 4. upon the Statute of H. 8. which saith if a man be indebted to the King all his lands and Tenements shall be extended for this and it was ruled that an advowson was extendible for the debts of the King and more is given to the King by the Statute of the third of Iaco. then was by the 28. Eliz. for by the 28. of Eliz. the King may not seise the land but upon default of payment of 20. l. by the month but by the Statute of the third Iaco. he may seise presently and no election is given to the party secondly by the Statute 28. Eliz. the seisure of the King was only in the nature of distress for the payment of money but by the Statute of 3. Iac. the King had election to seise to satisfie himself and he may refuse to be satisfied at his pleasure and so the Statute which gives this to the Vniversity doth not take away the title of the King and upon that he concluded and prayed judgement for the Plantiffs Harris Serjeant to the contrary the Statute of 3. Iaco. is the only subject of the doubt and the first branch disables the recusant to present secondly it makes the present action void thirdly after conviction the Vniversity shall present and this in verity is that upon which the doubt is founded and upon that branch he conceived that the King had concluded himself to present to the church of the recusant for he being party himself to that act of Parliament he had dismissed himself of all right and Fortescue in laudibus legum Angliae non sunt ad voluntatem principis sed ad voluntatem totius Regni id est the Statutes of England are not at the will and pleasure of the King but at the will of the whole Kingdome Doctor and Stud. agreed and 14. H. 8. Fo. 7. E. 6. Mounson and the case of Alton woods if the saving of an act of Parliament be repugnant it is void and so upon those cases he inferred that the King being party to every act of Parliament he is bound by that and had dispossessed himself of the advowson by the Statute of the 3. of Iaco. which had given that to the Vniversity and had abrogated the power of the King to seise the advowson by vertue of the act of 28. of Eliz. for otherwise this Statute which gives that to the Vniversity shall bee meerly void and Statutes which are repugnant to former lawes take them away and do not confirme them and though the Statute of the 3. of Iaco. is in the affirmative yet that hath taken away the force of the Statute of the 28. Eliz. but it may be objected that before the recusant is convict the King had but a possibility and then by the Statute of the 3. Iac. the King had not dismissed himself of that which in judgement of the law is but a meer possibility and by consequence because he had nothing at the time of the making of the Statute but a possibility he had not given that over by the same Statute to the Vniversity to this he answered that the King may well give a possibility and a future thing as 9. H. 6. 62. 24. E. 3. 24. 30. E. Eliz. Treshams case and so he concluded because that this is given to the Vniversity by act of Parliament the King being party he had dismissed himself and the 3. Iaco. repeals 28. Eliz. as to that purpose and so he prayed judgement upon the whole matter for the Defendants And it was said by Hobert chief Iustice that this is indeed a case of great weight and importance and the Court agreed that the Statute of the 3. Iacobi gave only a power to the Vniversity of Oxford and not an interest but day was given over to argue this again the next Term. Sir George Savil against Thornton SIr George Savil declared that he was seised in fee and in gross of such a Church and that he presented I. S. his Clark who died and that he presented another and was disturbed by Thornton the incumbent the Defendant pleaded that a long time before the Plantiff had any thing in that the Pryor of D. was seised of the advowson and he being seised such a day granted the next avoydance to one Golding and that the advowson and the Priory came to the hands of H. 8. by the Statute of 31. H. 8. by force of which H. 8. was seised and afterwards the church became void and the executor of Golding who was grantee of the next avoidance presented his Clark who was admitted accordingly and afterwards he died that H. 8. died seised of the advowson which discended to E. 6. and so to Queen Mary and from her to Queen Eliz. who was seised in the right of the Crown and she being so seised granted the next avoidance to one Buckley her Clark who was admitted instituted and inducted after which Queen Eliz. died and the advowson discended to King Iames and in the 7th year of his raign the Church became void and he presented the Defendant the Plantiff by way of protestation said that Queen Mary was never seised nor died seised and by protestation that Queen Eliz. was never seised so that this might discend to King Iames and for plea said that well and true it is that H. 8. was seised and died seised so that this discended to E. 6. and that E. 6. such a year of his raigne granted that to Wyat and his wife in fee who granted that to the Plantiff and that Queen Eliz. presented L. only absque hoc that E. 6. died seised upon that it was demurred in law and he shewed the cause of his demurrer first because the protestations which he had taken in his replication are not good secondly the traverse is not good And it was argued for the Defendant by Bawtry Serjeant that the replication is not good because he had taken that by protestation which is traversable see the principal case of Gresbrook and Fox and see the 22. H. 6. and then for the traverse he held that to be naught First because he had traversed that which was but a mean conveyance Secondly he had traversed that which he had confessed and avoided and thirdly he had not traversed that which he ought not to have traversed and for the first it is put regularly in our books that a mean conveyance shall not be traversed and the descent here from E. 6. is but a mean conveyance and the substance is the presentation of Queen Eliz. and that ought to be traversed 17. H. 7. 2. the Prior of Tower Hills case there it said if in Assise the Tenant plead that the Plantiff was seised who infeoffed one B. who infeoffed C. who enfeoffed the Tenant that it is no
simple shall alwayes be supposed to have continuance if the contrary is not shewed to that he answered that is not so for the book of the 7. H. 7. 8. if in barre of assise the Tenant said that I. S. was seised and gave this is not good because he had not shewed quod fit seisitus existens dedit c. which being in a plea in barre is more strong then in a declaration to prove that a fee shall not be intended to have continuance without an express allegation and so he concluded that the declaration is naught but by Hobert Winch and Hutton it is very good notwithstanding this objection and Winch cited the 13. Eliz. in Ejectione firme where the life of the person was not cleerly alleadged but the declaration only was that the lessor was and yet is seised which was a sufficient averment of the life of the person and so the declaration is good and another exception was taken to the declaration by Hitcham Serjeant because that the Plantiff had declared that the Defendant had made conney borroughs and with the aforesaid conneys had eat up the grass where he had not alleadged any storeing of the coney borroughs before with coneys and then it is impossible they should eat up the grass to the prejudice of the Plantiff but to this it was answered by Serjeant Attoe that though the declaration as to that is naught yet the diging of the coney borroughs is to his prejudice and sufficient to maintaine the action which the Court granted and as to the matter in law Attoe argued for the Plantiff and recited the case to be that E. 3. granted to the Deane and Chapter of Windsor that they shall have free warren in the lands which yet they had not purchased and of which they were not seised at the time whether this is a good grant and shall extend to take effect after the purchase see Buckleys case and be argued that it is not a good grant and he put a difference between a warren and other priviledges which are flowers of the Crown which may be granted infuturo but a warren never was a flower of the Crown and for that reason a grant de bonis et cattallis fellon et fugitivorum may be granted and yet not be in esse at the time of the grant for it is a flower of the Crown and it is said 44. E. 3. 12. that the King may not grant a warren in other mens lands but only in the land of the grantee and upon this he concluded that this grant shall not extend to land after purchased and the rather because it is in the nature of a licence which shall be taken strictly see 21. H. 7. 1. 6. And Hobert chief Iustice said that this word demeans is derived of the French words en son manies and though the Lord of the mannor had the waste in his hands yet he had not the common and as to the confirmation by Ed. 4. they all agreed that this will confirm nothing to him but what was granted by E. 3. himself and then as to the licence pleaded that is of no effect for first the licence is pleaded to be made to one Sir Cha. Haydon and the Defendant did claime under him and this licence was made by the father which will not binde the son who had the land to which the common is appendant after the death of his father for a common may not be extinguished without deed and Hobert and all the Court agreed that the licence of the father will not binde the son and by the Court if nothing is shewed to the contrary within a week judgement shall be given for the Plantiff Davies against Turner DAvies brought a replevin against Turner and he declared of the taking in a place called the Holmes and the Defendant made conusance as bayliff to Sir George Bing for that one Clap held certain land of him by 20. s. rent and suite of Court and for the rent he avowed and alleadged seisin by the hands of Clap the Plantiff said that Chap held 40. acres of land by 9. s. rent fealty and suite of Court absque hoc that he held modo et forma and upon this it was demurred and the single point was this in auowry the Tenant alleadged c. and the question is whether he ought to traverse the tenure or the seisin and it was argued by Henden Serjeant that he ought to traverse the seisin and that the traverse of the tenure is not good and besides here is double matter for the conclusion sounds in barre of the avowry and in abatement of the avowry see a good case 18. H. 6. 6. for the falsness of the quantity of the land and the falsness of the quantity of rent the on goes in barre the other in abatement of the avowry 47. E. 3. 79. 5. H. 6. 4. and affirmed for good law And as to the second point he held the seisin to be traversable and not the tenure and first he said there was a difference between pleading in barre of avowry and in the abatement of the avowry for in barre of the avowry there the seisin is is not traversable by Frowick 21. H. 7. 73. which opinion he held for good law for it is agreed in Bucknels case Co. 9. he may not say that he held of a stranger absque hoc that the avowant was seised but otherwise it is when that goes in abatement of the avowry Secondly he said that the seisin is the principal thing and the principal thing ought to be traversed for if a man had seisin of many services seisin shall never be ayded till the Stat. of magna charta see Bucknels case Cook 9. and here the seisin is the most meterial thing and the most proper see 37. H. 6. Bro. Avowry 76. ne tiendra is no plea for a stranger to the avowry but he ought to answer to the seisin Thirdly the cause for which the seisin is traversable see a notable case per Danby 7. E. 4. 29. for the beginning of the services may be time beyond memory c. and for that reason may not be tried see 20. E. 4. 17. 22. H. 6. 3. 26. H. 6. 25. by Newton he may traverse the tenure Attoe contrary 13. H. 7. 25. to this it was answered that the number Rolle may not be found 5. H. 7. 4. 13. H. 6. 21. 21. H. 7. 22. by Frowick and Kingsmil Harvey to the contrary the case was that the Defendant made conusance as Bayliff to Sir George Bing for this that Chap held a messuage c. by certain rent and by suite of Court and the other said that he held 40. acres by 9. s. and suite of Court absque hoc that he held the messuage and the land modo et forma and he argued that it was a good traverse of the tenure and not double which was granted by Hobert and by Winch being only present and Hobert said true
owner had not any remedy and so here he doubted that when the Sheriff made execution whether he shall have any remedy or no and therefore it is good conscience to allow him to take a bond for that before he make execution for otherwise a great inconvenience may insue for perchance after the extent and before the liberate the parties may agree and then the Sheriff shall not have any thing for all his paines which he had taken in the extent which never was the intent of the Statute but it may be objected that in this case the Sheriff may have an action upon the case against the debtee or the conusee if he make such composition I answer yet this is a great hinderance and trouble to the Sheriff to prosecute the suite and it shall be very inconvenient to allow that the Sheriff shall be allowed no other remedy and then for the third point he argued that the Sheriff shall have 12. d. in the pound for the first 100. l. where the bond exceed 100. l. and 6. d. for that which exceeds for otherwise as the case is he shall have nothing at all for the first hundred pounds for the words of the Statute are if the same be above 100. l. then he shall have 6. d. so that 6. d. only shall be taken for that which is above 100. l. and nothing for the first hundred if this construction shall be made and he also remembred the objection made by Hendon and so concluded that judgement ought to be given for the Plantiff Hobert said cleerly the Sheriff may take a single bill for his fees and that is the ordinary course also he read the Statute of the 29. Eliz. that it shall be lawful to the Sheriff c. and said the words of the Statute made a contract in law for which an action of debt lyes for the Sheriff and he â—â—id to Serjeant Bawtry that the second point will be found to be against him and for the third point that the Sheriff shall have but 6. d. for all in the case the summe exceed 100. l. and so they thought judgement ought to be given for the Defendant and Iustice Winch said that the reason wherefore the summe of 12. d. in the pound is given if that not exceed 100. l. is because that it is as much labour to the Sheriff to execute 100. l. as it is for 500. l. Maps and Maps against Sir Isaac Sidley MApps and Mapps brought an action upon the case against Sir Isaac Sidley upon a promise and shewed that one named Holdish was indebted to the Testator of the Plantiffs in 12. d. upon a bond which became due and that the Defendant in consideration that the Plantiffs will forbear to prosecute a suit upon the same obligation he promised to pay that and the Plantiffs shewed that they had forborn him till such a day c. and upon non assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement by Hitcham Serjeant of the King that this declaration is not good for this forbearance ought to be for ever and not a temporary forbearance only for the Defendant by his promise had made the debt his own as if the assumpsit promise had been to forbear to come to my house this ought to be a perpetual forbearance and here the assumpsion of the Defendant amounts to a release in law to the principal and yet he agreed if this had been generally that he had forborn and had not shewed he had forborn ill such a day the declaration had been good Hobert if the promise had been to forbear till such a day there he may sue the dettee if he do not pay it the day and it was adjourned Mich. 19. Jac. Mabies case MAbies case Hobert in Parson Mabies case if I let my rectory excepting my glebe the exception is void for no rectory may be without glebe and the same law of a mannor excepting the demeasnes but he may except parcel of the glebe and good but in pleading the lease of a rectory this shall be taken for the whole rectory and not for parcel Gratwick against Gratwick GRatwick brought a formedon in remainder against Gratwick and the Tenant pleaded that the day of the purchase of the writ and yet he the Plantiff is seised of the moity of the land in demand and it was argued by Serjeant Harvey that this is no good plea for he ought to shew of what estate he was seised and he may be seised by vertue of a Statute and he vouched the 39. E. 3. 7. Hobert if he had said that he was seised in his demeasne as of fee or as of freehold this had been good and a seisin by force of a Statute is no seisin at all and Hutton said if Tenant plead entry in part pending the wriâ— he ought to say that he entered and expulsed the other for otherwise it is not good and I conceive that the Court inclined that in the principal case that the plea for the cause aforesaid being of a general seisin was not a good plea. Sir Edward Grubham against Sir Edward Cooke AT another day the case of Sir Edward Grubham and of Sir Edward Cooke was moved againe and it was objected by Ashley that the declaration in the audita querela is not good because he had not shewed the day of the Testee and of the return of the writ execution in certainty but only by process such a day out of the Chancery which is not good but he ought to plead all the record of the extent in special and he offered to shew a president of that and secondly he had not shewed the execution of the liberate by which the land was delivered and so there is no express allegation of a grievance Richardson the presidents in the old book of entries are according to our declaration and Hutton vouched the 9. H. 6. and 39. H. 6 and in an action of debt upon a judgement he needs not recite all the record but he may begin at the judgement and as to the second point they all agreed that the party may have an audita querela before an ouster and yet here the showing that it was delivered to the conuser by the liberate is a sufficient averment of the ouster for it may not be delivered without an ouster and ruled that the Plantiff shall have judgement if the Defendant do not shew other cause by such a day Vpon a Capias Vtlagatum the sheriff returned that the party which was arrested had a protection from Lord Stafford who was a Lord of the Parliamen and it was moved by Serjeant Hitcham that the return was not good for the protection of a Lord of the Parliament is not good in a Capias Utlagatum which concerned the King and by Winch Iustice only present in Court the return is cleerly naught and day was given over to the Sheriff to amend his
return and this was granted by Hobert chief Iustice at another day this Term Peter Vanheath against Turner PEter Vanheath brought an action against Turner and declared upon the custome of Merchants that if any Merchant over the sea deliver money to a factor and make a bill of exchange under his seal and this is subcribed by the Mr. or by any of the company of such Merchants that the Merchant himself or all the company or any one in particular may be charged to pay that and he shewed that one Morgan was factor of the company of which the Defendant was one and that the said Morgan did substitute one Greenway to whom the Plantiff delivered 100. l. upon a bill of exchange to which bill one Bounder being one of the company set to his hand in England and so the action accrewed to the Plantiff The Defendant pleaded nihil debet per legem and upon that the Plantiff demurred in law and the question was whether the Defendant may wage his law and it was argued by Serjeant Harvey that he shall not wage his law for this is only an action upon the case and sounds only in nonfesance and here is no privity between the Plantiff and Defendant for the bill was made over the sea and subcribed here in England and he shall not charge the Defendant without a special custome so that it is plaine that it is custome which made the Defendant lyable and if the Defendant do not pay for this no action of debt lyes but only an action upon the case and every plea ought to conclude to the point in action and for that in trover and conversion non culp is a good plea and yet he may traverse the finding for this tends to the issue and is good and so in debt upon a lease for years nihil debet is a good plea or non dimisit for the cause aforesaid but when the plea doth not tend to the point in issue it is otherwise for he ought to traverse that which tends to the point in issue and in our case the Defendant may traverse the custome or give answer to the nonfesance but he shall not wage his law and an action lyes upon this contract against the Mr. for this and so he concluded that judgement ought to be given for the Plantiff Harris Serjeant contrary this non payment is not a non fesance in the Defendant and here the Defendant may not plead not guilty or non assumpsit for no promise was made and it is a general rule in law that where a man may traverse the conveyance there he shall not wage his law see 5. H. 7. but here the Defendant may not traverse the conveyance Ergo he may wage his law and 5. H. 7. the successor of an Abbot shall have his law of a contract made with his predecessor and he said that the book of the 23. E. 3. is not law Hobert chief Iustice if the Bayliff at the common law make a substitute the substitute is not chargeable but here the custome will bind the law Secondly he laid 2. or 3. Merchants trade over the sea who made a factor there who takes money there and gives a bill and this is subscribed by one of the company that this should bind all or any of the company is not a good custome and the custome of Merchants is part of the common law of this Kingdome of which the judges ought to take notice and if any doubt arise to them about there custome they may send for the Merchants to know there custome as they may send for the Civillians to know there law and he thought that the Defendant ought to be admitted to wage his law for the delivery of the money made a contract in law and as he may have an action of debt so without question he may have an action upon the case and so count upon a promise and then the Defendant may not wage his law Mich. 19. Jac. C. P. Doctor Hunt against Allen. DOctor Hunt brought an action of debt upon an obligation of 100. l. against the heire of Edmond Allen and the condition of the obligation was that whereas the testator Edmond Allen in the first year of the raigne of the King hath given and granted to the Plantiff the presentation to the Church of D. if therefore the said Edmond Alllen from time to time shall make good the said grant from all incumberances made or to be made by him and his heirs that then c. and the grantor dyed and the Church became void and the heire of the grantor presented and whether this was a breach of the Condition was the question and Hobert chief Iustice and Winch being only present thought this tortious presentation to be no breach of the condition but this extends only to lawful disturbance by the heire and by the pleading here it appears that though the heire presented yet he had no right to present because that his father had granted that before and then the presentation of the heire is as a meer stranger And those general words will not extend to a tortious disturbance by the heire but Hobert said that the words shall have such a construction as if it had been said that he shall enjoy the same from any act or acts made by him or his heires and in this case there ought to be a lawful eviction to make a breach of the condition but otherwise if the condition had been that he shall peaceably enjoy from any act or acts made by him or his heires in that case a tortious disturbance would have been a breach of the condition but it was adjorned till another time Information was for that one such his apprentice departed out of his service and the Defendant received and retained him without a testimonial from the Mr. contra formam Statuti And so he demanded 5. l. the Defendant pleaded nihil debet per patriam and it was found against him and now Hendon Serjeant moved in arrest of judgement that an apprentice is out of the clause of the Statute of the 5th of Elizabeth and that the same Statute extends only to servants and to labourers retained within that Statute for the statute saith be it enacted that no person or persons that depart out of service without shewing of a testimonial as is above remembered and this branch as is above remembered had only reference to the next clause before and the same branch before makes only mention of certaine trades in which an apprentice as in our case is not included and the certificate set down within the Statute proves that an apprentice is not within the Statute for the words are I. W. servant to such a one c. and so it extends to servants and not to apprentices and secondly he said the information is not good because he had not shewed in what trade this apprentice served and perchance he was retained in such a trade as is not
within the Statute and â—hirdly he had not shewed what time he was received that so it might appeare that he was an apprentice but for half a year and such a retainer is not within the Statute fourthly the conclusion of the information is contrary to the form of the Statute yet this doth not aide the imperfection of the information for such information only extends to matter of circumstance and not to matter of substance Finch Serjeant contrary that the retainer of an apprentice who departs out of the service of his Mr. without a testimonial is within the Statute of the 5th of Eliz. for the same branch is general there being no person who departs c. and an apprentice is a person which departs secondly the clause of the Statute is be it enacted that none of the forementioned retained persons c. and an apprentice is a person which is in a special manner named before Mich. 19. Jac. and therefore he is within the express words of the same branch Thirdly the form of the testimonial proves that for it is I. W. servant to such c. and an apprentice is such a servant Hobert chief Iustice said that it was never the intent of the Statute to make an infant who is an apprentice to be within the danger of the same Statute for an infant at the age of 14. years may be bound to be an apprentice and the punishment which is given by the same Statute is that such person shall be whipt as a Rogue which plainly proves the Statute intends only those who are of full age and if other construction shall be made perchance that the sonne of a gentleman may be punished as a Rogue by such departure and he held that if an apprentice depart with his Mrs. goods delivered to him that in this case he is not within the Statute of the 21. H 8. as another servant is and Serjeant Finch said that there is an express exception and if that had not been that an apprentice had been within the danger of the law but Hobert said that he doubted much whether an apprentice had been within that Statute though the Proviso had not been made but this proves that the makers of the Statute thought this to be a hard matter to make an infant who is apprentice to be within the danger of the same law and for that reason the proviso of the Statute was made Winch said to which Hutton agreed that when the Defendant had pleaded nihil debet and this was found for the Plantâ—ff yet he may move in arrest of judgement if the matter be not within the Statute adjurned In a replevin the Defendant said that he hâ—d property in the beasts absque hoc that the property was to the Plantiff and so prayed judgement of the writ and it was found for the Plantiff and now Harvey Serjeant moved in arrest of judgment for in no book is found such a traverse as this that the Plantiff had not property but only that the property was to the Defendant and secondly the conclusion of the plea is not good for he ought to conclude to the writ and not to the action Hobert 6. H. 7. is that an action of detinue affirmes the property at the time of the action but a repleviant the time of the taking and two men may have such property in the same thing that every of them may have a replevin and Hutton said that when the Defendant in the replevin claimed property he ought to conclude to the action and Hendon Serjeant being only at the barre and not of councell in the case said that the book of entries is that he shall traverse the property of the Plantiff as in the principal case Hutton Iustice said that this was never seen by him but they all agreed that this being after verdict judgement shall be given for the Plantiff Trehern against Claybrook Ent. Tr. 18. Jac. Rot. 650. TRehern against Claybrook in a debt upon a lease for yeares the jury gave a special verdict to this effect that Iohn Trehern Grandfather of the Plantiff was seised of land in fee and let this for forty yeers rendring rent for which the action is brought and that he devised the reversion to the Plantiff in catle the remainder to Leonard Trehern in taile with divers remainders over and with provises in the same will that for the raising of a stock for the Plantiff and for him in remainder his will was that one Griffith and Anne his wife being daughter of the devisor should have the profits and rent of the said land to their own use until the time that the Plantiff and the said Leonard Trehern accomplish the age of 21. years provided alwayes and upon this condition that the said Griffith and his wife within 3 moneths of his decease enter into bond to the overseers of his will in such a summe and in such a penalty as shall be thought fit by the said overseers and this bond to be made by their advice and if the said Griffith and Anne his wife do refuse to be bound as is aforesaid then the overseers shall have the rents and the profits c. and the jury found over that he made two executors and 3. who were overseers and that the 3. October 16. Iac. died and that within 3. weeks after the death of the devisor the executor read the will to the overseers but they found that the overseers did not remember that and if upon all the matter Griffith and Anne his wife had not performed the condition was the question and that if not the reversion was in the Plantiff And the point in law upon the verdict was whether Griffith and Anne his wife ought of their perils to tender the bond within 3. moneths or whether the overseers ought to make the first act and to tender the bond and the penalty for them to seal and Towse Serjeant argued that Anne and Griffith her husband ought to tender the bond at their peril for he said that the condition did precede the estate and therefore if they will have the benefit of the devise then he ought to tender the obligation and vouched Corbets case and 18. Eliz. the devise of land upon condition to pay money he ought to pay that at his perill Attoe Serjeant contrary and yet he agreed that if the condition was to precede the estate then the law was as Towse had said but here he said the estate precedes the condition for all the profits are devised to Griffith and to Anne his wife during the minority of the Plantiff by which it is apparent the estate is presently in the devisees and by consequence the estate precedes the condition and then the sole doubt will be whether Griffith and Anne his wife ought to procure the overseers to make the obligation and to limit the condition or whether the overseers ought to make this first they being the parties instrusted by the Will
doth not lye for for it is not averred that there was any fellony committed also Iustice Hutton held that in this case the declaration is not good because it is not expresly alleadged with an eo quod that the Plantiff stole the Vetches but only an indictment preferred containing such a matter and Iustice Winch said that the framing of an indictment in a Court of record is not any cause of an action for it is a proceeding in an ordinary Course of justice and for that reason ought not to be punished by an action upon the case for that will deterre and scare men from the just prosecutions in the ordinary way of justice Hobert chief Iustice was of a contrary opinion and yet he said that it is true that the ordinary Course of justice ought not by any means to be hopped or hindred and as that may not be obstructed so neither may the good name of a man in any thing which concerns his life be taken away and impeached without good cause for Courts of justice were not erected to be stages to take away the good name or fame of any man and therefore by the common law if two do maliciously conspire to judict a man without cause though the indictment it self be good and legally drawn yet a writ of conspiracy lies against those which caused this indictment to be preferred and it is as great a slander to preferre a Bill of indictment to the grand jury and to give this in evidence to them as it is to declare that in an ale house and as to the declaration he held that to be good without any averment of an indictment indeed and the indictment in writing and the preferring that to the grand jury containes the scandal and I am of opinion that an action upon the case lyes well see more after Easter 20. Jac. C. P. Hill against Waldron Easter 20. Jac. C. P. HIll against Waldron in an action of debt upon an obligation the condition was that I. S. shall levy a fine to the obligee before such a day of such land the Defendant pleaded that the obligee had not sued forth any writ of covenant the replication was that before the obligation made I. S. had made of feofment in fee of the same land to I. S. and that the feoffee continued in possession at the time of the making of the obligation and upon this the Defendant demurred and in this case two points were moved first when I am obliged that I. S. who is a stranger shall levy a fine to the obligee whether in this case the obligee is bound to sue a writ of covenant and it was argued by Serjeant Harvy that not yet he agreed that if the condition was that the obligor shall levy a fine to the obligee in this case the obligee ought to do the first act viz. to sue a writ of covenant as Palmers case Cooke 5. but otherwise when the fine is levied by a third person for there the obligor had took all upon him 4. H. 7. 15. E. 4. if I am bound to marry the daughter of I. S. and she will not marry me yet I have forfited my obligation and so here he ought to leavy a fine at his perill and at his own costs or at the costs of the obligor But admitting that the obligee ought to sue a writ of covenant because it appears by the replication that before the obligation made I. S. had made a feofment over and that the feoffee did continue possession at the time when the fine was to be leavied and therefore the obligee needs not to sue forth any writ of covenant because he who is to leavy the fine had disabled himself to perform that and he urged Sir Anthony Maines case where Cooke 5. the party needs not to tender a Surrender because that he who had the reversion had granted that over before the Surrender was to be made Serjeant Hendon to the contrary for he argued that the obligation is not forfeit except the obligee sue a writ of covenant and there is no difference between this case and when the obligor himself was to leavy a fine for the obligor had not undertaken for the whole fine but only that I. S. shall acknowledge a fine and if the obligor shall be compelled at his perill to sue a writ of covenant then you will construe the condition to extend to an unlawfull act for it shall be maintenance in him to sue forth a writ of covenant he vouched a case P. 4 Iac. Rot. 1548. Burnell against Bowle the condition of the obligation was that I. S. shall acknowledge a judgement in this Court to I. D. and in debt upon this obligation the Defendant pleaded that the Plantiff had not sued forth any orginall writ and it was holden a good plea and for the second point he held that the obligee ought to sue this writ of Covenant though that I. S. had dismissed himself of the land for the words are general that I. S. shall leavy a fine and this he ought to do though no estate pass by the fine for a fine upon release shall be a good performance of the Condition but otherwise if it had been to make a feofment in fee for a man cannot make a feofment except he be seised of the land at the time as 31. E. 3. debt 164. a man was obliged to present the obligee to such a Church and the obligee took a wife by which he had disabled himself to be a person yet the obligor ought to present him for otherwise he shall forfeit his obligation and so in this case Hobert and Hutton as to the first point held the barre to be good and that the obligee ought to sue forth the writ of Covenant for Hobert said he ought to do that for it is no reason to compel the obligor who is a stranger to the estate which passeth by the fine to sue a writ of Covenant and for that reason if I am bound to compel you to come upon such land to take a feofment I am not bound that the other make a livery of seisin but if the case was that I was obliged to you that I. S. shall leavy a fine to I. N. in such case the fine ought to be leavied at my peril though that I. N. will not sue a writ of Covenant Hutton according but Winch doubted of the case and as to the second point Hutton and Hobert agreed that the obligee as this case is needs not to sue a writ of Covenant because that I. S. had made a feofment of the land before and so had disabled himself at the time of the obligation for now it is impossible to leavy a good fine for if he should enter into the land and put out the feoffee this were not good within the condition and Hutton said it ought to be agreed that if I. S. had made a feofment after the time of the making
seisin of the homage and therefore perchance it will be hard to finde my antient president they adjourned and at another day Hutton and Winch being only present judgement was given for the avowant against Whitgift and Hutton said that he had spoke with the other Iustices and they agreed Vpon a motion made by Towse the case was this a man made a lease for one year and so from year to year during the Will of the lessor and lessee rendring rent and the lessee died and the rent was behinde and by Winch being only present if the rent is behinde in the time of the lessee and he dies an action of debt is maintainable against his Executor in the detinâ—t only and so I conceive if that was behinde after his death he may have an action in the debt and the detinet or in the detinet only to which Brownlow agreed Secondly Winch said that when a man made a lease for a year and so from year to year at the pleasure of the parties that this is a lease for 3. years and not for two Thirdly he doubted if the lessee hold over his term so that he is tenant at sufferance what remedy the lessor had for his rent Vpon the reading of a record the case was that a Scire facias issued against the land Tenant to have execution of a judgement given against Ferdinando Earl of Darby in the 15. Eliz. and the Defendant pleaded that a long time before the said Ferdinando any thing had in the land one Edward Earl of Darby was seised of the land and being so seised 3. Mar. infeoffed I. S. to the use of the Lord Strange and his wife in tail the remainder over to the said Ferdinando and made the said Ferdinando heire to the estate taâ—le and pretended that by this meanes the land should not be liable to this judgement because it was intailed to Ferdinando and of such estate he died seised the Plantiff traversed the feofment made by Edw. Earl of Darby and the jury found that the feofment was made by Edward Earl of Darby to the same persons as the Defendant had pleaded but this was to the use of the feoffor for life the remainder over to the Lord Strange and his wife the remainder as before and whether this shall be intended the same Feofment which the Defendant had pleaded was the question because the estate for life was omitted and upon the special verdict that was the question and Attoe said that if the jury had found this feofment made to other feoffees though the estate had agreed this should be found against the Defendant and Winch Iustice said that there was such estate found as had taken away the execution or extent and the estate for life is not material but it was adjourned till another day A man Covenanted to make such assurance as shall be devised by the counsel of the Plantiff so the same assurance be made within the county of Norff. or the Citty of Norwich and the Plantiff assigned the breach and shewed that in this case his Councel devised that a fine should be leavied of the same land which was not done and it was moved by Serjeant Attoe that in this case the breach was not well laid because he had not shewed where his councel devised that the fine should be leavied In the case of a prohibition in case of a libel in the Ecclesiastical Court for the tithes of Cattles the Plantiff alleadged that those Cattle of which Tithes were demanded are for his Dairy and for the plough and Winch being only present said that the parson shall not have Tithes of such Cattle but if he bred up Cattle to sell it is otherwise secondly the Plantiff in the prohibition alleadged that time beyond memory the parishoners had paid a half peny for the Tithe of a Calf and a penny for a Cow and that upon a day limitted they use to bring this to the Church and to pay this to the Vicar and now the Vicar had libelled in the spiritual Court against them to compel them to bring it home to his house and Winch said that this is no occasion of a prohibition for they agree in the modus but vary in the place of payment and this is not matter of substance and for that reason no prohibition will lie Vpon the reading of a record the case was that the father made a feofment to the use of himself for life the remainder to his son and his wife and to the heires of the body of the son and this was for a joynture for his wife and the father died and the son also died and whether this was a good joynture was the question for all this matter was pleaded in barre of dower brought by the wife and it was ruled to be no good joynture for the feme notwithstanding that the father died in the life of his son and Hutton said if a man made a feofment to the use of himself for life the remainder to his Executors for years the remainder to his wife for a joynture this will be no good joynture within the Statute of joyntures though the feme here had the immediate franktenement In an action of debt against an Administrator who pleads outlawry in the Testator and it was moved that this was no plea for he had taken the Administration upon him Winch a man who is outlawed may not make an executor for if he meet with his goods he shall answer for them to the King and for that reason it seems to be a good plea 3. H. 6. 32. and Brownlow chief Prothonotary said that he could shew a president 27. Eliz. where this is adjudged to be no plea and Iustice Winch said to him shew that president if any such be and upon Tuesday after he shewed that and then Winch agreed Auditor Curle for words AUditor Curle brought an action upon the case and in his declaration he set forth the Statute of 32. H. 8. for the erection of the Court of Wards and that the same Statute appointed the Auditor of the same Court and shewed that the Plantiff was an Auditor of the same Court and that the Defendant such a day and at such a place said of him you have taken money for ingrossing of feodaries innuendo accompts and tunc et ibidem you are a Cozner and live by Cozning and I will prove that to be Coznage and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement by Finch Serjeant of the King that the Plantiff shall not have judgement upon this verdict for the first words are not actionable for the taking of money for the ingrossing of feodaries are insensible and then the inuendo will not help nor aid that also the words in the second place are not actionable because he had not said that he was a Cozning officer and so he had not expresly applied that to his office and
after his death it shall remain to his son and his wife in fee and the book is that this Covenant will raise an use also if this Covenant and agreement will not amount to raise an use then it is not to any use or purpose at all and by consequence the consideration of the marriage is void also and an action of Covenant will very well lye without any such consideration of marriage and so he concluded and prayed judgement for the Defendant adjourned Mich. 20. Jac. C. P. Johnson against Norway IOhnson brought an action of Trespass against Norway of Trespass made in a piece of ground and the Defendant pleaded that 14. H. 7. Roger Le Strange and Anne his wife were seised of the Mannor of D. and one Giles Sherington Abbot of C. was seised of an acre of land in fee and held this of the said Roger Le-Strange as of the Mannor of D. aforesaid and that the 22. H. 7. the Abbot and all the Monks died by which the said land escheated to Roger c. and the Mannor discended to his son and heire after his death who conveyed the Mannor of which the acre is parcel after the escheat by mean conveyance to Hobert in fee and that Hobert 12. Eliz. infeoffed one Wright of the Mannor of which the said acre is parcel and so justified by a conveyance from Wright to the Defendant the Plantiff replied by protestation that the Abbot was not eligible and for plea he said that the aforesaid Hobert 10. Eliz. infeoffed I. S. of the said acre of land absque hoc that he infeoffed Wright of the sad Mannor of which the said acre is parcel and upon this the Defendant demurred generally And Serjeant Attoe argued for the Plantiff that the Plea of the Defendant is evil and then though the replication of the Plantiff is not good yet the Plantiff shall have judgement and he cited Turners case Hobert it is true Cook 8. if the replication be meerly void then it is as you had said but if the replication be the title of the Plantiff and that be insufficient there the Plantiff shall not have judgement though the plea in barre was evil Attoe agreed that if it appear by the Plantiffs own shewing that he had no cause of action and that he had no title he shall not have judgement but here he had made a good title by the lease of the said acre of land and though our traverse is evil and sounds in doubleness yet the Defendant had demurred generally and so he had lost the advantage of the doubleness or of the negative pregnant for if a maâ— plead double matter this is only matter of form and not of substance and therefore after verdict it is good as hath been adjudged but he proceeded in his argument and he said that the barre of the Defendant is not good for by his own shewing this acre of land is not parcel of the Mannor for by the dissolution of the Monastery by the death of all the Monks the land shall go to the founders and donors and not to escheat to the Lord of which that is holden as appears 2. H. 6. 7. and 5. H. 7. if an annuity or rent be granted to an Abbot in fee and the Abbot and all his Monks do die the annuity or the rent is extinct and shall not escheat see the Deane of Norwiches case Coo. 3. agreed that by the death of the Abbot and his Covent the corporation is dissolved and then the possession shall go to the founders and shall not escheat to the Lord of the Mannor of which the Land was holden and he said that this point is proved cleerly by the Statute of the 27. H. 8. and 31. H. 8. of Monasteries in which Statutes there is an express saving to all persons except to the donors and to their heires and no mention is made of the saving of the right of those of whom the land was holden and that proves cleerly that if the makers of the Statute had thought that the land had escheated to the Lords they would have excepted them in the saving of the act as they had excepted the Donors and Founders for if otherwise the lands and possessions shall escheat to the Lords of which the land was holden they are within the saving of the Statute and then it will follow that after the death of all the Monks as at this day that the Lords shall have the land by escheat which the Sages of the Law never dreamt of who made that Statute that any thing may accrew to the Lord and therefore they provided only for the title of the Donors and Founders which is an argument that they thought that upon the dissolution of the Monesteries that the lands shall go to the Founders and the same he thought concerning a corporation at this day as of Suttons Hospital c. and so he concluded that because in the barre of the Defendant he claimed to hold from the Lord to whom he supposed the land to escheat and did not claim c. by his own shewing the barre is not good and though our replication and traverse is not good yet the Plantiff shall have judgement But admitting that the barre is good yet the replication and traverse is good and then judgement shall be given for the Plantiff and the case is the Defendant pleaded a feofment of the Man 12. Eliz. to Wright after that he had shewed the escheat of an acre the Plantiff replied that the 10th Eliz. the Feofor infeoffed C. of the acre of land absque hoc that he was infeoffed of the Mannor of which the acre is parcel and Attoe argued that the traverse is good and he alleadged 38. H. 6. 49. the same traverse and here when the Defendant had pleaded that the acre escheated and had alleadged a Feofment of the Mannor and had not expresly alleadged a Feofment of the acre the Plantiff may traverse that which is not expresly alleadged because this destroyes the very title of the Defendant and he cited for that 34. H. 6. 15. a writ of priviledge in trespass as a Servant to an auditor of the exchequer the Plantiff replied that he was servant to him in husbandry absque hoc that he was his servant to waite and attend upon him in his office and it was holden a good traverse and yet that was not expresly alleadged by the Defendant Hobert chief Iustice said that the traverse is not good for by the Feofment which was made the 12th Eliz. he had confessed and avoyded the Feofment which was made 10th Eliz. and so there needed no traverse and therefore he said the great doubt of the case will be upon the barre of the Defendant whether by the death of the Abbot and the Monks the land escheat to the Lords of whom that was holden or whether that shall go to the Donors and to the Founders and he thought that the land shall escheat to which
that all such recoveryes shall be void and shall be taken for fained recoveries and this may not be imagined a fained recovery where he in remainder in tail is vouched by him who is Tenant for life Jennings case Coo. 10. and such recovery as is there resolved is out of the Statute of the 14. Eliz. and is good by the Common Law and so in our case but admitting this to be within the Statute of the 11. of H. 7. yet the proviso of the same Statute had made that good for there is an express proviso that a recovery with the assent of the heir inheritable if this appear upon Record this shall not be within the Statute and in our case this is with the assent of the heir inheritable and also this appears to be of record and so the recovery is out of the danger of the Statute of the 11. H. 7. See Doctor and Student a book which was written but a litle time after the making of this Statute and Dyer 89. Vernons case and he said that the intent of the same Statute and of the proviso of the same Statute was to have issues and heirs and not termors who had only a future interest to falsifie recoveries and so he concluded that the recovery is out of the same Statute and that the proviso of the same Statute had made that good by the assent of the heir but admitting this should be against him that this recovery shall be within the Statute yet the lessee in our case shall not falsifie nor take advantage of the forfeiture by force of the same Statute but it hath been objected by Harvy that the wife in this case had only an estate for life or Tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct and he answered that the resolution in Beamounts case Coo. 119. is contrary for it is there expresly agreed that she was Tenant in tail after the fine leavied by the issue and so was it also resolved in Pophams case 9. Eliz. but there it was doubted whether she was Tenant in tail within the 32. H. 8. who might make a lease but all agreed that she was Tenant in tail who may suffer a recovery and binde the remainder and then when the feme suffers such a recovery as in our case that recovery shall take away a term for years which was made by the issue in tail Mich. 20. Jac. C. P. in the life of his mother notwithstanding she was a joynteress within the 11. H. 7. also he said that this lease for years being made by Henry Mark-Williams the son who was heir to the estate in tail and also to the reversion in fee being made by deed indented rendring rent this shall be a lease which issued out of the estate in fee simple and not out of the estate tail and this shall be out of the estate tail by estoppel being by deed indented for an estate shall not enure partly by way of interest and this lease to begin after the death of the feme he may not take advantage of the forfeiture for though the words of the Statute are that all such recoveries shall be void yet this shall not be void without entry and he who will have benefit by this ought to be mabled to enter presently so soon as the recovery is suffered for as there ought to be a person in esse who shall take benefit of the same Statute as appears by Coo. 3. Lincoln Colledge case so there ought to be a present estate in esse at the time of the recovery for the words of the Statute are to whom the interest shall appertain but in our case the interest doth not appertain to the lessee who had only a future term and therefore he shall not take the benefit by any forfeiture within the Statute of 11. H. 7. and the rather in our case because there is a rent reserved also all this matter is found by special verdict what estate the son haâ— when he made the lease by indenture Dyer 244. Coo. 155. and Bredons case in Treports case lessee for life and he in reversion by indenture let for years this is no estoppel and it shall be said to be the lease of one and the confirmation of the other and here the lease shall be said to issue out of the reversion in fee and not out of the estate tail and he vouched a case adjudged 10. Jac. when Flemming was chief Iustice of the Kings Bench between Errington and Errington and the case was that a man conveyed land to the use of himself and his wife in tail the remainder to his right heirs and had issue a son and a daughter and he died and the son let for years to begin after the death of his Mother and he died without issue and the daughter leavied a fine and the wife who was Tenant in tail died and the question was whether this lease for years issued out of the estate tail by way of estoppel for then the Conusee shall not avoid this but it was adjudged this lease was drawn out of the reversion in fee and the Conusee of the daughter shall avoid that which is all one with our case but admit that this lease is good by estoppel out of the estate taile yet he shall not take benefit of the forfeiture within 11. H. 7. and this differs from Sir George Browns case for there the Conuser entered by vertue of a remainder and not by the estate tail which passed to him by estoppel and upon that he concluded that if this is an estate meerly by estoppel he shall not have benefit by that Pope and Reynolds before NOw the case between Pope and Reynolds which see before was moved again by Ashley for the Plantiff in the prohibition and the case was that he was owner of a Park and the Park had been time beyond memory replenished with deer till the 10th of Eliz. at which time that was disparked and that the owners had used before the disparking to pay a Buck in Summer and a Doe in winter in full satisfaction of all Tithes due to the Vicar and the Parson had libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes in kinde and also traversed the prescription and it was found for the Plantiff in the prohibition and it had been moved in arrest of judgement that notwithstanding this prescription is found for the Plantiff yet he shall not have judgement for two causes First because gross Tithes belong to the Parson and not to the Vicar for the Vicaridge is derived out of the Parsonage to this he answered that for the most part every Vicaridge is derived out of the Parsonage but it is a meer non sequitur that this doth for the Vicarage and the Parsonage may have several patrons Fitzh 45. also a Vicarage may be time beyond memory as in our case 40. E. 3. 2. 7. and Fitz. juris utrum a Vicar may have a juris utrum and
answered that if it is meerly Collateral then it shall not go to the successor of the Bishop but to his executors as if the lessee had covenanted or obliged himself to pay this Herriot to the successor he may not have benefit of this obligation but the executor of the Bishop who was lessor shall have that and so he said that the argument made by Hendon is against him for if it be meerly Collateral then this shall not go to the successor and though the lessee of the Mannor may not have it the Plantiff shall not have a Trover and Conversion as he said before but he held this good by way of reservation for modus conventio vincunt legem and as to that which hath been said that the Herriot is to be paid upon the death of a stranger and not upon the death of the lessee himself to this he answered that this is nothing for the payment shall be out of the beasts of the lessee and not out of the beasts of a stranger and so he concluded and prayed judgement for the Defendant Rives case SAlmon avowed for a rent charge and he shewed that Sir Robert Rives had a rent charge granted to him and he further shewed a discent of that to the son and heir of Sir Robert and shewed that the rent was behinde unpaid to him viz. to his son and heir and he avowed as Bailiff to the son and exception was taken to the avowry because it is not expresly alleadged in whose time the rent was due whether in the time of the father or in the time of the son for if it is behinde in the time of the father the son may not distrain for that but it was resolved that the avowry was very good for in asmuch that he had shewed that the rent was not paid to the son this implied the rent was due to the son and not to the father An Executor brought a Scire Facias upon a judgement given for the Testator in debt by him and the Defendant would have pleaded the death of the Testator between the verdict and the judgement per Curiam he was not suffered for he may not plead this in a Scire Facias but the Defendant is put to his writ of error In Trespass for beasts taken in London and the Defendant justified to taking as a distress upon a lease of land in Kent and the Plantiff replied that the Defendant sold the beasts in London and so not a good plea to bring the Trial out of Kent and to have that tried in London which note Batterseys case AN action upon the case was brought against one Hordecre upon an assumpsit and he declared that the Defendant had arrested one Battersey by vertue of a Commission of Rebellion out of the Cinque ports and that the Plantiff keeping a Common Inne the Defendant brought the said Battersey to his Inne and requested the Plantiff to keep him a day and a night and promised in consideration there upon that he would save him harmless and he shewed that he kept the prisoner accordingly and that the said Battersey brought an action of false imprisonment against him and recovered against him upon which the action accrewed and upon non assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement because he had not shewed that the said Battersey was lawfully arrested and imprisoned and then if a man will without cause arrest a man and promise in this case no action will lie for it is no consideration because that the imprisonment is unlawful but Hobert chief Iustice Hutton and Winch contrary for be the imprisonment lawful or not lawful he might not take notice of that as if I request another man to enter into another mans ground and in my name to drive out the beasts and impound them and promise to save him harmless this is a good assumpsit and yet the act is Tortious but by Hutton where the act appears in it self to be unlawful there it is otherwise as if I request you to beat another and promise to save you harmless this assumpsit is not good for the act appears in it self to be unlawful but otherwise it is as in our case when the act stands indifferent but Hobert said it may be there is a difference between a publick officer and a private man for if the Sheriff arrest a man unlawfully and promise as before this is a good assumpsit but perchance otherwise of a private man as here but in the principal case the Defendant had pleaded non assumpsit and this implies a Lawful imprisonment for otherwise the Defendant might have given the unlawful imprisonment in evidence and judgement was commanded to be entered for the Plantiff Claworthy against Mitchel CLaworthy against Mitchel in a replevin the Defendant avowed for a rent and shewed that his father was seised and let for years rendring rent and he died and that the reversion descended to him and for rent behinde he avowed in barre of which avowry the Plantiff said that the father devised the reversion to another and the other maintained his avowry and traversed the devise and it was found that the devise was only of two parties and not of the third part for in very truth the land was holden by Knights service and all this was found by special verdict and for whom the jury had found was the question and it was argued by Hendon that this verdict is found for the avowant and he vouched 32. H. 8. Brook issue 8. in a precipe quod reddat if the issue be whether A. and B. infeoffed the Tenant and it is found that A. infeoffed him but not that A. and B. infeoffed him the issue is found against the Tenant see 14. E. 4. and Dyer 260. in debt upon a lease for years of divers parcels of land and upon non demisit pleaded it is found quod demisit all except one parcel this is found for the Plantiff and â—rin 15. Iac. Rot. 2022. Allen against Soper in a replevin for a horse and avowed for damage fesant and the Defendant claimed Common for his beasts Levant and Couchant upon his land and some in this case were found Levant and Couchant and others not and it was found against the Plantiff and he said in this case when the Defendant had alleadged a devise of all the land and upon this issue is joyned and it is found that part is devised and not all this is found against the Plantiff because the issue is joyned upon a particular and a special point whether all was devised or no and yet he agreed that upon a general issue as in trespass in 20. acres of land and the Defendant is found guilty but only in one yet the Plantiff shall have judgement but not where the issue is joyned upon a particular point as here but admitting that the Plantiff shall have judgement yet the avowant shall have return
the very Common Law see Ouleys case 19. Eliz. in Dyer but Hutton doubted whether this bond is void by the Common Law because the Statute of the 23. H. 6. inflicts so great specialty upon the Sheriffs for extortion and after judgement was Commanded to be entred for the Defendant in the action if no other matter be shewed to the contrary before such a day In trespas quare vi et armis one such being his servant cepit et adduxit at D. in Essex the Defendant pleaded that he was a vagrant in the same Countie and he not having notice that he was servant to another he retained him and it was moved by Finch if I retain the servant of another man in the same Countie where I and his Mr. inhabit this is not justifiable though in veritie I had not notice of that and this according to the express book of the 19. Ed. 3. 47. Hobert the book may not be law for it is a hard matter to make me take notice of every servant which is retained in the same Countie and yet perchance if this retainer be upon the Statute of labourers at the Sessions this is notorious and I ought to take notice of that at my peril but it is otherwise of a private retainer for though it is within the same Countie yet being a private matter in fact the Law will not compel me to take notice of that at my peril otherwise if this be matter of record 2. H. 4. 64. and Hobert and Winch seemed to agree and then Finch moved that the Plantiff had charged the Defendant with his servant by cepit et adduxit and the Defendant excused himself and never traversed cepit et adduxit see 11. H. 4. Hutton and Hobert the receiving and the entertaining of a servant may not be said to be vi et armis Mr. Spencers case HArvy Serjeant came to the barre and demanded this question of the Court in the behalf of Mr. Spencer a man was seised of land in fee and sowed the land and devised that to I. S. and before severance he died and whether the devisee shall have the Corn or the executor of the devisor was the question and by Hobert Winch and Hutton the devisee shall have that and not the executor of the devisor and Harris said 18. Elizabeth Allens case that it was adjudged that where a man devised land which was sowed for life the remainder in fee and the devisor died and the devisee for life also died before the severance and it was adjudged that the executor of the Tenant for life shall not have that but he in remainder and Winch Iustice said that it had been adjudged that if a man devise land and after sowe that and after he dies that in this case the devisee shall have the Corn and not the executor of the devisor nota bene Dodderidge against Anthony Entred Mich. 19. Jac. Rot. 1791. ENt. Mich. 19. Jac. Rot. 1791. Peter Dodderidge brought an action of accompt against one Anthony and he declared that he deâ—ivered to the Defendant so many pieces of cloath called Bridge-water red to be sold at Bilbo in Spain and the Defendant said that he sold the same cloath at Bilbo in Spain for 40. l. 18. s. English to be paid in May next insuing the sale which was in November before and over he alledged the Custome of Merchants to be that if any Merchant had goods in the same Kingdome to be sold to another Merchant and he sell the goods to be paid at a day to come and this is done before a publick Notary and thereby a Bill signed and acknowledged to him in his name who sold the goods and that if the Merchant who so sold the goods delivered the Merchant who was owner of the goods this Bill so taken in his name this shall be a discharge to him of the goods and he averred that he sold them to a Spanish Merchant and that he took a Bill accordingly and at London offered that Bill to the Plantiff who refused that and upon this plea the Plantiff demurred Attoe argued that the plea is not good because he had not alledged that the partie who takes such a Bill may plead that and the Custome is also alledged with an if if the party sell and if he take the Bill and not with positive averment that he may so sell and may so take the Bill which being delivered to the owner of the goods shall be a discharge to the factor who sold the goods and here this custome is not good by the Common Law for if I deliver goods to another to sell and he sell them to be paid the money at a day to come this is not good for he ought by his sale to make a compleat contract and if I sell my horse for 10. l. I may retain the horse till the money is paid for till then the contract is not compleat and so in this case and here the Plantiff shall have an action of accompt upon this delivery and if he sell them otherwise or do not sell them for ready money he had gone beyond his Commission and this Custome is unreasonable that the Bill shall be taken in his name who sold the goods but perchance if the custome had been alleadged to take the Bill in the name of the owner of the goods this had been good but in our case the owner of the goods may not sue nor have any remedy for his goods except the factor will go into Spain and sue the said Bill and it is unreasonable to leave this to the pleasure of my factor whether I shall have any remedy for my goods sold and it is very unreasonable that I shall be paid with a Bill which may not be sued and here the Plantiff is a stranger to the Custome of Spain and shall not be bound by that Serjeant Harris to the contrary the Custome which is alledged is good among Merchants though it is not good according to our Common Law and so if two Merchants trade joyntly and one of them dies before severance of the goods yet his executor shall have his part and not the Survivor and so by the law of Merchants a man cannot wage his law in debt upon a simple contract by which it is apparant that the laws of Merchants differ from our laws and indeed the laws of Merchants are National laws and that this is the Custome in Spain is confessed by the demurrer and then we may not examine that by the reason of our laws and the laws of Merchants ought to be favoured for trading sake which is the life of every Kingdome and by the law of Merchants a Bill without seal is good and yet by our law it is but an escrowl and so I pray judgement for the Defendant Hobert chief Iustice when the Merchant had delivered goods to the factor to sell he had made the factor negotiator gestorum and for that
reason the factor may sell the goods without ready money and this is good reason for perchance the goods are of that nature that they will not keep without perishing by which clearly it appears that if I deliver goods to another to Merchandise and to sell he may sell them without ready money but if my factor or Bailiff will sell them to one which he knows wâ—ll prove a Bankrupt without ready money this is not good but secondly he held the custome as it is here alledged not to be good for then the partie shall have no remedy for his money except the factor will go into Spain and sue the Bill and the laws of Merchants are special laws for their benefit and not for their prejudice and this custome as it is alledged is too large but if he had alledged that such Bill taken by the factor shall be as good and effectual to the Mr. as if it had been taken in his own name this had been good besides the custome is not good for it is alledged to be that when the factor had delivered the Bill to the owner of the goods this shall be a discharge to him who was the factor and here is no time set within which this may be delivered and so for ought is shewed it may be delivered 10. years after which may be good and to that which had been said that the laws of Merchants are national laws he denied that for every Kingdome had its proper and peculiar laws and though this is the law of Spain and national to them yet this ought to be reasonable or else it shall not binde and judgement was commanded to be entered for the Plantiff Hobert and Winch being only present It was ruled that he who had land in a parish who did not inhabit there shall be chargable to the reparation of the Church but not to the buying of ornaments of the Church for that shall be levied of the goods of the parishioners and not of their lands by Sir Henry Yelverton and said to be so formerly adjudged In trespas the Defendant pleads that one such was possessed of a term for years and bring so possessed by his last will and Testament devised that to the Defendant and died after whose death the Defendant entered and was possessed by vertue of the devisee upon which plea the Plantiff demurred generally and Hutton thought this plea prima facie to be good though the Defendant had not expresly alledged that the devisee died possessed but his plea implies that for he had said that he entered by vertue of the devisee and was possessed and this only matter of form and not matter of substance and no cause of general demurrer which Winch also granted that this was also matter of form and not matter of substance Gage against Johnson for his fees GAge brought an action against Iohnson as his servant and Solicitor to the Defendant in a suit in the Kings Bench taking for every Term 3. s. 4 d. for his fees and for this he brought his action of debt and Serjeant Hitcham moved in arrest of judgement and he urged the case of Samuel Leech an Attourney of this Court in an action upon the case brought by him upon a promise to pay so much for the solliciting of a cause of the Defendant and the opinion was that the action will not lie for it is in nature of maintenance for a Solicitor may not lay out money for his Clyent and if an action upon the case will not lie then much less an action of debt and Hobert said that a Councellor may take fees of his Clyent but he may not lay out or expend money for him and the same law of an Attourney for if he did disburse money for him he doubted much what remedy he should have and he further said a servant may follow business for his Mr. and may take money for his labour for if I retain my servant generally he is not bound to follow my suits at law except at his pleasure for that is an extraordinary service and for that if I will say to my servant that if he will follow my business at Westminster I will give him so much for his pains my servant in this case is not without his remedy but if his service is coupled with Soliciting to take money for his pains his opinion was that no action will lie to which the other justices also agreed and they arose Wright against Black before NOw the case of Wright and of Black was moved again and the case was that Wright had brought an action upon the case against Black and Black for that the Defendants intending to make away his good name and to cause him to lose his goods did maliciously and without cause at Norwich in the County of Norfolk prefer a Bill of indictment at the Sessions of peace containing that the Plantiff stole two bundles of fetches and also did cause and entice one I. S. to give in evidence that the indictment was good and true by reason of which he was bound to Answer that at the next Assiles and there he was accquitted and whether the action was maintainable was the question and Attoe argued that the action is maintainable though it is not shewed that the Bill of indictment was found and he vouched a case which was Hill 10. Iac. B. R. Rot. 921. between Whorewood and Cordery and his wife Defendants which case and judgement was after affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber upon a writ of error and the case was that the Plantiff declared that the Defendants intending to take away his good name did charge him to have ravished Dorothie Coxe and maliciously exhibited a Bill of indictment containing that the Plantiff did felloniously ravish the said Dorothie their daughter and did give this in evidence to the Grand jury who found Ignoramus and yet it was adjudged that an action lies and he cited a case the 19. Iac. in B. R. Deney against Ridgy where was only an indictment preferred concerning the stealing of a horse and no more and yet an action lies Hobert chief Iustice said that if seemed to him that it is actionable for this is as great a scandal to give this in evidence to the Grand jury as to publish this upon an Alebench and as the course of Iustice ought not to be stopped so neither ought the good name of man in things which concern his life be taken away without good cause and I have heard that judgement was given another Term for the Plantiff but quere better of that Hoes case HOes seised of land in fee he devised that to his wife for life the remainder of one parcel of that to Thomas his eldest son the remainder of the other parcel to his youngest son in fee and this devised was with proviso that the feme shall pay his legacies and also his will was that in case his wife died before the payment of his debts and legacies
his son and to Elizabeth Preston and to the heirs of John and so the Defendant claimed by vertue of a lease for 1000. years made by Iohn Buckley and the Plantiff demanded Dyer of the Indenture which was read to this effect that Andrew Buckley by the said Indenture covenanted with Preston that in consideration of a marriage between his son and the daughter of Preston that he will grant a rent charge of 6. l. 13. s. out of his land at Weymouth and at Melcombe Regis payable at 4. usual feasts and he Covenanted for him and his heirs that he would convey the land in Melcombe Regis and Wike Regis to such persons as Preston should appoint provided that the said Andrew Buckley and his wife may injoy that during their lives without impeachment of waste and covenanted that immediately after their deaths the lands shall immediately remain come and be to the said Iohn Buckley and Elizabeth his wife and that the advowson of Bradway shall remain come and be to the said Iohn Buckley and Elizabeth his wife and upon all the matter the question was whether by this last covenant an use will arise of the advowson in Bradway to Iohn Buckley for if an use is raised to him then this lease made by him is good and by consequence the title of the Defendants is good to present to this advowson and if not then the fee alwayes remained in Andrew Buckley the Grandfather and by devise discends did come to Andrew Buckley the Husband of the Plantiff and thâ—n the quare Impedit is maintainable And Hutton began his argument he argued that no use will arise to Iohn Buckley by this Indenture for when a man will raise an use by way of covenant there are 4. necessary things which ought to concur First is a sufficient consideration as of blood or marriage or other Collateral considerations as if I covenant with you that when you infeoffe me of certain land I will stand seised to the use of you and your heirs this is good but if the consideration be for money then this ought to be inrolled or otherwise no use will arise the second point is there ought to be a deed to testifie this agreement for otherwise no use will arise as was resolved 38. Eliz. in Collard and Collards case Thirdly he who covenants ought to be seised of the laâ—d at the time of the covenant as was resolved 37. Eliz. in Yelvertons case a man covenanted to stand seised to the use of his son of such lands as he should afterwards purchase and it was holden void because he was not seised at the time of the covenant and lastly the uses must agree with the rules of the Common law Cook 1. and he cited Chudleys case a man covenanted to stand seised to the use of one for years the remainder to the right heirs of I. S. this remainder is void though this is by way of covenant and use for the free-hold may not be in abeyance and so if I will at this day bargain and sell my lands in fee they shall not pass without the word heirs for it was not the intention of the said Statute to raise uses in such mannor contrary to the rules of the Common law or uses which are uncertain and in our case the intent was that no present use shall arise for out of the same land is granted a rent charge to Iohn Buckley and Eliz. his wife by which it appears plainly that it was not their intent that any present use should arise by the delivery of the indenture and if the use do not arise presently upon the delivery of the Indenture it shall never arise at all also the intent appears for it is that the land shall remain free from incumberances and this sounds only in covenant and for this reason the covenants shall be of the same nature and lastly the covenant is that the land shall remain and be and this is altogether incertaine and for this no use will arise because this failes of words as if I covenant to leave my lanâ— to my son after my death this will not raise an use to my son no more then if I covenant with the friends of my wife that after my death she shall have my goods this will not make my wife to be Executor and he vouched 21 H. 7. 17. 34. H. 8. 59. the Lord Borroughs case Dyer 355. 166. 324. and so be concluded that judgement ought to be given for the Plantiff Iustice Winch argued to the same purpose and he said the first part of the covenant contains that there shall be a marriage before such a day if the parties shall agree and the second part is a covenant that the feme shall have 6. l. 13. s. for her joynture and if this covenant executed an use of the land presently then this destroyes the joynture which was not the intention of the parties Thirdly there is another covenant to convey Coppihold land and if this covenant do raise an use then it will follow that Iohn Buckley shall have the land though the marriage do take effect and besides the covenant doth create an use presently or not at all and then when this use is to be raised by this covenant which contains in that nothing but future and Executory matter this will not create a present use and he cited the books which were vouched at the barre and by Hutton and so he concluded that this covenant will not raise an use presently to Iohn Buckley and that judgement ought to be given for the Plantiff And at another day the case was argued by Hobert chief Iustice for the Plantiff and that no use will arise by this covenant and he said if I will covenant to make assurance of my land to my son or to a stranger this covenant is meerly nugatorie and will not raise an use but on the contrary if I will covenant to stand seised to the use of my son though there is also a covenant to make further assurance yet this will raise a present use for the covenant is declaratory and not obligatory and so is Dyer 235. and there was no word to assure the land or to stand seised to uses but only that the land shall come remain and be in tail or in fee and there was no word to assure the land and this case is agreeable to the case of 21. H. 7. 18. by Rede that no use will arise and the reason is plain because the covenantor had election in which manner he shall have that whether by discent or in any other manner for if I covenant that my land shall descend to my son after my death no use will arise by this covenant and he put the case in Chudleys case that if a man covenant that after his death his son shall have his land in tall it is said that the son shall have an estate executed by the Statute of 27. H. 8. and the
covenantor shall have an estate for life and so the law makes in that case fractions of estates as the case of the Lord Seymor Dyer 96. seems to accord with this and besides those two books he said he could not finde any book which will warrant that and for that reason he held those two books to be no law for if I Covenant that my son shall have my land after my death this will not raise an estate to me by implication for life and an estate to my son and so by such means to change my estate in fee for an estate for life without more words for the word covenant in his proper and native signification is only obligatorie and yet it had been alwayes conceived sufficient to raise an use to him who is not partie to that as if I covenant with a stranger that I will stand seised of my land to the use of my son this will raise an use to my son and yet neither my son nor the covenantee may have an action of covenant but an use will very well arise to my son as if a man bargain and sell his land in consideration of 100. l. paid by I. S. though in this case the consideration ariseth from a stronger yet that will pass the use to the bargainee and in case of covenant it is not this word covenant only which creats the use but it is rather the agreement of the parties which is testified by the covenant for if sufficient agreement appears there will not need this word covenant as if I will agree and declare to stand seised to the use of my son by which it appears that the word covenant is onely declarative of the intentions of the parties and then in the principal case the covenant is not that the son shall have the land but that the land shall come remain and be to him and those words are incertain as 21. H. 7. redert come or discent and for that reason it is all one with the law of the same case and then void to raise any use for the incertainly and then when Andrew Buckley covenants that his son shall have his lands and no words to inforce his intention and for that reason the intention shall be lyable to an action of covenant and not to change his estate which he had in fee for an estate for life by this covenant but if he had expresly covenanted that in consideration of marriage of his son that he would hold his land for life and after this should be to his son this will change the estate which was in fee for an estate for life but in our case the covenant being general and left to the indifferent construction of the law the word covenant shall be taken in his proper and native signification and this is obligatorie and so he concluded that this covenant being at the first to grant a rent and was executory and the last part of that is executory for assurance and the limitation of the estate to the son being intangled between these two Covenants this shall be of the same nature and by consequence the covenant is obligatorie only and will raise no use to the son and so he concluded that judgement shall be given for the Plantiff and it was commanded to be entered accordingly Sparrow against Sowgate IN debt by Sparrow against Sowgate who declared that the Defendant became Bail for one Richard Sowgate in Banco Regis against whom the Plantiff had brought a Bill of debt of 77. l. and now the Defendant bound himself in a Recognizance of 77. l. upon which the action is now brought that in case judgement should be given against the said Richard Sowgate that he shall satisfie the said judgement or render his bodie to prison for in this case no part was impossible for after the judgement the principal may render himself in B. R. to the Marshal for the redemption of his suretie and that is the Common course there as he said but he agreed the case to be otherwise if a scire facias issue out of the Kings Bench against the Bail for there the death of the principal is a good plea for a scire facias doth not lie there till default is assigned in the principal in his not comming upon the capias ad satisfaciendum which may not be when he is dead Note that but yet before any capias it is clear he may have an action of debt Sir Robert Hitcham Serjeant of the King to the contrary and he alledged this to be the constant course in the Kings Bench that the Bail is never chargable till there is default assigned in the principal upon the recorn of the Capias ad satisfaciendum which may not be here for the principal is dead and he agreed the case of the other side that when a man is to do two things though the one is become impossible yet he ought to perform the other but when it is in the election of one to make either the one or the other then it is otherwise see Dyer 262. and so he concluded for the Defendant Hobert chief Iustice said that it is inconvenient that the Plantiff shall be forced to sue his Capias ad satisfaciendum against the partie before he have execution against the Bail for perchance he will sue a fieri facias or an elegit against him and that the Corps of the partie will not satisfie him and Browlow Prothonotary said that it had been adjudged in this Court that such plea is not good Winch the course of the Kings Bench is that default shall be assigned upon the retorn of the principal before the Bail shall be charged and though the Plantiff refuse to take his bodie after he had made his election to take his fieri facias or elegit he shall never more resort to the Bail which was granted by Hobert and Hutton as to that last point and it was holden by all the Court that if the principal render his bodie though the Plantiff refuse to take that yet that is a discharge of the Bail and also it was agreed by Hutton Hobert and by Winch that if the course of the Kings Bench be such that the Bail shall not be forfeit till there is a default assigned in the principal the same course also shall be followed here and per Curiam if the course of the Kings Bench be such that such Capias is necessary to be awarded that then a convenient time shall be allowed for the principal to render his bodie gratis and if the principal do die before such time the Bail is discharged but it was said by Winch if he die before convenient time and the Capias is awarded that such death shall not discharge the Bail note that Iones Iustice said that he thought in this case that it is necessary that the principal render himself gratis for when he is let to Bail the law supposeth him to be alwayes in custodie
and to be forth comming and for that reason he ought to appear within a convenient time when the Plantiff demands him which Hobert also granted but he said that there needs not any demand if the course of the Kings Bench is contrary and Iones Iustice said that he had a judgement given in the Kings Bench that the bail is forfeit after default is assigned in the principal and Winch said that the course of the Kings Bench is that default ought to be assigned in the principal upon the return of the Capias before the Bail shall be charged and it was agreed if that course be there it shall be observed here also but it was said by Hutton that there ought to be a scire facias awarded and returned against the Bail before the Bail is forfeit and it was adjourned until another time that they might see presidents Cyprian Web against Barlow CYprian Web brought a replevin against Barlow and the Defendant avowed as lessee for life of the Mannor of Froston to which the Plantiff is a Copiholder of a Copihold of the same Mannor and that 15. Iaco. in mense May he girdled and cut a tree in the middle upon his Copihold and that the steward Anno Supradicto charged the homage to finde this by which he had forfeit his Copihold and the Defendant being Lord of the Mannor distrained his beasts damage feasant and the Plantiff said that the custome of the Mannor is that every Copiholder may lap and girdle absque hoc that he cut the tree and upon that the Defendant demurred and Attoe argued for the Plantiff in the replevin that this is no cause to forfeit the Coppihold for though the steward did charge the homage to finde that yet it doth not appear that he gave any proof of that And secondly the forfeiture is alledged to be in May and the Court was holden in April before which was impossible which the Court granted as to that last point and for that the Plantiff had judgement East 21. Jac. C. P. Thorntons case in a Prohibition THornton prayed a prohibition to the Arches and the case was such one had a recovery in a quare Impedit and he had a writ to the Bishop against Thornton upon which A. his Clark was admitted c. and after the recoverer died and Thornton supposing his heir to be in the ward of the King and that the said A took another benefice without sufficient qualification by which the Church was void by Cession and he attained a presentation of the King and he was admitted c. by the Lord keeper being within the Diocess of Lincoln and A. sued him in the spiritual Court and Thornton prayed a Prohibition and it was granted per Totam Curiam for without question there ought nothing to be questioned in the spiritual Court after the induction of the partie and whether it is a Cession or no doth properly belong to the Common Law and Iones cited a judgement in Williams case according note that by the constitution of Otho and Othobon that institution and induction is voidable in the spiritual Court if no Prohibition be prayed Sheldon against Bret. IN a quare Impedit between one Sheldon and Bret Hutton said that we in Chancery have adjudged that the grant of the next avoydance for money when the Parson was sick in his bed ready to die is Simony for the Statute is if the contract be made directly or indirectly by any way or means Fleming against Pitman FLeming brought an action of Covenant against Pitman and he declared upon an indenture and that the Defendant Covenanted to serve him honestly and faithfully as an apprentice in the mystery of Drapery for seven years and that he had defrauded him of his goods c. the Defendant pleaded the Statute of the 5. of Eliz. that none shall be an apprentice to any of the most worthy trades among which Drapery is one except his father have freehold to the value of 40. s. per annum to be certified to the place in which he is to be apprentice by three of the Iustices of the peace of the same County and this certificate to be inrolled in the Town book and he pleaded that no such certificate was made and he pleaded the branch of the Statute of the 5. of Eliz. which made every retainer contrary to the form of this Statute to be void and the Plantiff replied that he had 40. s. per annum and the Defendant rejoyned that he had not 40. s. per annum upon that the Plantiff demurred because the Defendant said in his rejoynder that he had not 40. s. per annum and in his plea he pleaded no such certificate and the Iustices c. Hutton Hobert and Iones said that the retainer is good though there is not any such certificate or inrolment if re vera the father had 40. s. per annum for the intent of the Statute is that sufficient mens sons should be apprentises which is observed if the father had 40. s. per annum and Winch cites Englefields case upon the Statut 28. Eliz. cap. 3. that every one which claims by a conveyance from a Traitor shall bring in his conveyance to the Chequâ—e to be inrolled and yet if it be brought in though it be not inrolled the intention of the Statute is fulfilled and Iones cited a case in Banco Regis 18. Eliz. Robins case upon the Statute of 21. H. 8. of Pluralities where it was adjudged that a dispensation is good though it is not inrolled and yet there are as strong words of inrolment as may be And after in Trinity term 21. Iac. the same case was argued again by Attoe for the Plantiff and by Hitcham for the Defendant and per totam Curiam at that time it was agreed cleerly that this is a departure but for the second point whether the pleading of the certificate were good or no that was the doubt and Iustice Hutton thought there ought to be a certificate precede the indenture or otherwise that shall be void but Hobert as to that would not give his opinion but he seemed as Hutton and Hobert chief Iustice took exception to the laying of the action for he thought the Statute of the 5. of Eliz. shall not be intended so strong against infants as to make Collateral covenants to be good but Attoe moved that this covenant is incident to the retainer to serve truly and faithfully and yet if it were a Collateral covenant yet he had lost the advantage of that by his pleading as in debt upon an obligation against an infant if he plead non est factum he shall not have advantage of his Infancy to which Hobert also agreed but he said this is not like to our case for here it appears by the Count of the Plantiff that the Infant was but of the age of 15. years at the time of the retainer of which the Court ought to take notice and here the
Infant was not bound by this Covenant at the Common Law and no Collateral covenant shall be maintainable upon the Statute for this being against an Infant it shall be taken strictly as a custome that one shall infeoffe yet that custome will not warrant him to lease and release and as to that which had been said that it is incident to every retainer to serve truly and faithfully that is very true and an action upon the case lies upon a covenant in law but not upon the covenant in fact he ought to have Collateral securitie which was also confessed by Hutton and he said moreover that the retainer is for the benefit of the Infant that he learn his Trade but the covenant here is for his disadvantage and for the advantage of his Mr. and for that reason it is void as if an Infant had covenanted to pay 10. l. for the learning of his Trade when his time was up Winch Iustice contrary to that last point for he thought the covenant to be incident to the retainer and good though he is an Infant as an Infant who levyes a fine is also inabled to make an indenture to lead the uses and note that Hutton and Hobert said also that the barre of the Defendant is good viz. the pleading of the want of the certificate and for that reason the replication of the Plantiff that he had 40. s. per annum is evil and though the rejoynder of the Defendant is evil and a departure yet it appears that the Plantiff had not any cause of action and for the covenant they said that they two are strong in their opinions and upon that Winch agreed also that judgement shall be given against the Plantiff and Attoe moved the Court what remedy the Plantiff may have for the loss is 500. l. and per totam â—uriam he shall not have an action of accompt for that lies not against an Infant being an apprentice Coo. 11. 89. and the Court said that as to the retainer and the damage it is no more then if an Infant had been retained by word and there is not any remedy but an action upon the case and Attoe said that they had thought to have brought an action of Trover and conversion and he doubted whether that will lie and after the Court said to him you had best to bring an action upon your case and it was afterwards ordered by Arbitrement Oxford and his wife against Goldington IN a Prohibition for Oxford and his wife against Goldington to the Court of Audience for they are sued there for a legacie devised to the Plantiff by one George Cotton and this is as they are Administrators to one William Cotton who was executor of the said George for that he libelled against the Plantiffs in the Prohibition in the Court of Audience and had shewed that they had goods of the first Testator and a Prohibition was awarded and Finch moved for a consultation and he said if by the spiritual Law an Executor wasts the goods of the Testator and after dies intestate that in this case his Administrator shall answer that viz. the debts and the legacies of the first Testator and Doctor Pope who was present in the Court said that the Law was so and so he said the Common Law was that is the Statute of 31. E. 3. which gives the same remedy against an Administrator as against an Executor if the Executor die intestate for it is the interest of the first Testator upon which the Administrator shall be committed to the next of the Kin and if none will take that upon them then the Administration of the Executor ought and ought to take several letters of Administration for that and if no letters of administration is taken and yet he meet with the goods he shall be charged as an Executor of his own wrong and if no goods be of the first Testators then it is no reason that he should be charged and the Statute of 31. E. 3. gives no remedy per Curiam but against the immediate Administrator and if the case be as you have alledged then the Legatee or the debtee is at no damage or mischief for he may sue the Administrator of the first Testator if he had goods or any other who had goods as Executor of his own wrong and if none will take letters nor yet meddle with the goods then the debtee or the Legatee may take letters of Administration himself and so no consultation was awarded but the Prohibition stood Avis against Gennie and others ONe Avis brought an action of Trespass of his close broken against Gennie and two others and the writ was general but in the the declaration he affirmed that to be in Ayring half a Rood and in digging another half Rood and after in his new assignement shewed that to be a Sellion containing by estimation and acre and it was found for the Plantiff and damages assessed to 20. s. and now it was moved in arrest of judgement by Attoe because the new assignement is more large then the declaration and the opinion of the Court was that because this was but an action of Trespas where damages only is to be recovered that this is very good but otherwise it is perthance if that had been in an ejectione firme Brigs case BRigs brought a Prohibition against another and alledged that the Dean and Chapter of D. was seised of the Mannor and the Defendant being Vicar sued to have Tithe in Court Christian and shewed that time beyond memory c. they had held that discharged of Tithes for them and their Tenants and that they let that to the Plantiff and it was moved by Hendon Serjeant that the Dean and the Chapter are a bodie Politique and temporal which are not capable of this prescription in non decimando Coo. 2. the Bishop of Winchesters case Hobert said that the Dean and Chapter are a bodie spiritual and are annexed to the Bishop throughout all England and if the Bishop is capable of that as it is plain he is then the Dean and Chapter is also capable of that which was granted by Hutton but Winch doubted for Winch said he may be a lay man and for that the Plantiff ought to averre that he is a spiritual person Hutton confessed that the Dean may be a lay man as was the Dean of Durham by special licence and dispensation of a King but that is rare and a special case and is not common and general and therefore not to be brought as an example which was also granted by Hobert chief Iustice and upon that day was given over to the Defendant to shew cause wherefore the Prohibition shall not be granted Anne Summers case in Dower A Writ of Dower was brought by Anne Summers against the Tenant of the land and he pleaded a fine with proclamations levyed by her husband 14. Iac. in which year the husband died and the wife had not claimed within the Statute
Harvey and Blacklock in this Court where the Defendant pleaded such plea in all points as here as to the Fettering for the Defendant fettered the horse of the Plantiff because he was so fierce and so wild to one of his own horses and so continued till he delivered him to the Plantiff and because the horse died within the year the Plantiff brought his action and upon this plea pleaded by the Defendant it was demurred in law and judgement was given for him for Cook who was then chief Iustice said that a horse may be of 40. or 100. l. price and it shall be intollerable to allow such Nusance and secondly he had not made proclamation and so trespass lies against and so in our case Harris Serjeant to the contrary for when the Lord of a Mannor takes an estate he had some kinde of property before the year is expired and for that reason he may detain the estray against the owner till amends is made to him 44. E. 3. 14. 29. E. 3. 6. by Knevet 20. H. 7. by Vavasor and Frewick and if he had property against the owner himself he may use that with moderation to make some benefit of that especially in case of necessity as 22. Assise 5. 6. a man may justifie the beating another if he be in a rage and 6. E. 4. 8. one may justifie the felling of a tree in the ground of another in case of necessity and here is no other way to restrain this Savage Colt and so the justification is good but in this case it was resolved by Hobert Winch and Hutton Iones being in the Chancery First when a beast comes within the Mannor of another Lord this is a trespas but after the seisure for an estray it is a possession of the estray in the Lord and the beginning of property as Hutton used the term so that he may have an action of trespass against any stranger which takes that out of his possession and if he estray into the land of another he may him retake Secondly it was resolved that if the Lord make not proclamation in convenient time that this possession became tortious for the law necessarily imposeth it upon the Lord of the Mannor that he make Proclamation because that otherwise the owner may not come to the knowledge of him Thirdly that the estray within the year is as a pledge in the Custody of the law till amends be made to the Lord and for that reason the Lord may not work him no more then he can work a distress Fourthly it was resolved that if the estray goe into the Mannor of another Lord and the last Lord claims that as an estray the first Lord had lost that but not before claim Fifthly Hutton and Winch agree that he might Fetter the Colt being so fierce and wild for he is answerable for the trespas and wrong which he makes in the land of his neighbours and also to the owner if he lose him and therefore it is unreasonable that he may not keep him safe for his indempnity and that is not like to the case 27. Assise which was urged of the other side also they said fettering is the usual way in the Country to restrain wild horses and therefore if it be in an ordinary manner as he Fetters his own there is not any remedy against the Defendant Hobert chief Iustice was against that last point for the Lord may not hold him in arcta custodia as a prisoner because he had rather the keeping of an estray the the property and for that if the estray go into the land of another Lord the first may not take him again if the other claims him as an estray for the possession was rather in regard of his Mannor then in regard of himself and therefore he shall not answer for the wrong which he doth in the lands of others for the possession is in regard of his Mannor and his Fettering is an abuse and he may not neither use nor abuse an estray and he said over that the Defendant had not well pleaded for another reason because he had not shewed that he proclaimed him in the next market Town within convenient time which convenient time ought to be adjudged by the Court and he said the Lord may not keep him else where within the year then within the Mannor Winch Iustice said the Defendant ought to proclaim an estray ut supra if the year be past for by that he gains an absolute propertie but here where no property is devested he needs not to proclaim him within the year and Hobert commanded this case to be moved again see the last case but one in the book Ruled that after imparlance in debt upon an obligation the Defendant shall be admitted to plead alwayes ready though the 13. Eliz. in Dyer was urged to the contrary Hill 21. Jac. C. P. Hillary Term in 21 year Iac. C. P. Trehern against Claybrook TRehern brought an action of debt against Claybrook upon a lease for years and upon nihil debet pleaded and a special verdict the case was to this effect the Grandfather of the Plantiff was seised of lands in Southwark and he made a lease for years of that to the Defendant at London rendring 45. l. rent and after he devised the reversion to the Plantiff in fee and in his will he set forth that his intent was that his Executors shall have the reversion during the Term upon condition that they enter into bond to pay 34. l. per annum at 4. usual Feasts during the Term and he further devised that this bond shall be made by the advise of his overseers and he limitted all this to be done within 6. moneths after his decease and if his Executors refuse his will was that his overseers shall take the profits upon the same condition and appointed that both obligations be made to the Plantiff and the devisor died and the Executors within 3. moneths shewed the will to the overseers but no obligation was offered to be made within the 6. moneths and the Plantiff required the Executors to enter into the obligation and to pay the rent which was not done and he claimed the reversion and brought his action afterwards in London where the lease was made and not in Southwark where the land did lie and this case was twice argued by Councel at the barre and now it was argued by the 3. Iustices Hobert being absent And Iones Iustice moved a point which was not moved at the barre viz. that the Plantiff is devisee of the reversion and so is privie in estate only and for that reason the action ought to be brought in Southwark where the land lies and not in London where the contract was made but the lessor himself had liberty to bring the action where he pleased in regard of the privitie of estate and contract and so was it adjudged in the Kings Bench between Glover and Humble and here though this be
have Dower because the feme is dowable of them for this sufficeth to say that he had assets generally 7. Ed. 2. Dower 184. out of which I conclude that this voucher is not like to other vouchers but this is onely to secure the estate of the Purchasers and then as to the president I answer first it was found there that the vouchee had nothing and also it was never debated for a writ of error was brought of that and nothing done for this was referred to Arbitrement and so I pray that no writ of seisin may be awarded and the Court semed to be of opinion that the judgement may be conditional chiefly Hobert and Iones vehemently but now they said because that judgement is once given they are not to reverse their own judgements and to give another judgement and now it is as if he had no assets but yet that doth not aide an erroneous judgement given before and therefore if the Tenant will be relieved he ought to bring his writ of error but it was said that if this judgement was to be given again this was as it should be because that is all one now as if he had not assets and the judgement stood as it was Potter against Brown NOw the case of Potter and Brown was moved again and Hendon took two exceptions as before first for default of averment and secondly the words are not actionable for it was adjudged in Lanes case if one say of another that he is as arrant a Thief â—s any is in the Goal of Warwick this is not good without averment that there are Thieves in Warwick Goal and here it shall be so for the law doth not suppose that there are Thieves in England and besides here in this case the subsequent words do qualifie the other for the words under the for ought to be of such a thing as is Theft and that is not so in our case Serjeant Richardson to the contrary the last words do not qualifie but rather aggravate them for he gives a reason of his speach and this taking is to be understood with a fellonious intent for the first words do charge him to be a Thief and therefore the last words shall be intended that he took them with a fellonious intent for he did not only charge him in the general but in particular but the Court c. Hobert Hutton and Winch said that the Plantiff shall not have judgement because he failes of averment for he did not say expresly that he is a Thief but as arrant a Thief as any is in England and we are not to enquire after words except they are plain for if one say he was in Warwick Goal for stealing of a Horse adjudged not to be actionable and we may not presume that there are Thiefes in England and so judgement was arrested Adams against Ward INtra Trin. 21. Iac. Rot. 1845. note that it was said in an action upon the case between one Adams and Ward an Attorney that whereas one Hennings sued Adams in an action of debt and Adams retained Ward to be his Attorney and gave him warrant to plead the general issue and Ward suffered the judgement by nihil dicit that this was not any cause of an action except it was by Covin and for that if Adams had not laid in his declaration that this was by Covin he should not have recovered and at another day it was agreed that the Covin was not traversable by Plea but only in evidence at the Bar. Cook against Cook in Dower IN a writ of Dower between Cook and Cook they were at issue and at the day of nisi prius the Defendant pleaded that the demandant had entred and was seised and yet is seised since the last contrivance c. Octabis Sancti Hillarii ultimo quo die continetur usque ad hunc diem c. vicesimum diem Februariâ— which in verity was the day of the nisi prius and it was demurred upon this Plea for two causes the first was because he had not shewed that the Tenant was disseised for otherwise it shall not abate the action and to say that the demandant was seised was not sufficient for though this implies so much that the other was disseised yet here it ought to be expresly alledged but the Court spake nothing to this but Winch thought this to be very good according to Dyer 76. there the entrie is pleaded only and yet good but they resolved that the pleading of the continuance is not good for it is from one Term to another nisi prius justiciarii Venerint c. and he ought to have precisely shewed that but the question now was whether the demandant shall have judgement to have seisin or have apetite Cape only and Iustice Hutton said that it was adjudged in Sir Henry Browns case that if a man pleaded an insufficient Plea after the last continuance there the Plantiff shall have judgement as if the first issue had been tried for him and for this he cited the new book of entries fo 57â— and this may not be a judgement by default for they both appeared and therefore he shall have the same judgement as if the first issue had been tried for him and it was said in this case though the Defendant did demur generally yet this is very good The residue of Trinity Term in the 22. year of King James GOdsel an Attorney brought an action upon the case for words and he laid in his declaration that the Defendant spoke those words among other Master Godsel is a knave for he forged false deeds for which he was imprisoned at York and should have lost his ears and the jury found only these words Godsel is a forger of writings and deserves to lose his ears and Hendon moved in arrest of judgement that the words which are found are not the words in the declaration for the words were there that he forged deeds and it is only found to be writings and it was adjudged in this Court between Brown and Ellis that for saying an Attorney had forged writings no Action will lie for they are too general and besides it doth not at all appertain to him to make writings and so for Nowels Case he is Cooped up for forging of writings and it was adjudged not to be actionable and so to say he is a forger of writings by which he had cozned fatherless Children the words are not actionable because he did not say Deeds and upon this motion and reason the judgement in this case was arrested This case is Entred Hillarie the 21. Jac. Roll. 550. Sir George Trenchard against Peter Hoskins TRenchard brought an Action of Covenant against Peter Hoskins and declared upon an indenture bearing date the 19th of September 44. of Eliz. made between Iohn Hoskins father of the Defendant and the Defendant on the one part and the Plantiff on the other parte by which they bargained and sold certain lands to the
he was seised in fee and that he had power to alien that and this was to encourage the Purchasers and for the form he needs not aver that this was in the hands of Anne Parker for he had confessed that in the bar that he came lawfully to that and besides the Covenant is broken though he never was seised and so I conceive that the Plantiff shall have judgement Winch to the same intent it is true if it had been all but one Covenant then if it had been no question this had not been broken but I think they are several Covenants like to the case of Sir Robert Napper lately adjudged also the first two Covenants are in the affirmative and the other in the Negative and for that they ought to be answered with several pleas and these kinde of assurances are the Common assurances and therefore they ought to be interpreted favourably for the Purchasers and Iohn was not deceived in these Covenants for they brought down upon the deed an estate in fee and it is also agreed if the word Covenant and grant had been divers times added to the several clauses then they had been several Covenants and now it is all one word and made those to be several Covenants and words of relation never will controul that which is certainly put down before and so he concluded in this case the Plantiff shall have judgement to recover Hobert chief Iustice to the contrary every deed ought to be construed according to the intention of the parties and the intents ought to be adjudged of the several parts of the deed as a general issue out of the evidence and intent ought to be picked out of every part and not out of one Word only and here Peter joyned with his father to strengthen the assurance and Iohn had not only his own estate but the estate of Proud and it is plain he never meant to intangle himself with other Conveyances then those which he and Proud had made and I hold this to be no independent Covenant and it is all bound with one clause S. for any Act or Acts made by them c. and it is confessed if these words had been placed in the forefront that then they should relate to all and it is as clear as if they were and the first reson is that the intent appears only to undertake for himself because he should but have part of the land and for that he was to warrant his evidence and to that end he was to deliver to him his title at large in the said indenture and here he had made the Plantiff privie to every several conveyance of that to inform the Purchaser of it and will you also intangle him with a covenant you might have taken notice of his title and it appears to be the very intents of the parties that you should take notice of the title and inform your selves concerning the same Secondly this is a sentence which may be taken both wayes and I say it is agreed that if it had begun with these words notwithstanding any Act or Acts c. that then it shall be all construed by this and I never saw any difference I grant they are several Covenants in point of fact but not in point of obligation for there are not several words of binding nay I say if he had released this last he had released all but it hath been said that one is in the negative and the other is in the affirmative but I do not value that and it hath been said that this is the Common assurance of the Realm and if other construction shall be made then no man shall be sure of his own we had given him leave to say that no reversion nor remainder is in the King by any Act by him made and the King may not have any reversion and he seised in fee also this clause standing indifferent whether this shall be referred to all or not and then the question is how the Court will adjudge of that for my part I take it that this may stand with the intent of all the parties of the deed but take that as you take it that this destroyes all for if he is absolutely seised in fee what matter is where the reversion is and yet if the reversion was in the Crown and not by his Act you confess that may not charge him which is expresly against the first Covenant if this be distinct by it self but take that indifferently and all the parties will stand together Nappers case hath no affinity with this for questionless there were several Covenants for in that indenture it did not appear what estate Sir Thomas Eearsfield had and for that reason nothing might be collected out of that but he had a present estate but in our case all is contained in the bodie of the indenture and Nokes case is a strong case and stronger then the case at the bar is for thereupon construction of all the parties of the deeds the special warrantie controuls the general warranty and the reason is no man will take an express special warranty when the intent is that he shall have a general warranty there was a case lately ajudged between the Earl of Clanrickard and his wife against the Countess of Leicester where the Lady pleaded that she was Tenant in Dower where in veritie she had the revesion in fee expectant upon a Term for life and they conveyed all the estate the Lady had in Dower and then they covenanted that they would convey all their estate to the Lord of Leicester and his heirs during the life of his wife and then Covenanted that they would convey all their estate to the Earl of Leicester and his heirs for ever in the aforesaid land and it was resolved that though such Covenant will raise an use to the partie who ought to have that and so the reversion will pass if there had been no more words now it was but during the life of the Lady for that third part for the Covenant was but to strengthen an estate and not to convey it and so he concluded that the Plantiff should be hard and after it was said by the Court that this case was not of weight to be brought into the Exchequer Chamber and therefore the Court advised that the parties would agree quere for the residue in the Exchequer Chamber concerning that Entred Hill 18. Jac the case of Comendams Richard Woodley against the Bishop of Exeter and Mannering RIchard Woodley brought a quare Impedit against the Bishop of Exeter and Mannering who was Parson of the said Church and he declared that Arthur Basset was seised of an acre of land to which the said Advowson was appendant in his demeasne as of fee and that he the 13. Octobris 13. Eliz. granted the next advowson to one William Manwood who was then incumbent in the said Church who by his will 20. November made one Harcourt his executor
the year and afterwards the money not being paid Hickman sued forth a Capias ad satisfaciendum against Sir William Fish directed to the Sheriff of Bedfordshire for 210. l. and now upon a habeas Corpus Sir William Fish was brought to the bar and Serjeant Crawley moved for a supersedeas for him because the writ emanavit improvide c. and by the Court it is a cause to discharge him of the execution for the Capias ought to have issued for 200. l. only and he ought to have sued a scire facias though this was after the year because the Proces was not continued but they said withall it was in their discretion whether they will grant a supersedeas for they may put the Defendant to his writ of error It was ruled that if an action of debt was brought and the venire facias to trie the issue is in placito debiti and so is the habeas Corpus and the Pannel but in the Iury Roll of the nisi prius at the latter end of the jurata there it is placito transgressionis and agreed in this case this is amendable or in this case it is good without amendment Wen against Moore THomas Crew Serjeant did move in arrest of judgement where one Wen brought an Action upon the case against Moore and upon non assumpsit it was found for the Plantiff and he said that the Colloquium was laid to be at Bourn in the Countie of Lincoln and the venire facias was de Vicineto de Born without the letter u. and for that reason that they are several Towns therefore error for if the entire Town is omitted the trial is insufficient but the Court held this to be very good without amendment and shall be intended to be the same Town It was moved in arrest of judgement by Serjeant Finch that where one had brought an Action upon the case against one and shewed that the Defendant in consideration of 12. d. given to him by the Plantiff he assumed and promised that if the Plantiff may prove that he cut quandam arborem upon the land of Sir Francis Vain tunc crescent that he would give to him 10. l. and this being proved by the Plantiff it was now moved in arrest of judgement that quandam arborem is an individual tree and it ought to be aliquam arborem and another cause was alledged because it was not shewed that this was upon the land of Sir Francis Vain then growing but only he had said growing and that may be for perchance he purchased the land afterwards and before the Action brought and so it might be growing though not tunc crescent at the time of the promise but the Court c. Winch Hutton and Harvey seemed that the declaration was good for they said there is no question if quandam had been out this had been good for it is the singular number and he that certain or be that incertain yet by the verdict it is made certain that this is a tree and also those words tunc crescent do refer to the time when the tree was feld and not to the promise Holman against Sir Thomas Pope and Elizabeth his wife SErjeant Hendon moved in a case where an Action was brought by one Holman against Sir Thomas Pope and Elizabeth his wife as daughter and heir to Sir Thomas Watson and pending the writ Pope died and he moved that the writ ought not to abate because it is brought against her as daughter and heir where the land is assets in which the husband had nothing like to the case of an Executrix who brings her action in her own name and the name of her husband and pending the writ the husband dies the writ shall not abate but Justice Harvey said this case of Executors was adjudged against him and Hobert chief Justice was of opinion that the writ shall not abate but day was given over in that case Sir Thomas Holbeach against Sambeach IN the case between Sir Thomas Holbeach and Sambeach in a replevin where a demurrer was joyned the case was this one being Tenant for life and he in remainder in tail joyned in a grant of a rent in fee out of that and then they joyned in the levying of a fine to a stranger and his heirs and in this case it was said that the estate of the grantee of the rent which before was determinable is now made absolute and a judgement was also cited to be in that case lately adjudged to which the Court seemed to agree and they said if this be the point they will give judgement presently Crompton against Philpot. HEndon Serjeant moved in arrest of judgement in a case for Philpot a crier of this Court where one Crompton had recovered 40. l. damages against him in an action upon the case for words spoken against Crompton c. he innuendo the Plantiff stole a ring and had been hanged for that but for me and it was said in the first place that it doth not expresly appear that the words were spoken of the Plantiff himself neither is this introduced by any precedent Colloquium as it ought for otherwise the innuendo will not aide it but in veritie the declaration was that the words were spoken de eodem Richardo innuendo c. and also he said that the words are not actionable because that no value is exprest but it was ruled if that were but petie Larcenie the action lies but the Court gave no absolute opinion in the case for they were willing to compound for the poor man The residue of Michaelmas Term in the two and twentieth year of King James Brown and Ware against Barker BRown and Ware brought an action agaist Barker and they declared that whereas there was a suit depending between the Plantiffs and other Coppiholders of such a mannor in the Chancery against Brook their Lord and that one Woolsey was there Clark and that he for his fees and for the procuring of a decree had disbursed 14. l. and that there being a Communication between the Plantiff and the Defendant concerning the same he being a Coppiholder of the same Mannor that in consideration that they would pay to Woolsey 14. l. he would pay to the Plantiffs 40. s. upon request and the Plantiff shewed that they had paid the 14. l. and that the Defendant had not paid the 40. s. Licet postea saepius requisitus fuisset and upon non assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plantiffs and now it was moved in arrest of judgement by Crook Serjeant First because he is a stranger to the suit for he had not alledged that the Defendant was a partie and then it is no consideration but this was over-ruled because they paid the 14. l. upon his request the second exception was that this postea saepius requisitus was not sufficient in this case because that he ought to express the certaintie when and the place where the request was made
shall be given for the Plantiff and yet they agreed he might have demurred upon the declaration and that was good and also they held if that had been generally saepius requisitus c. it had not been good because the request is parcel of the promise and therefore ought to be precisely set down to be after the promise and the payment of the 52. l. but here they said for the time it is very well expressed by this word postea and there is not any defect but only in the place for postea implies that this was after the promise and payment of the money and Hobert said that all the points of the declaration quoad the substance are good only it fails in the place where the request was made and this varied by the issue and all the rest is sufficiently alledged to ascertain the Court that the promise is broken and Hutton said that in his opinion such a request ought to be given in evidence but Harvey said that though the request is parcel of the promise and that ought to be sufficiently alledged and so it was here so that the Court may give judgement of that and he said that postea requisitus had relation to the time of the promise and the payment of the money and judgement was given accordingly for the Plantiff in the said case Sir John Davis priviledge denied NOte that this day being the 26. of November Davis who was the Kings first and chief Serjeant came to the Bar and he offered to move the Court and they refused to heare him because his course was gone in his absence and he claimed his priviledge that the Kings Serjeant might move at any time but Iustice Hutton answered that 20. years agoe when he was made Serjeant there was no such custome or priviledge except they moved for the King and so said Iustice Winch also and he said that though of late time such favour had been given to them yet that was ex gratia Curiae and this was an evil custome especially now when the King had five Serjeants and he used to have but two and so they told him they would not allow of any such priviledge or prerogative neither would they hear him upon any such account and they said perchance of favour they might hear him Austin against Beadle AUstin brought an ejectione firme of lands against Beadle and declared of a lease made at Haylesham and the Defendant pleaded that Haylesham praedict ubi tenementa jacent is within the five Ports where the writ of the King rans not and so he pleaded to the jurisdiction of the Court and the other replied that the Town of Haylesham was within the Countie of Sussex absque hoc that it was within the five Ports and upon that the Defendant demurred and it was argued by Finch that the traverse was not good and he said that he ought to have traversed absque hoc quod villa de Haylesham ubi tenementa jacent is within the five Ports for the veritie was that it was part in the five Ports and part in the Countie of Suffex and the land lies in that part which is in the five Ports and for that he may not take issue upon that traverse for then it will be found against him and so he said it was held 50. Ed. 3. 5. that the Plantiff in trespass there in his declaration and replication he distinguished the part and so the Plantiff ought here but it was answered by the Councel of the other side and resolved also by the Court that the traverse is good and that the Bar is naught and if the Plantiff may not traverse in other manner and that the Defendant in his Bar he ought to have made his distinction and every plea which goes to the jurisdiction of the Court shall be taken most strong against him who pleads that and the traverse here ought to be to the Town and not to ubi which was idle for the law said as much and we do not imagine any fractions of Towns and so I conclude the Plantiff ought to have judgement Ashley against Collins IN a case between Ashley and Collins it was agreed clearly by the Court that if an infant made an obligation and after he being sued upon that an Attorney without warrant suffers a judgement by non sum informatus that this was no cause to grant an audita querela and upon the opinion of the Court the audita querela was quasht for it was said he shall have a writ of error if he were within age and if he was not then he shall have his writ of disceit against the Attorney Anthony Gibson against Edward Ferrers ANthony Gibson brought an Action of debt of 1000. l. upon an obligation made the 11th of December 21. Iac. and the Defendant came and demanded Oyer of the condition and the condition recited that whereas there were differences between the said parties concerning some accompts now they had for the final determination of them they had put themselves upon the award and arbitrement of Gerrard de Malines to be made before the last day of December next if therefore the said Edward Ferrers his Executors c. shall and do for his and their parts perform stand to and keep the said Arbitrement of the said Gerrard de malines that then c. quibus lectis et auditis idem Edwardus dicit quod praedictus Antonius Actionem suam versus cum habere non debet because he said that the said Gerrard de malines did not make any Arbitrement and the other replied and shewed an Arbitrement which he did award to Gibson interested to be paid for money among divers other things and upon that the Defendant did demur in law and it was argued by Bridgman Serjeant for the Defendant that Arbitrement is void for it is for the payment of interest and I hold that Arbitrators who are judges indifferently chosen may not award interest to be paid for that is an unlawful thing for all the Statutes which have been made concerning usury have branded that to be unlawful and those differences which are submitted ought to be intended to be lawful differences and he cited a case in the Kings Bench where an action upon the case was brought upon a promise made upon consideration that if the Defendant will forbear the principal together with the interest that he will pay that at a certain day and it was adjudged that the action lies because there was no certain interest set down for he said if the certaintie of the interest had been set down the consideration had not been good and then if this thing be so unlawful that a man may not binde himself by his promise then á fortiori Arbitrators may not award that and for another reason it is void because that interest is awarded for the time after the submission was made and so I pray that the Plantiff may be barred Hendon contrary I hold the award