the case which implyed their opinions to be for the Universitie And 21. H. 7. was vouched That the Patronage was only matter of favour and was not a thing valuable And in this case Cook chief Justice said That Apertus haereticus melius est quam fictus Catholicus Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 310 BOND and GREEN's Case AN Action of Debt was brought against an Administrator the Defendant shewed how that there were divers Judgments had against him in 〈◊〉 Aâ—d â—â—so that there was another Debt due by the Testator which was assigned over unto the Kings Majesty and so pleaded That he had fully Administred Barker Serjeant took Exception to the pleading because it was not therein shewed that the King did assent to the Assignment and also because it was not shewed that the Assignment was enrolled The Court said nothing to the Exceptions But whereas he Defendant as Administrator did alledge a Retayner in his own hands for a debt due to himselfe The opinion of the whole Court was that the same was good and that an Administrator might retayne to satisfie a debt due to himselfe But it was agreed by the Court That an Excecutor of his own wrong should not Retayne to satisfie his own debt See to this purpose C. 5. part Coulters Case Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 311 STROWBRIDG and ARCHERS Case IN An Action of debt upon a Bond the Defendant was Outlawed And the Writ of Exigent was viz. Ita quod habeas corpus ejus hîc c. whereas it ought to be coram Justiciariis nostris apud Westminster And for that defect the utlagary was reversed and it was said that it was as much as if no Exigent had been awarded at all And upon the Reversall of the utlagary a Supersedeas was awarded and the party restored to his goods which were taken in Execution upon the Capias utlagatum It was also resolved in this Case That if the Sheriffe upon a Writ of Execution served doth deliver the mony or goods which are taken in Execution to the Plaintiffs Atturney it is as well as if he had delivered the same to the Plaintiff himself for the Receipt by his Atturney is in Law his own Receipt But if the Sheriff taketh goods in Execution if he keep them and do not deliver them to the paâ—â— at whose suit they are taken in Execution the party may have a new Execution as it was in the principal Case because the other was not an Execution with Satisfaction Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 312 CHAVVNER and BOVVES Case BOwes sold three Licences to sell Wine unto Chawner who Covenanted to give him ten pounds for them and Bowes Covenanted that the other should enjoy the Licences It was moved in this Case whether the one might have an Action of Covenant against the other in such Case And the opinion of Warburton and Nichols Justices was That if a Man Covenant to pay ten pound at a day certain That an action of Debt lyeth for the money and not an action of Covenant Barker Serjeant said he might have the one or the other But in the principall Case the said Justices delivered no opinion 313 Note That this Day Cooke Chief Justice of the Common Pleas was removed to the Kings Bench and made Lord Chief Justice of England And Sir Henry Hobart who was the Kings Aturney generall was the day following made Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas. Sir Francis Bakon Knight who before was the Kings Solicitor was made Atturney Generall And Mr Henry Yelverton of Grays-Inn was made the Kings Solicitor and this was in October Term. Mich. 11 Jacobi 1613. Mich. 11. Jacobi In the Common Pleas. 314 THis Case was put by Mountague the Kings Serjeant unto the Lord Chief Justice Hobart when he took his place of Lord Chief Justice in the Common Pleas viz. Tenant in tail the Remainder in taile the Remainder in Fee Tenant in tail is attainted of Treason Offence is found The King by his Letters Patents granteth the lands to A who bargaineth and selleth the land by Deed unto B. B. suffers a common Recovery in which the Tenant in tail is vouched and afterwards thâ— Deed is enrolled And the question was Whether it was a good Bar of the Remainder And the Lord Chief Justice Hobart was of opinion That it was no barre of the Remainder because before enrollment nothing passed but only by way of conclusion And the Bargainee was no Lawfull Tenant to the Precipe Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 315 WHEELER's Case IT was moved for a Prohibition upon the Statute of 5. E. 6. for working upon Holy days and the Case was That a man was presented in the spirituall Court for working viz. carriage of Hay upon the feast day of Saint John the Baptist when the Minister preached and read divine service and it was holden by the whole Court of Common Pleas That the same was out of the Statute by the words of the Act it self because it was for necessity And the Book of 19 H. 6. was vouched That the Church hath authority to appoint Holy days and therefore if such days be broken in not keeping of them Holy that the Church may punish the breakers therof But yet the Court said That this day viz. the Feast day of Sr John the Baptist was a Holy day by Act of Parliament and therefore it doth belong unto the Judges of the Law whether the same be broken by doing of such work upon that day or not And a Prohibition was awarded Mich. 11 Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 316 REARSBY and CUFFER's Case IT was moved for a Prohibition to the Court of Requests because that a man sued there by English Bill for money which he had layd out for an Enfant within age for his Meat drink necessary apparel and set forth by his Bill that the Enfant being within age did promise him to pay the same And a Prohibition was awarded because as it was said he might have an action of Debt at the common Law upon the contract for the same because they were things for his necessary livelihood and maintenance And it was agreed by the Court That if an Infant be bounden in an Obligation for things necessary within age the same is not good but voidable Quaere for a difference is commonly taken When the Assumpsit is made within age and when he comes to full age For if he make a promise when he cometh of full age or enters into an Obligation for necessaries which he had when he was within age the Law is now taken to be that the same shall binde him But see 44. Eliz. Randals Case adjudged That an Obligation with a penaltie for money borrowed within age is absolutely void Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 317 SMITH's Case SMith one of the Officers of the Court of Admiralty was committed by the Court of Common Pleas to the prison of
expressly that he recover treble damages yet because it did amount to so much if the words of the sentence be joyned together It was directed that a special Prohibition in which the Statute and the whole matter is to be mentioned be awarded And in this case it was agreed by the whole Court That the Statute of 2 â— 6. for substraction of Tythes meerly doth not give any damages but if the Tythe be first set forth and then they are substracted there because the Parson had once an interest in them he shall recover treble damages And the principal Case was resembled by Warburton Justice to the case of Waste that if the Jury give damages 20l l there the Court shall treble the damages and make the same 60l and so it was done in the principal case Hill 11 Iacobi in the Common-Pleas 342. GIPPE's Case A Man Libelled for Tythes in the Spiritual Court the Defendant alleadged a Modus Decimandi and thereupon had a Prohibition and afterwards the Plaintiffe in the Prohibition did not prove his suggestion within six months and therefore the Court granted a Consultation because the Law hath appointed a certain time within which time the suggestion is to be proved Otherwise the Parson should be delayed and prejudiced in his Tythes and so it was adjudged in Parson Bugs case Mich. 8. Jacobi in this Court Hill 11 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 343. CROSSE and STANHOP's Case AN action of false Imprisonment was brought against the Defendant and two other Justices of Peace of the County of York The Defendants justified the Imprisonment by reason of the Statute of 1 M. cap. That it should not be lawful for any maliciously and contumeliously to molest or disquiet any person or persons which are Preachers or after should be Preachers And the Plaintiffe demurred upon the Plea in Bar generally and two Exceptions were taken to the Pleading 1. Because the words of the Statute were misrecited for the words of the Statute are in the disjunctive maliciously or contumeliously And the opinion of the Court was that when the precedent subsequent words disjunctive are all of one sense that the word Or is all one with the copulative but where they are of divers natures as by word or deed it is otherwise The second Exception was That where the words were by the greater part of the Justices the Recital was by the better part of the Justices But notwithstanding these Exceptions it was adjudged against the Plaintiffe Pasch 12 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 344. CARTWRIGHT's Case CArtwright prayed a Prohibition and the Case was this A. lying sick upon his bed made his Will and afterwards said unto his Executors named in the Will I will that B shall have twenty pounds more if you can spare it And the Executor answered and said Yes forsooth but no Codicil was made of the same Legacie And a Bill was preferred in the Spiritual Court for the Legacie whereupon the Executor prayed a Prohibition And it was holden by this Court that although this Court hath not power to hold plea of the thing Libelled for there in the Spiritual Court yet it hath power to limit the Jurisdictions of other Courts and if they abuse their authority to grant a Prohibition Vid. 2 H. 4. 10. But it was doubted whether the Spiritual Court as this case is might give remedy to the person for the Legacie For the same not being annexed to the Will by a Codicil it was but fidei commissum and so the doubt was Whether the Spiritual Court might hold plea of it For if they cannot hold plea of it then in this case a Prohibition may be lawfully granted although that this Court have not power nor jurisdiction of the thing it self The Court would be advised of it and therefore it was adjourned Pasch 12 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 345. Sir CHRISTOPHER HEYDON's Case GOdsall Shepard Smith brought an Assise of Novel disseisin against Sir Christopher Heydon which was tryed at the Assises in Norfolk before Sir Tho. Fleming Lord Chief Justice of England and Justice Dodderidge which was found for the Plaintiffs and Judgment was given for them in the Court of Common-Pleas And thereupon Sir Christopher Heydon brought a Writ of Error in the Kings Bench and assigned for Error That whereas the Judgment was given upon his own Confession the Judgment was entred That the Plaintiffs did recover per visum Recognitorum Assise predict And after argument in the Kings-Bench it was adjudged by the whole Court that the Judgment given in the Common-Pleas should be affirmed notwithstanding the Error assigned And now to reverse the Judgment given in the Kings Bench he brought another Writ of Error in Parliament Cook Chief Justice said That the Clarks of the Chancery ought not to make a Writ of Error to the Parliament unlesse they have the Kings licence so to do And it was agreed by the whole Court that a Writ of Error lieth in Parliament upon the Transcript of the Record without bringing of the Record it self in Parliament For the Parliament is holden at the Kings pleasure and may be dissolved before the Errors be discussed and so the Record it self cannot be brought here again because the Parliament which is a higher Court was once possessed of it 8 H. 5. Error 88. The same Law in Error upon a Judgment given in Ireland 5 E. 2. Error 89. where only the Transcript of the Judgment is removed For if the Record it self should be brought into England it might be that before it came hither it shall be drowned in the sea and it is dangerous to commit a Record to the mercy of the winds and sea And Error lieth to reverse a Fine upon the Tenor of the Record and it is not necessary to bring the Fine it self because there is not any Chirographer in this Court to examine it At another day the same Term George Crook and Noy took five Exceptions to the said Writ of Error the first was Because the Writ doth recite the Judgment to be in Assis capt coram Tho. Fleming Capital Justiciar ad Placita Johannem Dodderidge milit unum Justic ad Placit coram nobis tent And the Exception was because that this latter addition was not to them both Dodderidge Justice held that the same was no good Exception to abate the Writ of Error because the omission is only in the addition of Honour which is surplusage and the Person is certain and his power appears to take the Assise and that Exception is not in point of jurisdiction but of denoting of the person and therefore is like the Case in 19 Eliz. Dyer 356. which is a stronger Case and 6 E. 6. Dyer 77. Haughton and Cook contr But Crook Justice did agree with Dodderidge that the addition of the same was but surplusage and that the Writ had been well enough without it Cook Chief Justice held the contrary For then he varieth from their
them and held that the Custom might be good Mich. 17 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 400. IN an Evidence in an Ejectione firme for Land in the Countie of Hartford the Case was this A man was married unto a woman and died The wife after 40 weeks and 10 days was delivered with child of a daughter and whether the said daughter should be heir to her Father or should be bastard was the Question and Sir William Padde Knight and Dr Montford Physitians were commanded by the Court to attend and to deliver their opinions in the Case who being upon their Oaths delivered their opinions That such a child might be a lawfull daughter and heir to her Father For as wellas an Antenatus might be heir viz. a child born at the end of 7 months so they said might a Postnatus viz. child born after the 40 weeks although that 40 weeks be the ordinary time And if it be objected that our Saviour Christ was born at 9 months and five days end who had the perfection of Nature To that it may be answered That that was miraeulum amplias And they held that by many Authorities and by their own Experiences a child might be Legitimate although it be born the last day of the 10â—h Month after the conception of it accounting the Months per Menses solares non Lunares Hill 17 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 401. WEBB and PATERNOSTERS Case A Man gave Licence unto another to set a Cock of Hay upon his Medow and to remove the same in reasonable time and afterwards he who gave the Licence made a Lease of the Medow to the Defendant who put his Cattel into the Medow which did eat the Hay And for that the Paintiffe brought his Action of Trespass And upon Demurrer joyned the Court was of opinion against the Plaintiffe For upon the whole matter it appeared That the said Hay had stood upon the said ground or Medow for 2 years which the Court held to be an unreasonable time Mich. 18 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 402. BROWN and PELL's Case IN an Ejectione firme upon a special Verdict found the Case was this Browne had issue two Sons and devised his Lands to his youngest Son and his Heirs And if it shall happen his said youngest Son to die without issue living his eldest Son That then his eldest Son should have the Lands to him and his Heirs in as ample manner as the youngest Son had them The youngest Son suffered a Common Recovery and died without issue living the eldest Son The Question was whether the eldest Son or the Recoverer should have the â—ands Montague Haughton and Chamberlain Justices The same is a Fee-simple Conditional and no Estate Tail in the youngest Son Doddridge Justice contrarie Mich. 18. Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 403. POLLYES Case IN an Action of Trespass It was agreed by the Court If 2 Tenants in Common be of Lands upon which Trees are growing and one of them felleth the Trees and layeth them upon his Freehold If the other entreth into the â—and and carrieth them away an Action of Trespasse Quaere clausum fregit lyeth against him because the taking away of the Trees by the first was not wrongfull but that which he might well do by Law And yet the other Tenant in Common might have seized them before they were carried off from the Land But if a man do wrongfully take my Goods as a Horse c. and putteth the same upon his Land I may enter into his Land and seize my Horse again But if he put the Goods into his House in such Case I cannot enter into his House and retake my Goods because every mans House is his Castle into which another man may not enter without special Liâ—ence Hill 19 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 404. THe Case was That two Tenants in Common of Lands made a Lease thereof for years rendring Rent and then one of them died And the Question was who should have the Rent And if the Executor of him who died and the other might joyn in an Action for the Rent And as this Case was The opinion of the whole Court was That the Executor and the other might joyn in one Action for the Rent or sever in Action at their pleasures But if the Lease had been made for life rendring Rent The Court was cleer of opinion that they ought to sever in Actions Trin. 20 Jacobi in the Kings Bench. 405. A Man was bounden in a Bond by the name of Edmond and his true name was Edward And an Action of Debt was brought against the Executors of Edmond upon the said Bond who demanded Oyer of the Bond and then pleaded that it was not the Deed of their Testator and issue being thereupon joyned It was found by Inquest in London to be his Deed viz. the Deed of Edmond And it was moved in Arrest of Judgment Quod querens nihil caperet per Billam and so it was resolved and adjudged by the Court Doddridge only being absent And a Case was vouched by Henage Finch Recorder of London to prove this case That it was so adjudged in a Case of Writ of ErError brought in the Exchequer-Chamber in which Case the party himself upon such a Misnosmer and after a Verdict and Judgment given in the same Case did reverse the Judgment for this Error Mich. 14 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 406. VESEY's Case VVIlliam Vesey was indicted for erecting of a Dove-house And Serjeant Harvey moved That the Indictment was insufficient the words were That the Defendant erexit Columbare vi armis ad commune nocumentum c. and that he was not Dominus Manerii nes Rector Ecclesiae And the Indictment was quashed because it was not contained in the Indictment that there were Doves in the Dove-cote For the meer erecting of a Dove-cote if there be no Doves kept in it it is no Nusans as it was holden by the Justices Mich. 15 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 407 Sir WILLIAM BRONKER's Case SIR William Bronker brought an Action upon the Case for slanderous words And he shewed in his Declaration how that he was a Knight and one of the Gentlemen of His Majesties Privy-Chamber And that the Defendant spake of him these scandalous words viz. Sir William Bronker is a Cosening Knave and lives by Cosenage Which was found for the Plaintiffe In arrest of Judgment it was moved that the words were not actionable And so it was adjudged per Curiam Pasch 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 408. YATE and ALEXANDER's Case YAte brought an action upon the Case against Alexander Attorney of the Kings Bench and declared That the Plaintiffe in an action of Debt brought against Alexander the Defendant who was Executor to his Father had Judgment to recover against him as Executor and that he sued forth a Fieri facias to the Sheriffe to have Execution and that before the Sheriffe could come to levy the debt and serve the
afterward the Husband suffers the wood to grow five and twenty yeers and afterwards hee dieth The question was Whether the Wife being Tenant for life might cut that Underwood And it was moved What shall be said seasonable Underwood that a Termor or Tenant for life might cut Dyer Chief Justice and all the other Justices held That a Termor or Tenant for life might cut all Underwood which had been usually cut within twenty yeers In 11. H. 6. 1. Issue was taken If they were of the age of twenty yeers or no. But in the Wood-Countries they may fell seasonable wood which is called Sylva caedua at six and twenty eight and twenty thirty years by the custome of the Country And so the Usage makes the Law in severall Countries And so it is holden in the books of 11. H. 6. and 4. E. 6. But they agreed That the cutting of Oakes of the age of eight yeers or ten years is Waste But by Meade Justice the cutting of Hornbeams Hasels Willows or Sallows of the age of forty yeares is no Waste because at no time they will be Timber Another question which was moved was That at the time of the Feoffment it was seasonable Wood and but of the growth of fourteen or fifteen yeers If this suffering of the Husband of it to grow to 25 years during the Coverture should bind the Wife so as she cannot cut the Woods Gaudy Serjeant said That it should not bind the Wife For if a Warranty descend upon a Feme Covert it shall not bind her So if a man seized of Land in the Right of his Wife be disseised and a Descent be cast during the Coverture it shall not bind the Wife but that she may enter after the death of the Husband But by Dyer Chief Justice and all the other Justices This Permission of the Husband shall bind the Wife notwithstanding the Coverture for that the time is limited by the Law which cannot be altered if it be not the custome of the Country As in the case of 17. E. 3. Where a man makes a Lease for years and grants that the Lessee shall have as great commoditie of the Land as hee might have Notwithstanding these words he cannot dig the land for a Mine of Cole or Stone because that the Law forbids him to dig the land So in the principall Case The Wife cannot fell the Wood notwithstanding that at the time of her estate she might and afterwards by the permission of the Husband during the coverture the time is incurred so as she cannot fell it because the Law doth appoint a time which if it be not felled before such time that it shall not be felled by a Termor or a Tenant for life but it shall be Waste Hill 23. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 7. A Man makes a Lease of a Garden containing three Roodes of Land and the Lessee is ousted and he brings an Ejectione firme and declares that he was ejected of three Roods of Land Rodes Serjeant moved That by this Declaration it shall be intended that he was ejected of the Garden of which the Lease was made and so the Ejectione firme would lie And it was holden by the Lord Chief Justice Dyer That a Garden is a thing which ought to be demanded by the same name in all Precipes as the Register and Fitz. N. Brevium is And this Action is greater then an Action of Trespasse because by Recovery in this Action he shall be put into Possession But Meade and Windham Justices contrary And they agreed that in all reall Actions a Garden shall be demanded by the name Gardinum otherwise not But this Action of Ejectione firme is in the nature of Trespasse and it is in the Election of the Party to declare as here he doth or for to declare of the Ejectment of a Garden for a Garden may be used at one time for a Garden and at another time be ploughed and sowed with Corn. But they conceived that the better order of pleading had been if he had declared that he was ejected of a Garden containing three Roodes of Land as in the Lease it is specified Hill 23. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 8. SErgeant Fenner moved this case That Land is given to the Wife in tail for her Joynture according to the Statute of 11. H. 7. The Husband dieth the Wife accepts a fine Sur conusans de droit come ceo c. of a Stranger And by the same fine grants and renders the Land to him for an Hundred years whether this acceptance of a Fine and Render by the Wife were a forfeiture of her estate so as he in the Reversion or Remainder might enter by the Statute Mead and Dyer Justices it is a forfeiture and Mead resembled it to the Case in 1 H. 7. 12. where it is holden That if Tenant for life do accept of a Fine Sur conusans de droit come ceo c. that it is a forfeiture and the Lessor may enter But Fenner asked their opinions what they thought of the principall case But haesitavernut because they said it was a dangerous case and is done to defraud the Statute of 11. H. 7. Pasch 23. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 9. A Man made a Feoffment in Fee to two to the use of himself and his wife for the term of their lives without impeachment of waste during the life of the Husband the remainder after their decease to the use of I. his son for the term of his life And further by the same Deed Vult concedit that after their three lives viz. of the Husband Wife and Son that I. S. and I. D. two other Feoffees shall be seized of the same Land to them and their heirs to the use of the right Heirs of the body of the Son begotten It was moved That by this deed the two later Feoffees should be seized to the use of the right Heirs of the body of the Son begotten after the death of the Husband Wife and the Son But it was holden by all the Justices That the second Feoffees had not the Fee because by the first part of the Deed the Fee-Simple was given to the first Feoffees and one Fee-Simple cannot depend upon another Fee-Simple Notwithstanding that after the determination of the former uses for life the Fee-Simple should be vested again in the Heires of the Feoffer and that the words That the second Feoffees should be seized should be void But Dyer Chief Justice and the other Justices were against that because there wanted apt words to raise the later use As if a man bargain and sell his Reversion of Tenant for Life by words of Bargain and Sale only and the Deed is not Enrolled within the six months but afterwards the Tenant for Life doth attorne yet notwithstanding that the Reversion shall not passe because Bargain and Sell are not apt words to make a Grant And that Case was so adjudged in the Common Pleas as the
Lord Dyer said So in the principall Case and therefore the later Use was utterly void and shall not be raised by intendment But otherwise it had been if it had been by devise Pasch 23. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 10. IT was holden by all the Justices of the Common Pleas That the Queen might be put out of her Possession of an Advowson by two Usurpations And she shall be put to her Writ of Right of Advowson as a common person shall be because it is a transitory thing and that the Grant of that Advowson made by the Queen after the two Usurpations should be void and that was so adjudged upon a demurrer in the point And so it is holden in 47 E. 3. 4. b. Psch 23. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 11. AN Indenture of Covenant was made betwixt I. S. and I. D. in which I. S. did Covenant to Enfeoffe I. D. of his Manor of D. In consideration of which I. D. by the same Indenture did Covenant with the said I. S. to pay him 100 li. The Question is If I. S. will not make the Feoffment whether I. D. be bound to pay the money It was holden by the Lord Dyer Chief Justice and Justice Mead That he is not because the money is Covenanted to be paid Executory to have the Feoffment made and therefore if he will not make the Feoffment he shall not have the money As if I Covenant with one That I will marry his Daughter and he Covenants with me That for the same cause he will make an Estate to me and his Daughter and to the Heirs of our two bodies begotten of his Manor of D he shall not make it untill we are married But if I Covenant with a man That I will marry his Daughter and he Covenants with me To make an Estate to me and his Daughter if I marry another woman or if the Daughter marryeth another man yet I shall have an Action of Covenant to compell him to make the Estate because in this later Case the Covenant was made for another Cause And this difference was so taken by the whole Court 15 H. 7. 10. So if A. grant to B. all the ancient Pale and for that B. grants That he will make a new Pale it is holden in 15. E. 4. 4. by Catesby and affirmed by Littleton That if B. cannot have the ancient Pale that he shall be excused from making the new Pale But if two things are given by two Persons one for the other there if one of them detain the one the other cannot detain the other as is 9 E. 4. 20. and 15 E. 4. 2. It is holden That if one grant Tithes in Fee by one Deed and by the same Deed for the same Grant the Grantee grant to the same Person an Annuity of 20 li That if the Grantor of the Tithes enter into the Tithes yet the Grantee cannot detaine the Annuity because the grant of the Tithes is executed in him and he may have an Action for them if the other enter upon them But in the principall Case The Covenant was but Executory for the other and then if one be not performed the other shall never be performed Windham and Periam Justices conceived the contrary and therefore the case was adjourned and a demurrer in law upon it Pasch 23 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 12. TEnant in taile the Remainder in Fee the Tenant in taile makes a Lease for life according to the Statute of 32 H. 8. and afterwards dieth without issue and before any entrie he in the remainder grants his Remainder by Fine Whether the Conusee of the Fine may enter upon the Tenant for life and avoid his Lease was the question Fenner Serjeant Hee cannot because when a Free-hold is given by Livery it cannot be defeated without Entrie As If a Parson make a Lease for life rendring rent and dieth and his successor accept the rent the lease is affirmed as it is holden in 11. E. 3. and 18. E. 4. The Case was That a man made a Lease for life the remainder in Fee Tenant for life granted over his estate and then a Formedon was brought against the Grantee and then the first Tenant for life died And by all the Justices except Littleton and divers Serjeants the Writ shall not abate if he in the Remainder hath not entred So in the principall case When he had made a Lease for life and afterwards died without issue living the Tenant for life his estate is not defeated before entrie of him in the Remainder And then when before entrie he in the Remainder grants his Remainder the Grantee shall have it but as a Remainder for so is his grant and so the estate of Tenant for life which was but voidable is made good And so was it holden by Windham and Periam Justices but Meade and Dyer Chief Justice did conceive that by the death of Tenant in taile without issue his Lease made to him for life was void and not voidable because by the death of Tenant in tail his estate out of which the estate of the Tenant for life was derived is determined and therefore the estate for life is determined also Et cessante causâ cessat effectus And Meade compared it to the Case of 21. H. 7. 12 where it was holden That if a man do make a Lease for life upon condition that if he pay unto the Lessee ten pounds at such a day that his estate shall cease Now by the performance of the Condition the estate is determined without entrie Mich. 24. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 13. POLES Case THomas Pole one of the Clerks of the Chancery married a woman who was Executrix to her Husband and in an Action of Debt brought against them in the Common Pleas the said Pole brought a writ of Priviledg to have removed the said Action into the Chancery And by all the Justices the Writ was disallowed and the defendants ruled to answer there because the Wife was joyned in the Action with the Husband and she could not have the priviledg and therefore not the Husband And so it is adjudged by the whole Court 34. H. 6. 29. and 35. H. 6. 3. But see 27. H. 8. 20. where the case was That a man brought an Action in the Common Pleas against Husband and at the pluries returned he and his Wife were arrested into an inferiour Court veniendo to Westminster and because the Husband hath priviledg therefore his Wife shall be in the same condition But Dyer said That the reason there was because the Wife came in aid of her Husband to follow his suit And therefore it is not like the principall Case at the Bar. Mich. 24. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 14. IN Debt upon a Bond of Forty pound for the Payment of Twenty pound at a Day and Place certain The Defendant pleaded That he had paid the said Twenty pound according to the Condition upon which they are at Issue and at
the Nisi Prius the Defendant gave in Evidence That he had paid the Money to the Plaintiff before the day and that the Plaintiff had accepted of it all which Matter the Jury found specially and referred the same to the Justices And it was said by the whole Court That that payment before the day was a sufficient Discharge of the Bond but because the Defendant had not pleaded the same Specially but Generally that he had paid the Money according to the Condition the Opinion was That they must find against the Desendant for that the Speciall Matter would not prove the Issue and the Lord Dyer Chief Justice said That the Plaintiffs Councel might have demurred upon the Evidence Mich. 24. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 15 AN Action was brought upon the Statute of 1 2 Phil. Mar. And the Statute is That no Distresse shall be driven out of the Rape Hundred Wapentake or Laith where such distresse is or shall be taken except it be to the Pound Overt within the said County not exceeding three Miles distant from the place where the Distresse was taken and the Plaintiff declared of a Distresse taken in a Hundred in such a County and that he drove it six miles out of the County and because a Hundred may be in diverse Counties and the Statute is That the driving ought not be more then 3 miles out of the Hundred and that it might be that the driving was six miles from the place where the Distresse was taken in another County and yet not three miles from the Hundred where the taking was for that Cause it was not adjudged against the party And that was after Verdict in arrest of Judgment Pasch 24. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 16. A Feme sole seized of a Manor to which there were Copyholds One of the Copyholders did entermarry with the woman and afterwards he and his wife did suffer a Recovery of the Manor unto the use of themselves for their lives and afterwards to the use of the heires of the wife The Question was Whether the Copyhold were extinct And Anderson the Chief Justice said That if a Copyholder will joyn with his Lord in a Feoffment of the Mannor that thereby the Copy-hold is extinct The same Law is if a Copyholder do accept a Lease for years of his Copyhold which was agreed by the whole Court Pasc 24. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 17. I. N. Doth Covenant with I. S. by Indenture to pay him forty pounds yearly for one and twenty years and afterwards I. S. doth release to I. N. all Actions The Question was Whether the whole Covenant were discharged And it was holden by all the Justices that only the Arrerages were discharged because the Covenant is executory yearly to be executed during the Term of one and twenty years for he may have several Actions of Covenant for every time that it is behind and if it be behind the second year he may have a new Action for that and so of every year during the Term several Actions for nothing shall be discharged by the release of all Actions but that which was in Action or a Dutie at the time of the release made As in 5. E. 44. and L. 5. E. 4. 41. In debt for Arrerages of an Annuity the defendant pleaded a release of all Actions which bore date before any arrerages were behind And the opinion of the Justices was there That it was no Plea and so it was adjudged for it is not a thing in Action nor a Duty untill the day of paiment comes And it is there holden by Arden That if a man make a Lease for two years rendring Rent and that the Tenant shall forfeit twenty shillings nomine poenae for not paiment at the day there a release of all Actions personals made to the Tenant before the penalty be forfeited is no Bar for it is neither Duty nor thing in Action before the failer of paiment And in 42. E. 3. 33. A man did release to his Tenant for term of life all his Right for the Term of the life of the same Tenant for life And that he nor his heirs might any right demand nor challenge or claim for the life of the Tenant for life in the said Land and afterwards he died and the Tenant committed Waste and the heir brought an Action of Waste and the Tenant pleaded the same Release and it was holden no Plea for nothing was extinct by the same Release but that which was in Action at the time of the Release made and that the Waste was not Rhodes Serjant put a Case which he vouched to be adjudged 4. Eliz. which was That if a man Covenant with I. S. that if he will marry his daughter that then he will pay him twenty pounds If a Release were made by I. S. before the marriage the same will not determine the twenty pounds if he marry her afterwards because it was not a Duty before the marriage So in the principal Case notwithstanding that the Covenant was once broken for the non-paiment at the first day yet because a several Action of Covenant lieth for every day that it was arreare the Release shall extinguish but only that which was Arreare at the time of the Release made And so Note That a Release doth not discharge a Covenant which is not broken Pasch 24. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 18. UPon a special Verdict in an Action of Debt The Case was this I. S. and I. N. did submit themselves to the Award Order Rule and Judgemant of A. and B. for all Matters Quarrels and Debates and the Bond was made to perform the Award Order Rule and Judgement ment made by them And they Award Order Rule and Adjudge That I. S. shall pay to W. N. who was a Stranger twenty shillings The first Question was Whether the Award were good And it was holden by Anderson Chief Justice Meade and Periam Justices That the Award was void because it was out of their Submission for they cannot Award a man to do a thing which doth not lye in his power for in this Case W. N. to whom the money is to be paid is a Stranger and it is in his Election if he will accept of the money or not And so it is holden in 22. H. 6. 46. and 17. E. 4. 5. but vid. cont 5. H. 7. 2. Then if the Award be void The second Question was If yet the Bond to performe it be good or not And it was holden by the whole Court that it was void also against the Book of 22. H. 6. 46. because that the Condition was to performe that which was against the Law Quaere that Case for it seemes not to be Law at this day And it was then holden That Awards concerning Acts to be performed by them which have not submitted are void And in all Cases where each of the parties which submit have not some thing the Award is void Pasch
husband and therefore the prescription is not good that Potest ponere retes upon the land of another upon the Custome of the Sea for prescription must be in a thing done also by him the devise is not good according to the Custome for that is that she may devise and surrender and that ought to be all at one time and that in the presence of the Reeve and six other persons as well as the Surrenderer and the words of a Custome shall be so far performed as they may be Meade contrary And that these Witnesses shall be referred to the surrender onely for a devise may be without Witnesses And he said that sometimes the latter clause shall not refer to all the precedent matter but unto the latter onely as 7. H. 7. is Where a Praecipe was brought of lands in A. B. and C. in Insula de Ely the Clause in Insula de Ely is referred onely to C. And it was said That if in the principal Case the Will were good that then the husbands are Tenants in common and then the Action of Trespass is not maintainable Pasch 25. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 23. THis Case was moved by Serjant Gawdy Thomas Heigham had an hundred Acres of lands called Jacks usually occupied with a house and he leased the house and forty Acres parcel of the said hundred Acres to I. S. for life and reserved the other to himself and made his Will by which he doth devise the house and all his lands called Jacks now in the occupation of I. S. to his wife for life and that after her decease the remainder of that and all his other lands pertaining to Jacks to R. who was his second son Whether the wife shall have that of which her husband died seised for her life or whether the eldest son should have it and what estate he shall have in it Meade The wife shall not have it for because that he hath expressed his Will that the wife shall have part it shall not be taken by implication that she shall have the whole or the other part for then he would have devised the same to her And therefore it hath been adjudged in this Court betwixt Glover and Tracy That if Lands be devised to one and his heirs males and if he die without heirs of his body that then the land shall remain over that he had no greater estate then to him and his special heirs viz. heirs Males and the reason was because the Will took effect by the first words Anderson Chief Justice It was holden in the time of Brown That if lands were devised to one after the death of his wife that the wife should have for life but if a man seised of two Acres deviseth one unto his wife and that I. S. shall have the other after the death of the wife she takes nothing in that Acre for the Cause aforesaid For the second matter If the Reversion shall pass after the death of the wife to the second son we are to consider what shall be said land usually occupied with the other and that is the land leased with it But this land is not now leased with it and therefore it cannot pass Windham The second son shall have the Reversion for although it doth not pass by these words Usualy Occupied as Anderson held yet because the devise cannot take other effect and it appeareth that his intent was to pass the land the yonger son shall have it Anderson Jacks is the intire name of the house and lands And that word when it hath reference unto an intire thing called Jacks and is known by the name of Jacks shall pass to the second son for words are as we shall construe them And therefore If a man hath land called Mannor of Dale and he deviseth his Mannor of Dale to one the land shall pass although it be not a Mannor And if I be known by the name of Edward Williamson where my name is Edward Anderson and lands are given unto me by the name of Edward Williamson the same is a good name of purchase And the opinion of the Court was that the Reversion of the land should pass to the second son Pasc 25. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 24. The Lord MOUNTJOY and the Earle of HUNTINGTON'S Case NOte by Anderson Chief Justice and Periam Justice If a man seised of any entrie Franchises as to have goods of Felons within such a Hundred or Mannor or goods of Outlaws Waifes Strares c. which are causual There are not Inheritances deviseable by the Statute of 32. H. 8. for they are not of any yearly value and peradventure no profit shall be to the Lord for three or four years or perhaps for a longer time And such a thing which is deviseable ought to be of annual value as appeareth by the words of the Statute And also they agreed that the said Franchises could not be divided and therefore if they descend to two coparceners no partition can be made of them And the words of the Statute of 32. H. 8. are That it shall be lawful c. to divise two parts c. and then a thing which canot be divided is not diviseable And they said That if a man had three Manors and in each of the three such Liberties and every Manor is of equal value that yet he cannot devise one Mannor and the Liberties which he hath to it Causá quâ supra but by them an Advowson is deviseable because it may be of annual value But the Lord Chancellor smiling said That the Case of the three Manors may be doubted And there also it was agreed by the said two Justices upon Conference had with the other Justices That where the Lord Mountjoy by deed Indented and Inrolled did bargaine and sell the Manor of â—amford to Brown in Fee and in the Indenture this Clause is contained Provided alwayes And the said Brown Covenants and Grants to and with the Lord Mountjoy his Heirs and Assigns that the Lord Mountjoy his Heirs and Assigns may digg for Ore within the land in Camford which was a great Waste and also to digg Turffe there to make Allome and Coperess without any contradiction of the said Brown his Heirs and Assigns They agreed That the Lord Mountjoy could not devide the said Interest viz. to grant to one to digg within a parcel of the said Waste And they also agreed That notwithstanding that Grant That Brown his Heirs and Assigns owners of the Soile might digg there also like to the Case of Common Sans number The Case went further That the Lord Mountjoy had devised this Interest to one Laicott for one and twenty years and that Laicott assigned the same over to two other men And whether this Assignment were good or not was the Question forasmuch that if the Assignement might be good to them it might be to twenty and that might be a surcharge to the Tenant of the soile And as to that
the Person and to that purpose he cited 15 E. 4. 29. And he agreed the Case That if the Lord improve part of the Common that he shall not have common for the Residue because of the same Land newly improved for he cannot prescribe for that which is improved by 5. Ass 2. But here he doth prescribe not in the person or in or for a new thing but that the usage of the Towne hath been That the Inhabitants shall have common and that common is not appendent nor appertinent nor in grosse by Needham 37 H. 6. 34. b. Besides he said That if the house of a Freeholder who hath used to have such common fall down and he build it up again in another place of the Land that he shall have common as before And he put a difference betwixt the case of Estovers and this Case where a new Chimney is set up for that makes a new matter of charge and he much stood upon the manner of the Prescription Gaudy Serjeant contrary and he took Exception to the Prescription for he saith that it is antiqua villa and doth not say time out of mind and such is the Prescription in 15. E. 4. 29. a. and if it be not a Town time out of mind c. he cannot prescribe that he hath used time out of mind c. And he said That if it should be Law that every one who builds a new house should have common it should be prejudiciall to the Ancient Tenants or impaire the common And so one who hath but a little land might build 20 houses and so an infinite number and every house should have common which were not reason Anderson chief Justice He who builds a new house cannot prescribe in common for then a prescription might begin at this day which cannot be and he insisted upon the generall loss to the ancient Tenants Pâ—riam Justice If it should be Law that he should have common then the benefit of improvement which the Statute giveth to the Lord shall be taken away by this means by such new buildings which is not reason So as all the Justices were of opinion That he should not have common but Judgement was respited untill they had copies of the Record And Hillary Term following the Case was moved again and Anderson and Periam were of Opinion as they were before and for the same reasons But Windham Justice did incline to the contrary But they did all allow That he who new bulids an old Chimney shall have Estovers so a house common So if a house fall down and the Tenant build it up again in another place Periam If a man hath a Mill and a Watercourse time out of mind which he hath used to cleanse if the Mill fall down and he set up a new Mill he shall have the liberty to cleanse the Watercourse as he had before And that Terme Judgement was given for the Defendant to which Windham agreed Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 111 IN a Replevin the parties were at Issue upon the Property and it was found for the Plaintiff and Damages intire were assessed and not for the taking by it self and for the value of the Cattell by themselves for the Judgement upon that is absolute and not conditionall and also if the Plaintiffe had the Cattell the Defendant might have given the same in Evidence to the Jury and then they would have assessed Damages accordingly viz. but for the taking Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 112 A. bargaines with B. for twenty Loads of Wood and B. promises to deliver them at D. if he fail an Action upon the Case lieth But Periam Justice said That upon a simple contract for wood upon an implicative promise an Action upon the Case doth not lie Rodes Justice If by failer of performance the Plaintiff be damnified to such a sum this Action lieth Mich. 28 29 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 113 A Lease of Lands is made excepting Timber-Woods and Under-woods And the question was Whether Trees Sparsim growing in Hedge rowes and Pastures did passe And difference was taken betwixt Timber-wood being one Wood and Timber Woods being severall Words although it bee Arbor dum crescit lignum dum crescere nescit yet in common speech that is said Timber which is fit to make Timber Then it was moved Who should have the Lops and Fruits of them and the Soile after the cutting of them downe and also the Soile after the Under Woods and as to that a difference was taken where the words are generally All woods and where they are his woods growing And in speaking of that case another case was moved viz. If a stranger cut down woods in a Forrest and there is no fraud or collusion betwixt him and the owner of the Land Whether the King should have them or the owner of the Soile And it was holden That the owner of the Soile should have them and yet the owner could not cut them downe but is to take them by the Livery of one appointed by the Statute Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 114. A. makes a Lease of Lands to B. for ten years rendring rent And B. covenants to repaire c. Afterwards A. by his Will deviseth that B. shall have the Lands for thirty years after the ten years under the like Covenants as are comprised in the Lease Fenner moved it as a question If by the Devise those which were Covenants in the first Lease should be Conditions in the second for they cannot bee Covenants for want of a Deed And if they should not be Conditions the heir of the Lessor were without remedie if they were not performed A Devise for years paying ten pounds to a stranger is a Condition because the stranger hath no other remedy Gaudy Justice By the Devise to him to do such things as he was to do by the Lease makes it to be a Condition which was in a manner agreed by all the other Justices Yet Periam and Rodes Justices said That the first Lease was not defeisable for not performance of the Covenants nor was it the intent of the Devisor that the second should be so notwithstanding that his meaning was that he should do the same things Periam The Covenant is in the third person viz. Conventum Aggreatum est And see 28. H. 8. Dyer where the words Non licet to the Lessee to assigne make a Condition Mich. 28 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 115. BARBER and TOPESFEILD'S Case A. being Tenant in taile of certain Lands exchanged the same with B. B. entred and being seised in Fee of other Lands devised severall parcels thereof to others and amongst the rest a particular estate unto his heir Proviso That he do not re-enter nor claim any of his other Lands in the destruction of his Will And if he do that then the estate in the Lands devised to him to cease A. dieth his issue entreth into the Lands in
should not kill the Coneys He cannot take them damage feasants for he cannot impound them Nor doth a Replevin lye of them 19. E. 3. and F. N. B. If the Lord surcharge the Common the Commoner may have an Action against him but in this Case he can have no Action Gaudy Chief Justice He cannot kill the Coneys because he may have other remedie Suit Justice A Commoner cannot take or distrain the Cattel of a Freeholder damage feasants And therefore he cannot kill or destroy the Coneys and he hath a remedy for he may have an Action upon the Case or an Assize against him for putting in of the Coneys if he do not leave sufficient Common for the Commoner Judgment was afterwards given for the Plaintiff Hill 29. Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 145 YARRAM and BRADSHAWE's Case YArram and Wilkenson Sheriffs of the City of Norwich brought an Action upon the Case against Bradshawe because that they being Sheriffs of N. A Capias ad satisfaciendum and shewed at whose Suit and in what action was awarded unto them And they 20. Feb. Anno 25. El. directed their Warrant in writing to three Sergeants of the same City to arrest him by force of which the Sergeants the 26. of Feb. in the same year did Arrest him in Execution and that he was rescued and escaped And that they had spent divers summs of Money in enquiring after him ad grave damnum eorum c. The Defendant pleaded Not Guilty And upon Tryal of the issue a special Verdict was found that about 20. Feb. Anno 25. such a Warrant was made by them unto the Sergeants but not 20. Feb. and that the Sergeans by force thereof about 26. Feb. did Arrest him but not the 26. of Feb. and upon the whole matter there was a demurrer in Law Tanfield for the Defendant and he said It was no Lawfull Arrest For by 8. E. 4. A Bailiff without a Warrant in writing may take goods in Execution and it is good if it be by commandment by word onely of the Sheriff but he cannot Arrest the body of a man without a Warrant in writing sigillo signatum which is not shewed here in the plaintiffs Declaration If one in debt declare per factum suum obligatorium and doth not say sigillo suo sigillatum it is not good Quaere of that for the Book of Entries is not so Secondly he said it must be a present loss or damage to the plaintiffs or else they cannot maintain the action They are chargeable but not charged for if the Sheriffs dye before he begin any Suit against them their Executors shall not be charged But if the plaintiffs have been Arrested then they are endamaged Thirdly as to the Verdict the foot and foundation of the action is the wrong and the wrong here is not found certain for it is supposed to be 26. Feb. And also that the Warrant was Circa 26. Feb. but not 26. Feb. and if it were any day before then the action is maintainable but not if it were any day after A man brings an action of Trespass supposing by his writ the same to be done 1. May If in truth the Trespass was before then it is good but if it were 2. May or at any time after 1. May then it is not good It was a great Case betwixt Vernon and Gray in an Ejectione firme The Ejectment was supposed 1. May and the Jury did finde the Ejectment to be Circa first May and adjudged not good If an Ejectione firme be brought upon a lease made 1. May and the Jury finde the Ejectment to be circa 1. May it is not good Also here they could not take him in Execution again although they had found him For if a man be once out of Execution by 14 H. 7. He shall not be taken again in Execution for the same cause The Court held it not material whether he shewed or not that the Warrant was sub sigillo sigillat ' and therefore thy did not speak to it Godfrey for the plaintiff What if they be not charged but chargeable yet they shall have their action upon the Case for the wrong done viz. The Rescous and the Escape because the Defendant shall not take advantage of his own wrong and so is the opinion of Frowick 13. H. 7. 1. Reporter Quaere For Frowick saith He shall have an action upon the Case or Trespas for breaking of prison against him and shall recover in damage as much as he lost by the escape and so he shall be helped and not by taking of him again And Fitzherbert in his Natura Brevium in the Writ of Ex parte talis holds that upon an Escape the Gaoler shall have a special Writ upon the Case against the Prisoner to answer for the Escape and the damages which the Gaoler shall sustain thereby and it was holden in a great Case viz. One Holts Case That it is not necessary to shew that there was a recovery against them Tanfeild but there it was after a Suit begun although before recovery Godfrey they have also put it in their Declaration that they have expended great sums of Money in looking for him therefore they have shewed that they were damnified Tanfeild it was foolish for them to spend their Money for they could not have taken him again although they had found him Godfrey A man shall have an action for fear of vexation or trouble or charge as one shall have a Warrantia Charta before he be impleaded A man shall have a Curia Claudenda before any breach of the enclosure As to the Verdict It is certain enough for it saith Quod tunc ibidem seipsum recussit and that cannot but be referred to a time certain before viz. 26. Feb. Tanfeild It shall be referred to circa and therefore ad tunc ibidem do remain uncertain Suit Justice Presently by the escape there was a wrong done therefore for that he may have an action Clenche Justice said That he had experience in a Case of Trespas And it was the opinion of almost all the Judges of England That if the Trespass should be done after the day wherein it is supposed to be done by the Writ Yet the Writ shall not abate and therefore he said That the difference of the Trespas done before and after the day supposed by the Writ is to no purpose Further he said that it standeth them upon to have their action before they be sued by the party at whose Suit he was in Execution for perhaps he who was in Execution might dye and other changes might happen so as they might lose all Tanfeild What damages shall the Sheriffs have here if they shall recover before any action be brought against them when as it is uncerrain whether ever they shall be sued or not and so uncertain how much they shall be damnified But notwithstanding all which was said by Tanfeild Judgment was given for the Plaintiffs Hill 29.
Chief Justice did conceive it might be a good custome and so also was the opinion of Rodes Justice and he vouched 11 H. 7. where the Lord had Three Pound for Pound-breach Fenner It is extortion if the amercement be not for a thing which is a common Nusans and cited 11 H. 4. to prove it Periam Justice said That hee said well Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Rot. 1962. 159 GILE'S and NEWTON'S Case THE Case was That the Queen seised of the Manor of Gascoigne and of the Graunge called Gascoigne Graunge in D. did grant all her Lands Tenements and Hereditaments in D. and it was adjudged by the whole Court that the Manor did not pass And so Anderson Chief Justice said it is if it were in the Case of a common person but an Advowson shall passe by the Feoffment of the Manor without Deed without the words cum pertinentiis for that is parcell of the Manor which the whole Court granted Pasch 23. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 160 J. S. was arrested by force of a Latitat out of the King's Bench at the Suit of J. D. and the Sheriffe took an Obligation of him with two Sureties upon condition that he appear such a day in the King's Bench and also that ad tunc ibidem he answer the said J. D. in a Plea of Trespass It was moved by Rodes Serjeant That the Obligation was void by the Statute of 23. H. 6. by which Statute no Obligation shall be said to be good if not for appearance only and this Obligation is for appearance and also that he shall answer to J. D. which is another thing then is contained in the Statute and therefore it is void But all the Justices were of opinion That the Obligation was good notwithstanding that because that the words of the Writ directed to the Sheriffe are Quod capias such a man It a quod habeas corpus ejus hîc such a day ad respondendum tali in a Plea of Trespasse and so nothing is contained in the Bond which is not comprised within the Writ directed unto him but if any other collaterall thing be put into the Obligation then the Bond shall be void for the whole 31. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 161 BUCKHURST'S Case LEssee for ten years granted a rent charge unto his Lessor for the years Afterwards the Lessor granted the Remainder in Fee to the Lessee It was the opinion of the whole Court that the rent was gone and extinct because the Lessor who had the rent is a party to the Destruction of the Lease which is the ground of the Rent 29. Eliz. In the King 's Bench. 162 ALLEN and PATSHALL'S Case A Copy-holder doth surrender unto the use of a Stranger for ever and the Lord admits the Surrendree to have and to hold to him and his Heirs It was adjudged in this Case That if it were upon a devise that such a one should have the Copyhold in Fee and afterwards a surrender is made unto the Lord to grant the Copy-hold according to the Will and he grants it in Fee to him and his Heirs that the Grant is good But quaere in the first Case for it was there but a bare Surrender only Mich. 27 28. Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 163 STRANGDEN and BARNELL'S Case AN Action of Trover and Conversion was brought of Goods in Ipswich the Defendant pleaded That the Goods came to his hand in Dunwich in the same County and that the Plaintiffe gave unto him the goods which came to his hands in Dunwich absque hoc that he is guilty of any Trover and Conversion of Goods in Ipswich And by the opinion of the Court the same is a good manner of Pleading by reason of the speciall Justification Vide 27. H. 6. But when the Justification is generall the County is not traversable at this day Vide 19. H. 6. 6 7. Mich. 27. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 164 BARTON and EDMOND'S Case AN Infant and another were bounden in a Bond for the Debt of the Infant The Infant at his full age did assume to save the other man harmelesse against the said Bond afterwards the Infant died It was resolved by the whole Court that upon this Assumpsit an Action upon the Case would lie against the Executors of the Infant But if a Feme Covert and another at her request had been bounden in such a Bond and after the death of her Husband she had assumed to have saved the other harmelesse against such Bond such Assumpsit should not have bound the Wife Trinit 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 165 ZOUCH and BAMPORT'S Case THis Case was moved When the Defendant pleads in Bar to the Action and the Plaintiffe replies and the Defendant doth demur specially upon the Replication and the Bar is insufficient Whether the Justices shall give Judgment upon the Replication or shall resort unto the insufficient Bar the Replication being also insufficient And the opinion of the Court was That when the Action is of such a nature that the Writ and the Count doth comprehend the Title as in a Formedon and the like then because there is a sufficient title for the demandant by the Writ and the Count so as the Judges may safely proceed to Judgement for the Plaintiffe there they shall resort to the Barr. Contrary in Cases where the Title doth commence only by the Replication as in Assize Trespass and the like 40. Eliz. in the Exchequer 166 NOte it was said by Sir Francis Bacon the King's Solicitor That it was adjudged 40. Eliz. in the Exchequer That where the King had made a Lease for life who was ousted by a Stranger that the same should be said a Disseisin of the particular estate against the common ground which is That a man cannot be disseised of lesse estate then of a Fee-Simple 40. Eliz. in the Kings Bench. 167 IT was holden and adjudged by Popham Chief Justice of the Kings Bench That where a Lease was made unto the Husband and Wife for their lives the remainder to the Heirs of the Survivor that the same was a good remainder notwithstanding the uncertainty and that in that Case the Husband after the death of the Wife should have Judgement to recover the Land 33. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 168 PROCTER'S Case IT was adjudged in this Case That the Lachess of the Clark in not entring of the Kings Silver shall not prejudice the King or the Crowne 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 169 HARDING'S Case IT was holden by the whole Court of Kings Bench as it was reported by Sir Robert Hitcham Knight That if a man make a Lease of Copy-hold land and of Free-hold land rendring Rent and the Copy-hold descends to one and the Free-hold to another that the rent shall be apportioned Trinit 25. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. Rot. 1702. 170 LEONARD and STEPHEN'S Case IN Trespass the issue joyned was Whether it were a Feoffment or not and
upon Evidence to the Jury the Case appeared to be viz. That there was Lessee for years and afterwards the Lessor made a Deed of Feoffment in which were words of Confirmation and in the end of the Deed there was a special Letter of Atturney to make Livery to the Lessee for years and his heirs And it was agreed by all the Justices That the Lessee for years had Election to take the same by way of confirmation or by Feoffment and that the Law doth suspend and expect untill he hath declared his pleasure And it was further adjudged That when he hath made his Election to take it by Livery that it shall be a Feoffment ab initio and by the delivery of the Deed in the mean time nihil operatur Mich. 31. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 171 A Copy-holder did alledge the custome to be That the Lord of the Manor might grant Copies in Remainder with the assent of the Tenants and not otherwise and that Copies in remainder otherwise granted should be meerly void The question was Whether it were a good custome The Justices did not deliver any opinion in the point But Walmesley Serjeant said That it was a void custome for a Copy-hold Estate is an estate of which the Law doth not take notice and Copy-holders are meer Tenants at will by the common Law and therefore to say That he who hath not an interest should have me at his pleasure aswell as I who am interessed should have him at my pleasure is preposterous and repugnant to reason as 2. H. 4. 27. A custome that the Commoner shall not use his Common before that the Lord hath put in his Cattel is not good for the Commoner hath an interest in the Common which is not reasonable to be restrained at the pleasure of another and 19. Eliz Dyâ—r 257. A custome that a man shall not demise or lease but for six years is a void custome Shuttleworth Serjeant contrary and he said That the reason that this Copy-hold is not within Littletons Estates by Copy is no reason for by the same reason you may overthrow all Copy-hold Estates And he said That this custome might have a lawfull beginning and it seems to bee grounded upon the reason of the common Law that a remainder should not be without the assent of the particular Tenant and therefore it is a good custome And so is the custome that a Woman shall not have Dower if she do not claim it within a year and a day And a custome that a free Tenant shall not alien without a surrender in the Court of the Lord is a good custome It was adjourned 31. Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 172 Sir RALPH EGERTON'S Case UPon a speciall Verdict the Case was this A man being Tenant for life in the right of his Wife he made a Deed of Feoffment Habendum to the Feoffee and his Heirs ad solum opus usum of the Feoffee and his Heirs for the life of the Wife and the Court was cleer of opinion that it was a forfeiture because the Habendum is absolute and the use is another clause and although he doth not limit the use but for life yet the Law limits the remainder of the use to the party who maketh the Feoffment Trinit 29. Eliz. in the King 's Bench. 173 MAYE'S Case IF a man sendeth a Letter by a Carrier to a Merchant for certain Merchandizes to send them to him by the Carrier receiving certain monies and the Merchant sendeth the Goods by the Carrier without the receipt of the Money the same shall not bind the Buyer as it was holden by the Court because it was but a conditionall Bargain and it was the folly of the Merchant to trust the Carrier and therefore in that Case the Vendee was admitted to wage his Law And so if one writeth for Wares and the party sends them by the same Carrier yet if the Carrier doth not deliver them the other may wage his Law in such Case Mich. 30. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 174 HALTON'S Case THE case was That a Recognizance was acknowleged before Sir N. Read one of the Masters of the Chancery The Recognizee died before the same was enrolled And whether it might be enrolled at the Petition of the Executors of the Recognizee was the question And it was agreed by all the Justices That the same might be enrolled for it was like unto the Conusans of a Fine before a Judge which might be removed out of the hands of the Judge by a Certiorari and yet it is no record untill it be perfected And at that time it was doubted whether the Chancery might help a man who was a purchaser for valuable consideration where there wanteth the word heirs in the Deed of purchase But it was agreed by all the Justices That after a Fine is levied of Land That the Chancery may compell the Tenant to attorne Trinit 31. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. Rot. 1704. 175 BLAGROVE and WOOD'S Case IN Trespass the Question was If a Copy-hold was surrendred or not And the custome was alledged to be That a Copy-holder might surrender out of the Court to the Steward out of the Manor And the Steward was retained onely by word but had no Patent Walmesley He may be Steward by word well enough But Windham and Anderson held That he might be Steward by word onely in possession that is when he holds a Court in possession But he cannot be Steward out of Court without a Patent because he is then out of possession And therefore it was the opinion of the whole Court That the surrender out of Court to the Steward by word was not good Hill 36. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 176 THe Summons of a Copy-holder to appear at the Lords Court was at the Church and thereupon the Copy-holder did not appear And it was the opinion of the whole Court that the same was no cause of forfeiture of the Copy-hold because it was not especially shewed to be the Custome And it shall be hard to make it a Forfeiture for perhaps the Copy-holder had not notice of it And to that purpose was vouched the Lord Dacres and Harlestoâ—s case And they held that notice ought to be given to the person and the Refusall must be willfull for if a Copy-holder be demanded his rent and he saith that he hath it not the same is no forfeiture but the deniall ought to be a wilfull deniall and so it was said to have been adjudged in one Winters Case Trinit 1. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. Rot. 854. 177 SAPLAND and RIDLER'S Case AFter long Arguments on both sides It was adjudged by all the Justices in this case That where the Custome of a Copy-hold Manor was to admit for life and in remainder for life at any time when there was but one Copy-holder for life in possession and during the minority of the Heir within fourteen years the Gardian in Socage in his own name
grant of the Reversion was not within the Statute for the Statute is that the grantee shall have such remedy as the said Lessors or Grantors themselves or their heirs or successors should have had so as the Statute shall be intended of a Reversion in Fee for the Statute doth not provide but in case where heirs or successors shall have Action and not in case where the Action doth belong to Executors For the second point he relyed upon Mallories Case where it is said that the Tenant is to have notice of the Assignement of the Reversion Cook Chief Justice I hold that the Assignee of the Reversion for years in this Case shall have an Action of Covenant by the Statute It was Leonards Case in the time of the Lord Dyer when I was a Reporter in this Court In Leonards Case Lessee for years leased over part of the Term upon condition which is so much as a Covenant and afterwards granted the Reversion and it was ruled that the grantee might enter for the condition broken and the reason as I remember was because that Executors are named in the Statute but I will not charge my memory with the reason but I am well assured that the Case was ruled as I have said Dodderidge It is so that within the Statute Executors are named but not the Executors of him who hath the Reversion but onely the Executors of the Lessee and therefore the naming of Executors in the Statute doth not make against us But the Lord Cook said What answer you to Leonards Case For the third point Cook Chief Justice and Foster Justice held that there needed not any notice in this Case because there is not any Penalty in the case as was in Mallories case For there was a condition Warbarton Justice I doubt the first point for he who bringeth the Action upon the Statute ought to have the whole Reversion and so is Winters case in Dyer 309. Cook and Foster said It needs not that he who is to take advantage by this Statute should have the whole Reversion for it hath been adjudged That if the Reversion be granted in tail that the grantee shall take advantage of this Statute and shall enter for the condition broken Pasch 8. Iacobi in the Common Pleas. 228 CANDICT and PLOMER's Case THe Parishoners had used time out of memory of man c. to chuse the Parish Clark of the Church of St. Austins in Canterbury and the old Clark being dead they chose a new Clark and the Parson by force of a new Canon chose another man for the Clark upon which the Clark chosen by the Parishoners was sued in the Spiritual Court and he had a Prohibition And afterwards he was sued again in the Spiritual Court for setting of the Bread upon the Communion Table and for singing in another Tune then the Parishoners and the other Clark did and was deprived by Sentence there Haughton Serjeant moved for a Prohibition and said that although the last Suit in the Spiritual Court was not directly for the using of the Office of Clark yet by the matters contained in the Libell it is drawn in question whether he were lawfull Clark or not and therefore prayed a Prohibition Cook You shall have a Prohibition for the Canon is against the common Law For particular customs are part of the common Law and said that the Canon Law would not endure Gun-shot And he said that by the Suit in the Spiritual Court they would examine whether he were a Lawfull Clark or not For if he be a Lawfull Clark then he hath good authority to set the Bread upon the Communion Table Haughton But what shall we do for we are deprived by Sentence given there Cook There is no question but that the Prohibition lyeth notwithstanding the Sentence there and for the Deprivation it is meerly void For the Clarkship is a Lay Office and may be executed by a Lay Man and therefore the Ordinary hath no power to deprive him But he may have an Action as Clark notwithstanding the Deprivation for so is the Book in 8. Ass 29. for an Hospital And I wish that an Information be drawn against them for holding plea of a thing which is a meer Lay thing as it was in temps H. 8. Br. Cases Walmesley Justice The Office is Lay and the Deprivation by the Ordinary is void For he cannot deprive him because he hath nothing to do in the Election and a Prohibition was granted At another day the Case was moved again and the Court was of the same opinion that the Clark could not be deprived because the Clarkship was a Lay Office And 3. E. tit Annuity 40. was cited and 18. F. 3. Where a Formedon was brought of the Office of Serjeancy of the Church of L. But Cook said the same day in another case which was moved in Court and gave it for a rule that after Sentence given in the Spiritual Court he would not grant a prohibition if there were not matter apparent within the proceedings For I will not allow that the party shall to have a Prohibition shew any thing not grounded on the Sentence to have a Prohibition because he hath admitted of the Jurisdiction and there is no reason for him to try if the spirituall Court will help him and afterwards at the common Law to sue forth a Prohibition All which was agreed by the whole Court Pasch 8. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 229 A Writ of Estrepment was granted in Waste because that for Waste done pendant the Writ the Plaintiffe cannot recover damages Per totam Curiam Pasch 8. Jacobi In the Common Pleas. 230 PITS and WARDAL's Case PIts the Butler of Lincolnes-Inne brought an Action of Debt against Wardall and declared upon a Bond with Condition indorsed for the performance of an Arbitrement The Defendant pleads in barre That the Arbitrators nullum fecerunt arbitramentum the Plaintiffe replied That they did make an Arbitrement viz. That the Defendant and one of the Arbitrators should enter into a Bond of eight pound to the Plaintiffe And that after the Bond entred into that the Plaintiffe and Defendant should release all Actions each to other and said That the Defendant and the Arbitrator did not enter the Bond to the Plaintiffe The Defendant did maintain his barre viz. quod nullum fecerunt arbitramentum upon which issue was joyned and it was found for the Plaintiffe Dodderidge for stay of judgement said That upon the Plaintiffes own shewing it appeareth That the Arbitrament is void for the Arbitrament is that a stranger viz. one of the Arbitrators should enter Bond and also that after the Bond entred into That the Plaintiffe should release all actions whereby the Bond should be released and therefore it was void and a void arbitrament is no arbitrament It was admitted by the Court that the arbitrament was void as to the Bond to be entred into by the Arbitrator and also that it was void as
And Warburton held that the heir should have the Rent as a Freehold descended and for that he cited 26. H. 6. Statham Recognizance But Foster said that he should not have the Rent at all Warburton and Walmesley doubted whether the Rent were devisable by the Statute and they said that although the heir should have it by descent yet it should not be in the nature of a descent of Inheritance for he should not have his Age. Cook and Daniel were absent Pasch 8. Iacobi in the Common Pleas. 239 HEYDON and SMITH's Case IN an Action of Trespass the Plaintiff declared of breaking of his Close and cutting down of a Tree viz. an Oak The Defendant pleaded that it was his Free-hold The plaintiff in his Replication shewed that he held of the Defendant by Coppy of Court Roll a Tenement whereof the place in question is parcell And that the Custome of the Manor is That all the Copy-holders within the Manor have used to take wood for house-bote hay-bote c. et pro ligno combustibili in dicto tenemento And said that he had alwayes preserved the wood and trees growing upon the said Tenement And that he had nourished and fostered the said Oake And that sufficient wood was not left upon the said Tenement for house-bote c. upon which the Defendant did demurre in Law Foster Justice Judgment ought to bee given for the plaintiff I hold that a Copy-holder of common right without any Custome shall have wood for Reparations and for fire-bote and so is 9. H. 4. Fitz. Wast 59. the opinion of Hall And I hold that the plaintiff hath an Interest in the Trees according to Palmers Case C. 5. part And 2. H. 4. 12. is That a Coppy-holder may bring An Action of Trespass for the Trees And I hold That without a Custome the Lord cannot fell the trees growing upon the Copy-hold no more then upon a Lease for years But in this Case by Implication of Custome the Lord may take the Trees if he leave sufficient for Reparations c. For the Custome is That a Copy-holder shall have sufficient for Reparations by which is implyed that he shall not have more and then the Rest the Lord shall have And I am of opinion that in this Case and in case where the trees are excepted upon a Lease that the Lord and the Lessor may enter and take the Trees although there be not any clause of ingresse or regresse But in the principall Case because there are not more Trees then are sufficient for Reparation the Lord cannot take them but Trespasse lieth against him Warburton Justice The matter of prescription is not materiall in this case for of common right a Copyholder ought to have Trees for Reparations and to that purpose he hath a speciall propertie But the onely question in this Case as I conceive is If one who hath a speciall property may bring an Action of Trespasse against him who hath the generall propertie And I conceive that he may well enough As if I lend my horse for a week and within the week I take him again Trespasse lieth Walmesley Justice For the substance I am of opinion for the Plaintiff but I doubt For I would not that Copyholders have so great libertie and he hath prescribed to take all trees and to take them ad libitum is too great a liberty And I hold that a Copyholder hath no greater property then one who ought to have Estovers And in this case hee ought to have said quando opus fuerit and he ought to have shewed that the houses were in decay for want of Reparations for which cause opus fuerat c. And so for the pleading I hold that it is not sufficient Cook chief Justice The Plaintiff ought to have Judgment For I hold cleerly That the Lord cannot take trees without leaving sufficient for Reparations no more then he can pull down or overthrow the house of the Copyholder For of common right without Custome or prescription the Trees do belong unto the Copyholder for Reparations and for that purpose hee may take them without any Custome and the Lord cannot take the Trees without leaving sufficient for the Copyholder if there be not a speciall Custome so to do But I hold that without any custome the Lord may take the Trees if he leave sufficient to the Copyholder for the Reparations Mich. 25. 26. Eliz Doylies Case A Copyholder who hath used to take Timber for Reparations brought an action of Trespasse Trinit 26. Eliz. An action of Trespasse was brought by a Copyholder against the Lord. Pasch 37. Eliz. the Case of Mutford Wood. Trinit 40. Eliz. Stebbings Case but there the action was an action upon the Case To the Exceptions taken by Justice Walmesley that the Plaintiff ought to have shewed that the houses wanted Reparations I hold as hee said That if the action had been brought against him and hee justifie the cutting hee ought to have shewed that the houses wanted Reparations But in our Case he brings the Action against another which lyeth although that the houses were not then in decay And for the signification of the word House-boot c. Bote is an ancient Saxon word which signifies in some case Recompence and in some case Reparatio For the manner of prescription That all the Tenants may take wood pro ligno combustibili in dicto Tenemento the same is no good prescription That all shall take to burn in that Tenement But for the reasons beforesaid Judgment was given for the Plaintiffe Pasch 8. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 240 NEWTON and RICHARD's Case IT was ruled by the whole Court in an Action of Trespasse Quare clausum fregit cuniculos suos vel ipsius A. c. cepit c. was good Pasch 8. Jacobi In the Common Pleas. 241 MEERES and KIDOUT's Case UPon an Evidence to a Jury in this Case it was Ruled by the whole Court That if there be Copyholder for life and the Lord leaseth for years and the Copy-holder commit a forfeiture that the Lessee may enter for the forfeiture And Cooke Cheife Justice said That if there be Tenant for life the Remainder for life If the Tenant for life committeth a forfeiture he in the Remainder for life may enter and that the Case 29. Ass 64. is not Law For the particular estate in possession is determined by the forfeiture And if hee in the Remainder could not enter then it should be at the will of the Lessor whether hee should ever have it The same Law is if the Remainder be for yeers Foster Justice The reason that is given for an Entrie for a forfeiture is because that the Reversion or Remainder is devested by the Feoffment But in this Case because it is but interesse termini nothing is devested For notwithstanding the Feoffment the Interesse termini may be granted to which Cook agreed But Foster said that hee did agree in opinion with Cook
was adjudged against the Plaintiffe as in a Valore Maritagii if the Defendant will shew that hee tendered a mariage whereas it is not needfull for him so to do yet if the same be not true and issue be taken upon it Judgement shall be given against him wherefore hee concluded for the Plaintiffe The principall Case was adjourned Trinit 10 Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 270 GOODMAN and GORE 's Case GOodman brought an Assize against Gore and others for erecting of two houses at the West end of bis Wind-Mill per quod ventus impeditur c. And it was given in Evidence That the said houses were situate about eighty feet from the said Mill and that in height it did extend above the top of the Mill and in length it was twelve yards from the Mill and notwithstanding this neernesse the Court directed the Jury to find for the Defendant And in that Evidence it appeared by a Deed procured by the Plaintiff himself That his Wife was Joint-tenant with him and therefore it was holden by the Court That the Assize brought in his own name alone was not well brought And Cook Chief Justice also said That the Count was not good by reason of these words viz. Per quod ventus impeditur for he said That these were the words of an Action upon the Case and not of an Assize But the Clarks said That such was the usuall forme ad quod non fuit responsum and in that Case it was said obiter by Cook Chief Justice That if the Husband and Wife be Joint-tenants and the Husband sowes the Land and dieth and the Wife doth survive that she shall have the embleements Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 271 HARDINGHAM's Case IN an Action of Trespass Quare clausum fregit the Defendant did justifie That he did enter and distrain for an Amercement in the Sheriffs Torne which was imposed upon the Plaintiffe for enchroaching upon the Kings High-way without shewing that the same was presented before the Justices of Peace at their Sessions as the Statute of 1. E. 4. cap. 2. requireth Haughton Serjeant for stay of Judgement in this Case said That the Statute is That the Justices of Peace shall award Process against the person who is so indicted before the Sheriffe which was not done in this Case And he said That the Statute did not extend to Amercements only in Trespasses Quare vi armis but to every other Trespass for the Statute speaks of Trespasses and other things which shall be extended to all Trespasses Cook Chief Justice said That the Statute of 1. E. 4. cap. 2. did not extend to Trespasses which were not contra pacem as the encroachment in this Case is for otherwise the Lord of a Leet could not distrain for an amercement without such presentmennt before Justices of the Peace And although the Statute speaks of Felony Trespass c. the same is to be meant of other things of the same nature which is proved by the clause in the Statute viz. That they shall be imprisoned which cannot be in the principall Case at Bar. Warburton and Winch Justices agreed in opinion with Cook Chief Justice Trinit 10. Iacobi in the Common Pleas. 272 FRAUNCES and POWELL's Case IT was moved for a Prohibition to the Spirituall Court for citing the Plaintiffe out of his Diocess upon the Statute of 23. H. 8. and by the Libel it appeared That Powell the Defendant had complained against the Plaintiffe in the Court of Arches for scandalous words spoken in the Parish of Saint Sepulchers London Cook Chief Justice held That a Prohibition would lie unlesse the Bishop of London had given liberty to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury to entermeddle with matters within London for he said that in the Statute of 23. H. 8. there is a clause of exception in case where such liberty is given by the inferior Diocesan and therefore a day was given by the Court to procure a certificate of the opinion of the Civilians whether such authority given by the Inferiour Ordinary to the Arch-Bishop were Warranted by there Law or not for the Statute of 23. H. 8. is so and then if the authority be lawfully granted no prohibition will lye And Cook said that the Statute of 23. H. 8. was made but in affirmance of the common Law as appears by the books of 8. H. 6. and 2. H. 4. For there it is said that if one be excomenge in a forrain Dioces that the same is void coram non judice and he said that the principal cause of making of the said Statute was to maintain the Jurisdiction of Inferiour Diocesses But it was holden that if the Plaintiff had defamed the Defendant within the Peculiar of the Arch-Bishop that in such case he might be punished there although that he did inhabit within any remote place out of the Peculiar of the Arch-Bishop and in this Case it was said that the Arch-Bishop had in thirteen Parishes in London Peculiar Jurisdiction It was adjorned Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Court of Wards 273 COTTONS Case SIR John Tirrel Tenant in Capite made a Lease unto Carrel for 1000. years and further covenanted with Carrel and his Heirs that upon payment of five Shillings that he and his heirs would stand seised of the same Lands unto the use of Carrel and his Heirs And in the Deed there were all the ordinary clauses of a conveyance bona fide viz. That the Lessee should enjoy the Lands discharged of all Incumbrances and that he would make further assurance c. Carrel assigned this Lease to Cotton who died in possession his Heir within age and in two Offices the Jury would not find a Tenure because it was but a Lease for years And in a que plura the matter came in question in the Court of Wards And Cook Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Tanfeild Chief Baron of the Exchequer were called for Assistants to the Court of Wards and they were of opinion that because it was found by the Offices that Cotton died in possession that the same was sufficient to entitle the King to Wardship of the Lands But before the Judges delivered there opinions the Lessee was compelled to prove the Sealing of the Lease by witnesses which was dated 12. years before For if they have no sufficient witnesses to prove the Sealing of the Lease without all doubt there was sufficient matter found to entitle the King viz. that the party died in possession which shall be intended of an estate in Fee simple till the contrarie be proved But the two Justices moved the Attorney That he would not trouble himself with the proof of a matter in fact For they said It was confessed on all sides that there was such a Lease and that the Assignee of it died in possession of the Land and therefore they said that they were cleer of opinion that the Heir of such a Lessee who died in possession should be
in Ward For Cook Chief Justice said that all Offices which are found to deceive the Crown of such an ancient flower of the Crown as Wardship should be void as to that purpose and most beneficial for the King And he cited the Case in 36. H. 8. Where the Kings Tenant made a Feoffment and took back an estate unto himself for life the Remainder to his Grand-child for 80. years and died that in that Case the Heir was in Ward and they said that in the case at Barre the Heir had power of the Inheritance upon payment of five Shillings and if the Lease for years be found and proved by witnesses yet it carrieth with it the badges of fraud And Tanfeild Chief Baron said that if a Lease for 100. years shall be accounted Mortmain à fortiori this Lease for 1000. years shall be taken to be made by fraud and collusion And Cook said that the Lord Chancellour of England would not relieve such a Lessee in Court of Equity because the begining and ground of it is apparant fraud Note the lands did lye in Springfield in Essex Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 274 MEADES Case AN Action of Debt was brought upon a Bond against Meade who pleaded that the Bond was upon condition that if he paid ten pound to him whom the Obligee should name by his last will that then c. and said that the Obligee made his Will and made Executors thereof but did not thereby name any person certain to take the ten pound Sherley Serjeant moved that the Executors should have the ten pound because they are Assignees in Law as it is holden in 27. H. 8. 2. But the whole Court was of opinion that the Executors were not named in the Will for such a purpose viz. to take the ten pound For they said It is requisite that there be an express naming who shall take the ten pound otherwise the Bond is saved and not forfeited And Cook put this Case If I be bounden to pay ten pound to the Assignee of the Obligee and his Assignee makes an Executor and dieth the Executor shall not have the ten pound But if I be bounden to pay ten pound to the Obligee or his Assignees there the Executor shall have it because it was a duty in the Obligee himself the same Law if I be bound to enfeoffe your Assignees c. Wherefore it it was adjudged for the Defendant Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 275 GREENWAY and BAKER's Case IT was moved and afterwards resolved in the Case of a Prohibition prayed to the Court of Admiralty That if a Pirat taketh goods upon the Sea and selleth them that the property of them is changed no more then if a theife upon the Land steales them and selleth them And in this Case it appeared by the Libell That bona piratica fuerint infra Portam Argier super altum mare And for that cause a Prohibition was denied because Argier being a forrain Port the Court could not take notice whether there were such a place of the Sea called the Port or whether it were within the Land or not Afterwards upon the mediation of the Justices the parties agreed to try the cause in the Guild-hall in London before the Lord Chiefe Justice Cook Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 276. Sir FRANCIS FORTESCUE and COAKE's Case UPon an Evidence in an Ejectione firme betwixt the Plaintiffe and Defendant The Court would not suffer Depositions of witnesses taken in the Court of Chancery or Exchequer to be given in Evidence unlesse affidavit be made that the witnesses who deposed were dead And Cook Chiefe Justice said nullo contradicente That it is a principall Challenge to a Jurour That he was an Arbitrator before in the same case because it is intended that he will incline to that partie to which he inclined before but contrary is it of a Commissioner because he is elected indifferent And it was also said in this Case That one who had been Solicitor in the Cause is not a fit person to be a Commissioner in the same Cause Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 277 BArker Serjeant in Arrest of Judgement moved That the Venire facias did vary from the Roll in the Plaintiffs name for the Roll was Peter Percy and the Venire facias John Percy and the postea was according to the Roll which was his true name The Court doubted whether it might be amended or whether it should be accounted as if no Venire facias had issued because it is betwixt other parties But it was holden That in case no Venire facias issueth the same is holpen by the Statute of Jeofailes and in this case it is in effect as if no Venire facias had issued forth and so it was adjudged And Cook Chiefe Justice said that if there be no Venire facias nor habeas Corpora yet if the Sheriffe do return a Jury the same is helped by the Statute of Jeofailes Warburton Justice contrary vide C. 5. part Bishops case And Harris Serjeant vouched Trinit 7. Jacobi Rot. 787. in the Exchequer Herenden and Taylors case to be adjudged as this Case is Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 278 BROWN's Case IT was holden by the whole Court in this case That if a man hath a Modus Decimandi for Hay in Black-acre and he soweth the said acre seven years together with corn that the same doth not destroy the Modus Decimandi but the same shall continue when it is again made into hay And when it is sowed with corn the Parson shall have tithe in kind and when the same is hay the Vicar shall have the tithe hay if he be endowed of hay Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 279 JAMES and RATCLIFF's Case IN Debt upon a Bond to perform such an agreement The Defendant pleaded Quod nulla fuit conclusio-sive agreeamentum The Plaintiff said Quod fuit talis conclusio agreeamentum de hoc ponit se super patriam The Court held the same was no good issue because a Negative and an Affirmative Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 280 WETHERELL and GREEN's Case IT was said by the Pronothories That if a Nihil dicit be entred in Trinity Term and a Writ of Enquiry of Damages issueth the same Term that there needs not any continuance but if it be in another Term it is otherwise The Court said If it were not the course of the Court they would not allow of it but they would not alter the course of the Court the words of continuance were Quia vicecomos non misit brev Trinit 10. Jacobi in the Common Pleas. 281 PARROT and KEBLE's Case A Man levied a Fine unto the use of himself for life the remainder in tail c. with power reserved to the Conusor to make Leases for eighty years in Possession or Reversion if A. B. and C. did so long live reserving the ancient rent
And it was further said by the Court That if there were but thirty Tythe-sheafs in all that the Owner should not have them for then the Custom should be unreasonable And Day was given to the other side to shew Cause why the Prohibition should not be awarded Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common-Pleas 325. GANDEN and SYMMON's Case NOte That where a Juror is not challenged by one party who had sufficient cause of challenge and afterwards is challenged by the other side and afterwards the party doth release his challenge in that case the first party cannot challenge the same Juror again because he did foreslow his time of challenge and he had admitted the party for to be indifferent at the first Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common-Pleas 326. The Bishop of CHICHESTER and STRODWICK's Case IN an Action of Trespass for taking away of Timber and the Boughs of Trees felled The Defendant as to the Timber pleaded Not guilty And as to the Boughs he made a special Justification That there is a Custom within the Mannor of Ashenhurst in the County of Sussex That when the Lord fels or sels Timber-trees that the Lord is to have only the Timber and that the poor Tenants in Coscagio parte Manerii time out of mind have used to have the Branches of the Trees for necessary Estovers to be burnt in necessario focali in terris tenementis And the Opinion of the Court was That the Custom was not well expressed to have Estovers to burn in terris tenementis for that Estovers cannot be appertaining to Lands but to Houses only And therefore whereas the Defendant in the Case did entitle himself to a house and lands and gave in Evidence that the Custom did extend to Lands it was holden that the Evidence did not maintain the Issue And the Custom was alleadged to be That the Lord should have Quicquid valeret ad maremium and that the Freeholders should have ramillos Which as Hobart Chief Justice said is to be meant all the Arms and Boughs for whatsoever is not maremium is ramillum 2. It was holden in this Case That the Non-use or Negligence in not taking of the Boughs did not extinguish nor take away the Custom as it hath been oftentimes resolved in the like case And note that in this Case to confirm the said Custom the Book-case was cited which is in 14. E. 3. Fitz. t' Bar. 277. and the same was given in and avowed for good Evidence where the Case was That the Bishop of C. which shall be intended the Bishop of Chichester brought an Action of Trespass for felling of Trees and carrying them away where the Defendant pleaded That he held a Messuage and a Verge of Land of the Bishop and that all the Tenants of the Bishop within the Manor of A. ought to have all the Windfals of Trees and all the Boughs and Branches c. Which Case as Harris Serjeant conceived was the Case of the very Mannor now in question and the Tenant there as in this Case made a special Justification and there it was holden that it was good and adjudged for the Defendant Also in that Case it was adjudged That the Lord should have Maremium and that the Tenants should have Residuum which shall be intended the Boughs and Branches And the Custom in the Case was adjudged good But because the Defendant alleadged the Custom to be to have the same as Estovers to be burned in terris and gave Evidence only to the Messuage it was found against the Defendant for that the Evidence did not maintain the Issue Mich. 11. Jacobi in the Common-Pleas 327. VAUGHAN's Case IN a Formedon in the Discender the Tenant had been essoined upon the Summons and also upon the View And after was pleaded Ne dona pas the general issue and thereupon issue was joyned And if he might be essoined again after issue joyned was the Question And the Court was of opinion That in a real action the Tenant may be essioned after Issue joyned but not in a personal action by the Statute of Marlebridge And Hobart Chief Justice said That the Statute of Marlebridge gave not any Essoin but only did restrain Essoins and therefore in real Actions the same is left as it was at the Common Law and by the Common Law the Tenant might be Essoined after Issue joyned And note per totam Curiam That if an Essoin be not taken the first day it shall never after be taken Mich. 11. Iacobi in the Common-Pleas 328. CLAY and BARNETS Case IN an Ejectione Firme the Case was this Sir Godfrey Foliamb had issue James his son who had issue Francis And Sir Godfrey Foliamb was seized in Fee of divers Lands as well by purchase as by discent in sundry Towns viz. Chesterfield Brampton c. in the Tenures of A. B. C. c. and dyed James Foliamb his son 7 E. 6. made a Conveyance of divers Lands to Francis Foliamb being his younger son in haec verba viz. Omnia mea Mesuagia terras tentam in Chesterfield Brampton c. modo in tenuri of the said A. B. C. quae pater meus Galfrid Foliamb perquesivit from divers men whom he named in certain And also convey a House called the Hart to the same Francis which came to him by discent by the same Conveyance which was in the occupation of one Celie and not in the Tenures of the said A. B. C. And the great Question upon the whole Conveyance was Whether all the Lands which he had by Discent in the said Towns and in the Occupations and Tenures of the said A. B. C. did pass or only the purchased Lands And it was resolved by the whole Court That the Conveyance did pass only the Lands which he had by purchase except only the said House which was precisely named and conveyed and did not pass the Lands which he had by Discent For if all the Lands which he had by Discent should pass by the general words then the special words which passed the House which he had by Discent should be idle and frivolous and that was one reason ex visceribus causae that only the purchased Lands did pass 2. It was said by Justice Warburton That if a man giveth all his Lands in D. in the Tenures of A. B. and he hath Lands in D. but not in their Tenures that in that case all his Lands in D. passeth So if a man give all his Lands in D. which he had by Discent from his son there all his Lands whatsoever shall pass Hobart acc ' and said That if a man gives all his Lands in the County of Kent if he have Lands within the County they do pass And he said that in a Conveyance every restriction hath his proper operation and in the Conveyance in the principal case there were three restrictions 1. All his â—ands in such Towns viz. Chesterfield Brampton c. 2. All his lands in the
it is not known whether he be guilty or not and in Cuddingtons Case it was a general Pardon and that was the cause that the Action did lie for that it is not known whether he committed the Felony or not But they conceived that if it had been a particular Pardon that then in that case the Action would not have been maintainable For the procuring of a special Pardon doth presuppose and it is a strong presumption that the party is guilty of the offence Note it did not appear in the Case of Fines the principal Case whether the Pardon by which Dr. Spicer was pardoned were a general Pardon or whether it were a particular and special Pardon Pasch 21 Iacobi in the Kings Bench. 415. DAVER's Case IN Davers Case who was arraigned for the death of William Dutton Ley Chief Justice delivered it for Law That if two men voluntarily fight together and the one killeth the other if it be upon a sudden quarrel that the same is but Man-slaughter And if two men fight together and the one flieth as far as he can and he which flieth killeth him who doth pursue him the same is Se defendendo Also if one man assaulteth another upon the High-way and he who is assaulted killeth the other he shall forfeit neither life nor lands nor goods if he that killed the other fled so far as he could Quod nota Pasch 21 Jacobi â—n the Court of Wards 416. Sir EDWARD COKE's Case THis Case being of great consequence and concernment The Master of the Court of Wards was assisted by four of the Judges in the hearing and debating of it and after many Arguments at the Barr the said four Judges argued the same in Court viz. Dodderidge one of the Justices of the Kings Bench Tanfield Lord chief Baron of the Exchequer Hobart Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas and Ley Lord Chief Justice of his Majesties Court of Kings Bench The Case in effect was this Queen Elizabeth by her Letters Patents did grant to Sir Christopher Hatton the Office of Remembrancer and Collector of the first Fruits for his life Habendum to him after the death or surrender of one Godfrey who held the said Office then in possession Sir Christopher Hatton being thus estated in the said Office in Reversion and being seised in Fee-simple of diverse Mannors Lands and Tenements did Covenant to stand seised of his said lands c. unto the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of J. Hatton his son in tail and so to his other sons intail with the Remainder to the right heirs of J. Hatton in Fee with Proviso of Revocation at his pleasure during his life Godfrey the Officer in possession died and Sir Christopher Hatton became Officer and was possessed of the Office and afterwards he became indebted to the Queen by reason of his said Office And the Question in this great Case was Whether the Mannors and Lands which were so conveyed and setled by Sir Christopher Hatton might be extended for the said Debt due to the Queen by reason of the Proviso and Revocation in the said Conveyance of Assurance of the said Mannors and Lands the debt due to the Queen was assign'd over and the Lands extended and the Extent came to Sir Edward Coke and the heir of John Hatton sued in the Court of Wards to make void the Extent And it was agreed by the said four Justices and so it was afterwards decreed by Cranfield Master of the Court of Wards and the whole Court That the said Mannors and Lands were liable to the said Extent And Dodderidge Justice who argued first said that the Kings Majestie had sundry prerogatives for the Recovery of Debts and other Duties owing unto him First he had this prerogative ab origine legis That he might have the Lands the Goods and the Body of the Person his Debtor in Execution for his Debt But at the Common Law a common person a common person could not have taken the body of his debtor in execution for his debt but the same priviledg was given unto him by the Statute of 25. E. 3. cap. 17. At the Common Law he said that a common person Debtee might have had a Levari facias for the Recovery of his Debt by which Writ the Sheriffe was commanded Quod de terris Catallis ipsius the Debtor c. Levari faciat c. but in such Case the Debtee did not meddle with the Land but the Sheriffe did collect the Debt and pay the same over to the Debtor But by the Statute of West 2. cap 20. The Debtee might have an Elegit and so have the moyetie of the Lands of his Debtor in Execution for his Debt as it appeareth in C. 3. part 12. in Sir William Harberts Case Secondly He said That the King had another prerogative and that was to have his Debt paid before the Debt of any Subject as it appeareth 41. E. 3. Execution 38. and Pasc 3. Elizabeth Dyer 197. in the Lord Dacres and Lassels Case and in M. 3. E. 6. Dyer 67 Stringfellows Case For there the Sheriffe was amerced because the King ought to have his Debt first paid and ought to be preferred before a Subject vid. 328 Dyer There the words of the Writ of Priviledg shew that the King is to be preferred before other Creditors By the Statute of 33. H. 8. cap. 39. The Execution of the Subject shall be first served if his Judgment be before any Processe be awarded for the Kings debt In the Statute of 25. E. 3. Cap. 19. I find that by the Common Law the King might grant a Protection to his Debtor that no other might sue him before that the King was satisfied his debt See the Writ of Protection Register â— 81. B. the words of which are Et quia nolumus solutionem debitorum nostrorum caeteris omnibus prout ratione Perogativae nostrae totis temporibus retroactis usitatae c. But that grew such a Grievance to the Subject that the Statute of 25. E. 3. Cap. 19. was made And now by that Statute a common person may lawfully sue to Judgment but he cannot proceed to Execution and so the Kings Prerogative is saved unless the Plaintiffe who sueth will give security to pay first the Kings Debt For otherwise if the Paty doth take forth Execution upon his Judgment and doth levy the money the same money may be seized upon to satisfie the Kings Debt as appeareth in 45. E. 3. title Decies tantum 13. The third Prerogative which the King hath is That the King shall have the Debt of the Debtor to the Kings Debtor paid unto him v. 21 H. 7. 12. The Abbot of Ramseys Case The Prior of Ramsey was indebted to the King and another Prior was indebted to the Prior of Ramsey and then it was pleaded in Barr that he had paid the same Debt to the King and the Plea holden for a good Plea
puisne or the lesser Debt and although the Debtor be able and sufficient to pay both Debts viz. the Kings Debt and the Debt owing to the Subject yet the Kings Debt is to be first paid Now to apply these cases to the Case in question Here is a Subject who is indebted to the King And I say That the Lands which such a Debtor hath in his power and dispose although he hath not any Estate in the Lands shall be liable to pay the Debt to the King And I say That Sir Christopher Hatton had a Fee in the Mannors and Lands in this case And although he did convey them bona fide yet untill his death by reason of the Proviso of Revocation they were extendable Trin. 24. E. 3. Rot. 4. Walter de Chirton Customer who was indebted to the King for the Customs purchased Lands with the Kings monies and caused the Feoffor of the Lands to enfeoffe certain of his friends with an intent to defraud and deceive the King and notwithstanding he himself took the profits of the Lands to his own use And those Lands upon an Inquisition were found and the values of them and retorned into the Exchequer and there by Judgment given by the Court the Lands were seized into the Kings hands to remain there untill he was satisfied the Debt due unto him And yet the Estate of the Lands was never in him But because he had a power viz. by Subpena in Chancery to compell his Friends to settle the Estate of the Lands upon him therefore they were chargeable to the Debt You will say perhaps there was Covin in that Case But I say that neither Fraud Covin nor Collusion is mentioned in the Report in Dyer 160. C. 11. par 92. And that Case was a harder Case then our Case is For Walter de Chirton in that Case was never seised of the said lands But in our Case Sir Christopher Hatton himself had the lands And when he had the lands he was assured of the Office although he had not the possession of it For he was sure that no other could have it from him and no other could have it but himself And for another cause our Case is a stronger Case then the Case of Walter de Chirton For Chirton had no remedy in Law to have the lands but his remedy was only in a Court of Equity and a remedy in Consc ' onely But in our Case Sir Christopher Hatton had a time in which he might let the land to passe and yet he had a power to pull it back again at his pleasure So as he had the disposition of it but before the alteration of the uses he dyed And if he had been living being indebted to the King the King might have extended the lands because that then he had the possession of them There were two Considerations which moved Sir Christopher Hatton to Convey the Lands the first was honorable viz. For the payment of his Debts the second was natural viz. For the preferment of his Children Although the Conveyance of the Lands for payment of his Debts was but for years yet the same was too short like unto a Plaister which is too short for the sore For the Covenanters were not his Executors and so they were not liable to Debts And although he be now dead and cannot revoke the former uses yet he had the power to revoke the uses during his life And so he was chargeable for the Debt due to the King Tanfield Chief Baron agreed with Justice Dodderidge in all as before And he said That all powerful and speedy courses are given unto the King for the getting in of his Revenues and therefore he said he had the said Prerogatives as have been recited And in 25 E. 3. in libro rubro in the Exchequer there the Foundations of the said Prerogatives do appear If a common person arrest the body in Execution he shall not resort to the lands contr to Blumfields Case C. 5. par The course of the Exchequer makes a Law every where for the King If any Officer be indebted unto the King and dyeth the course of the Exchequer is For to call in his Executors or the Heir or the Terre-Tenants to answer the Debt and if he hath no lands then a Writ issueth out of the Exchequer to know what goods he had and to whose hands they be come All Inquisitions concerning Lands in the like Cases are Habuit vel seisitus and not that he was seised onely The word Habuit is a large word and in it is contained a disposing power But in this Case Sir Christopher Hatton had a power every day to revoke the uses And when he had once revoked them then was he again as before seisitus 7 H. 6. in the Exchequer the Kings Farmor had Feoffees to his use and dyed indebted to the King And upon an Inquisition it was found that Habuit for he had them in his power by compelling his Feoffees by Equity in Chancery and therefore it was adjudged that the King should have the Lands in the Feoffees hands in extent But in this case Sir Christopher Hatton might have had the Lands in him again without compulsion by a Court of Equity for that he had power to revoke the uses in the Conveyance at his pleasure Mich. 30. H. 6. rot in the Exchequer A Clark of the Court was assigned to receive monies for the King who had Feoffees of lands to his use And the lands were found and seised for the Kings monies by force of the word Habuit 32 H. 6. Philip Butler's Case who was Sheriffe of a County being indebted to the King his Feoffees were chargeable to the Kings debt by force of the word Habuit For habuit the lands in his power 6 E. 4. Bowes Case acc ' 34 H. 6. A widow being indebted to the King her Feoffees were chargeable to pay the Kings debt because she had power of the lands It being found by Inquisition that habuit 1 R. 3. the like Case And 24 Eliz. in Morgan's Case it was adjudged That lands purchased in the names of his Friends for his use were extended for a debt due by him to the King Hobart Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas argued to the same purpose and agreed with the other Justices and he said in this case it was not material whether the Inquisition find the Deed to be with power of Revocation For he said that the Land is extended and that the extent remains good untill it be avoided And he said that a revocable Conveyance is sufficient to bind the Parties themselves but not to bind the King but the Lands are lyable into whose hands soever they come When a man is said to forfeit his body it is not to be intended his life but the freedom of his body Imprisonment At the Common Law a Common person could neither take the bodie nor the Lands in Execution But yet at the Common Law
thing and shall he be bound by a Conveyance Anno. 16. H. 6. then in the time of Civil War Uses began and of Lands in use the Lord Chief Baron Tanfield in his Argument hath cited diverse cases where the lands in use were subject and lyable to the debt of Cestuy que use in the Kings Case and so was it untill the Statute of 27. H. 8. of Uses was made Babbington an Officer in the Exchequer had lands in the hands of Feoffees upon Trust and a Writ issued out and the lands were extended for the Debt of Babbington in the hands of his Feoffees Sir Robert Dudley having lands in other mens hands upon Trusts the lands were seized into the Kings hands for a contempt and not for debt or damages to the King And in this Case although that the â—nquisition do find the Conveyance but have not found it to be with power of Revocation yet the Land being extended it is well extended untill the contrary doth appear and untill the extent be avoided by matter of Record viz. by Plea as the Lord Chief Baron hath said before Ley Chief Justice of the Kings Bench argued the same day and his Argument in effect did agree with the other Justices in all things and therefore I have forborne to report the same at length And it was adjudged That the Extent was good and the Land well decreed accordingly Pasch 21 Jacobi in the Exchequer Chamber 417. The Lord SHEFFIELD and RATCLIFF'S Case IN a Writ of Error brought to reverse a Judgment given in a Monstrans de Droit in the Court of Pleas The Case was put by Glanvile who argued for Ratcliffe the Defendant to be this 2 E. 2. Malew being seised of the Mannor of Mulgrave in Fee gave the same to A. Bigot in tail which by divers discents came to Sir Ralph Bigot in tail Who 10 Jannarii 6 H. 8. made a Feoffment unto the use of â—is last Will and thereby after his Debts paid declared the use unto his right heirs in Fee and 9. H. 8. dyed The Will was performed Francis Bigot entred being Tenant in tail and 21 H. 8. made a Feoffment unto the use of himself and Katherine his wife and to the use of the heirs of their two bodies Then came the Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 13. by which Tenant in tail for Treason is to forfeit the Land which he hath in tail Then the Statute of 27 H. 8. of Uses is made Then 28 H. 8. Francis Bigot did commit Treason And 29 H. 8. he was attainted and executed for the same Anno 31 H. 8. a private Act of Parliament was made which did confirm the Attaindor of Francis Bigot and that he should forfeit unto the King word for word as the Statute of 26 H. 8. is saving to all strangers except the Offendor and his heirs c. 3 E. 6. The heir of Francis Bigot is restored in blood Katherine entred into the Mannor and dyed seised 8 Eliz. their Issue entred and married with Francis Ratcliffe and had Issue Roger Ratcliffe who is heri in tail unto Ralph Bigot And they continue possession untill 33. Eliz. And then all is found by Office and the Land seised upon for the Queen who granted the same unto the Lord Sheffield Francis Bigot and Dorothy die And Roger Ratcliffe sued a Monstrans de Droit to remove the Kings hands from off the lands and a Scire facias issued forth against the Lord Sheffield as one of the Terre-Tenants who pleaded all this special matter and Judgment was thereupon given in the Court of Pleas for Roger Ratcliffe And then the Lord Sheffield brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer-Chamber to reverse the said Judgment And Finch Serjeant argued for the Lord Sheffield that the Judgment ought to be reversed And now this Term Glanvile argued for Roger Ratcliffe that the Judgment given in the Court of Pleas ought to be affirmed There are two points The first If there were a Right remaining in Francis Bigot and if the same were given unto the King by the Attaindor and the Statute of 31 H. 8. Second If a Monstrans de Droit be a proper Action upon this matter which depends upon a Remitter for if it be a Remitter then is the Action a proper Action The Feoffment by Ralph Bigot 6 H. 8. was a Discontinuance and he had a new use in himself to the use of his Will and then to the use of his Heirs Then 9 H. 8. Ralph Bigot dyed And then Francis Bigot had a right to bring a Formedon in the Discendor to recover his estate tail 21 H 8. then the point ariseth Francis Bigot having a right of Formedon and an use by force of the Statute of 1 R. 3. cap. 1. before the Statute of 27 H. 8. by the Feoffment he had so setled it that he could not commit a forfeiture of the estate tail When a man maketh a Feoffment every Right Action c. is given away in the Livery and Seisin because every one who giveth Livery giveth all Circumstances which belongs to it For a Livery is of that force that it excludes the Feoffor not only of all present Rights but of all future Rights and Tytles v. C. 1. par 111. and there good Cases put to this purpose 9 H. 7. 1. By Livery the Husband who was in hope to be Tenant by Courtesie is as if he were never sised 39 H. 6. 43. The Son disseiseth his Father and makes a Feoffment of the lands the Father dyeth the hope of the heir is given away by the Livery It was objected by Serjeant Finch 1. Where a man hath a right of action to recover land in Fee or an estate for life which may be conveyed to another there a Livery doth give away such a Right and shall there bind him But an estate in tail cannot be transferred to another by any manner of Conveyance and therefore cannot be bound by such a Livery given I answer It is no good Rule That that which doth not passe by Livery doth remain in the person which giveth the Livery 19 H. 6. Tenant in tail is attainted Office is found The estate tail is not in the King is not in the person attainted but is in abeyance So it is no good Rule which hath been put When Tenant in tail maketh a Feoffment Non habet jus in re neque ad rem If he have a Right then it is a Right of Entre or Action but he cannot enter nor have any action against his own Feoffment 19 H. 8. 7. Dyer If Discontinuee of Tenant in tail levieth a Fine with proclamations and the five years passe and afterward Tenant in tail dyeth his issue shall have other five years and shall be helped by the Statute for he is the first to whom the right doth accrue after the Fine levied for Tenant in tail himself after his Fine with Proclamations hath not any right But if Tenant in tail be
the possession is bound by the Judgment of Attaindor and the Act of Parliament 5 H. 7. 31. 7 H. 7. 15. 16 H. 7. 8. A discent of land shall not make a title against the King or any other who hath the land by an Act of Parliament But then in our Case If there should be a Remitter yet the same is overreached by the Office 〈◊〉 part 10. before the Statute of 33 H. 8. cap. 20. there ought to have been an Office found in the Case of Attaindor of Treason Br. Cases 103. Brook Office Devant c. 17. I do not mean an Office of intitling but an Office declaratory of a conspicuous title C. 5. part 52. There are two manner of Offices One which vesteth the estate and possession of the land c. in the King Another which is an Office of Instruction and that is when the estate of the land is lawfully in the King but the particularity thereof doth not appear upon record And the Office of Instruction shall relate to the time of the Attaindor not to make Queen Elizabeth in our Case in by discent but to avoid all meâ—ne Incombrances And is not this Remitter an Incombrance And for that purpose the Office shall relate For in things of Continuance Nullum tempus occurrit Regi C. 7. part 28. For so the rule of Nullum tempus c. is to be understood of a thing of Continuance and not a thing unica vice v. Fitz. Entre Congeable 53. Trav. 40. where it is said Where the King hath cause to seise for the forfeiture of Tenant for life if the Tenant for life dyeth the Reversion may enter for in that case Tempus occurrit Regi and the King cannot seize after the death of the Tenant for life 35 H. 6. 57. There is no discent against the King and if there be no discent then there is no Remitter The consequence of all this is That the Office doth relate to the Right And that the Monstrans de Droit doth not lie And the want of Office found for all this time was the fault of the Kings Officers and shall not prejudice the King But if the Office should not relate then the Monstrans de Droit would lie because then the King was in but by one single matter of Record We shew in the Office 33 Eliz. That there issued forth a Commission directed to certain of the Privy-Councel to enquire of the Treason and if Francis Bigot upon the Treason were Indicted And in our Case we shew immediately another Commission was directed to the Lord Chancellor and the two Chief Justices c. to arraign Francis Bigot And all that is confessed by Ratcliffe himself viz. modo forma And therefore the Objection which Glanvile made was frivolous viz. That it did not appear that Francis Bigot was attainted by Verdict by Confession or by Outlawry And so he concluded That for these causes the Judgment given in the Court of Common-Pleas ought to be reversed George Crook argued for Ratcliffe and he prayed that the Judgment might be affirmed I will argue only these points following 1. That Francis Bigot had not so much as a right of Action at the time of his Attaindor for he had not any right at all 2. Admit that he had a right of Action If this right of Action be given to the King by the said Statutes of 26 31 H. 8. It was objected That the right being clothed with a possession that the same is given to the King But I will prove the contrary 3. When Francis Bigot being Tenant in tail and being attainted and executed for Treason and then Katherine his wife dyeth being one of the Donees in tail 21 H. 8. and the lands discend to Ratcliff If the Office afterwards found shall relate to take away the Remitter I say it doth not but that his Remitter doth remain to maintain his Monstrans de Droit and he is not put to his Petition The chief point is What right Francis Bigot had at the time of his Attaindor 1. When Ralph Bigot being Tenant in tail 6 H. 8. made a Feoffment in Fee what right remained in Francis his Son The right is in abeyance viz. in nubibus that is in custodia Legis And then Francis Bigot had no right of that entail 21 H. 8. when he made the Feoffment Com. 487. There Jus is divided viz. Jus recuperandi Jus in randi Jus habendi Jus retinendi Jus percipiendi Jus possedendi but here Francis Bigot had not any of these rights Com. 374. if the Discontinuee of Tenant in tail levieth a Fine with proclamations and five years passe and Tenant in tail dyeth the issue in tail shall have other five years because he is the first to the right 19 H. 8. 7. C. 7. part 81. If Donee in tail maketh a Feoffment in Fee in rei veritate the Donee hath not jus in re neque ad rem C. 3. part 29. Litt. 649. There it appeareth that the right to an estate tail may be in abeyance Com. 552. Walsinghams Case There the King gave land in tail to Wyat who made a Feoffment unto Walsingham Afterwards Wyat was attainted of Treason and there the estate tail of Wyat was forfeited but the cause there was because that the reversion was in the Crown and so no discontinuance by his Feoffment because that the reversion was in the Crown In our Case no right of the estate tail was in Francis Bigot after the Feoffment unto his own use but the right is in abeyance It was objected That the Writ of Formedon is Discendit jus and the Monstrans de Droit was so I answer It is so in point of form in the Writ but not in substance C. 7. part 14. Tenant in tail makes a Lease for life and Tenant for life dyeth Now he hath an ancient right and the Donor may avow upon the Tenant in tail notwithstanding his Feoffment but that is by reason of privity and not by reason of any right he hath Jus recuperandi did discend to the issue in tail viz. Francis Bigot 21 H. 8. He who hath a right of Action giveth the same away by his Livery and Feoffment as appeareth by the Cases put in C. 1. part 111. It was objected That Cestuy que use was an Attorney or Servant therefore he doth not passe his own right for he cannot make an Attorney to make Livery and 9 H. 7. 26. was cited to be adjudged so But it is adjudged to the contrary M. 25 H. 8. in the Kings Bench rot 71. betwixt the Bishop of London and Kellet as it appeareth in Dyer 283. and Bendloe's Reports and C. 9. part 75. For there it is expresse that Cestuy que use may make a Letter of Attorney to make Livery which proves that he makes not the Feoffment as a Servant but as Owner of the Land It was objected That Cuesty que use was as an Executor but that I deny 49
Statute of West 2. First they said That Copyholds are not within the letter of the Statute which speaks onely de tenementis per chartam datis c. Secondly they are not within the meaning of it 1. Because they were not untill 7 E. 4. 19. of any accompt in Law because they were but Estates at will 2. The Statute of West 2. provides against those who might makeâ— a dissen heresin by Fine or Feoffment which Copyholders could not do 3. Because if Copyholders might give lands in tail by the Statute then the Reversion should be left in themselves which cannot be 4. The Makers of the Statute did not intend any thing to be within the Statute of Donis whereof a Fine could not be levied For the Statute provides Quod sinis ipso jure sit nullus 5. Great mischiefs would follow if Copyholds should be within the Statute of West 2. because there is no means to dock the estate and no customary conveyance can extend to a Copyhold created at this day 37 Eliz Lane and Hills case adjudged in the Common-Pleas was cited by Justice Harvey where a Surrender was unto the use of one in tail with divers remainders over in tail The first Surrenderee dyed without issue And first it was agreed and adjudged That it was no discontinuance 2. If it were a discontinuance yet a Formedon in the Remainder did not lie because there ought to be a Custom to warrant the Remainder as well as the first Estate tail For when a Copyholder in Fee maketh such a gift no Reversion is left in him but only a possibility And the Lord ought to avow upon the Donee and not upon the Donor And there is a difference when he maketh or giveth an estate of inheritance and when he maketh a Lease for life or years for in the one case he hath a Reversion in the other not 2. A Recovery shall not be without a special custom as it was agreed in the Case of the Mannor of Stepney because the Warrantie cannot be knit to such an Estate without a Custom And for express authority in the principal Case he cited Pits and Hockleâ—'s ase which was Ter Pasc 35 Eliz. rot 334. in the Common-Pleas where it was resolved That Copyholds were not within the Statute of Donis for the weakness and meanness of their estates For if they were within the Statute of West 2. the Lord could not enter for Felony but the Donor and the Services should be done to the Donor and not to the Lord of the Mannor And so and for these mischiefs he conceived That neither the meaning nor the words of the said Statute did extend to Copyholds Hill 34 Eliz. Rot. 292. in the Kings Bench Stanton and Barney's Case A Surrender was made of a Copyhold within the Mannor of Stiversden unto one and the heirs of his body and after issue he surrendred unto another And it was agreed by all the Justices That the issue was barred And Popham did not deny that Case but that it was a Fee conditional at the Common-Law and that post prolem suscitatam he might alien And so it was agreed in Decrew and Higdens case Trin. 36. Eliz. rot 54â— in the Kings Bench and in Erish and Ives case 41 42 Eliz. in the Common-Pleas in an Evidence for the Mannor of Istleworth That no Estate tail might be of Copyhold without a Custom to warrant it Mich. 36 37 Eliz. in the Kings Bench it was adjudged That a Copyholder could not suffer a common Recovery and the reason was because that the Recovery in value is by reason of the Warrantie annexed to the Estate at the Common-Law which could not be annexed to a Customary estate And another reason was given because that he who recovers in value shall be in by the Recovery and the Copy of the Court-Roll only should not be his Evidence as Littleton and other books say it ought to be And Crook said That the Statute of Donis was made in restraint of the Common-Law And it should be very disadvantagious to the Lord if Copyhold should be construed to be within that Statute And therefore he conceived that the said Statute did not extend to Copyholds by any equitable construction And such difference was taken by Popham Chief Justice 42 Eliz. in the Kings Bench rot 299. in Baspool and Long 's Case For he said That a Custom which did conduce to maintain Copyholds did extend to them But a Statute or a Custom which did deprave or destroy them did not As if one surrender to the use of one for life the Remainder in Fee where the Custom is to surrender in Fee the Custom doth not extend thereunto because a Custom which goes in destruction of a Copyhold shall be taken strictly But if a man be Copyholder in Fee he may grant a Fee conditional Harvey Justice put some Cases to prove the small account the Law had of Copyholds at the time of the making of that Statute as 40 E. 3. 28. 32 H. 6. br Copyhold 24. And he said That there is not any book in the Law but only Mancels case in Plow Comment That the Statute of West 2. doth extend to Copyholds Hill 2 Caroli rot 235 in the Kings Bench. 459. LITFIELD and his Wife against MELHERSE A Writ of Error was brought upon a Judgment given in an Action upon the Case brought by Husband and Wife in the Common-Pleas for words spoken of the Plaintiffs wife And the Judgment in the Common-Pleas was That the husband and wife should recover And that was assigned for Error in this Court because the Husband only is to have the damages and the Judgment ought to be That the Husband alone should recover But notwithstanding this Error assigned the Judgment was affirmed by the opinion of the whole Court Pasch 2 Caroli rot 362. in the Kings Bench. 460 HOLMES and WINGREEVE's Case A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Judgment given in the Court at Lincoln in an Action of Trespass there brought for taking away a Box with Writings And four Errors were assigned 1. Because the Plaintiffe did not appear by Attorney or in person at the retorn of the Attachment against the Defendant so as there was a discontinuance for the Plaintiffe ought to appear de die in diem 2. Because in his Declaration there he saith That the Defendant took a Box with Writings and doth not make any title to the Box nor shews that the same was lockt nailed or sealed 2 H. 7. 6. a. The certainty of the writings ought to be shewed that a certain issue may be taken thereupon Com. 85. 22 H. 6. 16. 14 H. 6. 4. 21 E. 3. He ought to shew the certainty of the writings 18 H. 1. Charters in a Box sealed C. 9. part Bedingfields case C. 5. part Playters case The Declaration was insufficient because the Plaintiffe therein did not name the certain number of the Fishes 3. He pleaded That he made a
of his eldest son in tail and afterwards he married a wife and died that the wife should not be endowed for when he had limited the use to himself for his life he could not limit arâ— Remainder over And Edwards Case adjudged in the Court of Wards which was That there was Tenant for life the Remainder in tail he in the Remainder granted his Remainder to I. S. and his heirs and afterwards Tenant for life dyed and then the grantee dyed his heirs within age it was adjudged that the heir of the garntee should not be in ward because the Tenant in tail could not by his Grant grant a greater estate then for his own life But he said That in the principall Case it appeareth That the Tenant in tail in Remainder hath particularly recited his estate And where it appeareth in the Conveyance it self that he hath but an estate in tail a greater estate shall not passe As if Tenant for life granteth a Rent to one and his heirs the same at the first sight seems to be a good Rent in Fee but when it appeareth in the Conveyance that the grantor was but Tenant for life there upon the Construction of the Deed it self it cannot be intended that he granted a Fee but that an estate for life passed only in the Rent Secondly he argued That although the estate in tail in the principall case was an abeyance Yet a Common Recovery would barr such estate tail in abeyance And therewith agreeth C. 2. part Sr Hugh Cholmleys Case 3. He said That the estate was out of the King and vested in the party without any Offence found as 49. E. 3. Isabell Goodcheaps case A man devised houses in London holden of the King in tail and if the Donee dyed without Issue that the Lands should be sold by his Executors The devisee died without Issue The bargain and sale of the Lands by the Executor doth divert the estate out of the King without Petition or Monstrans de Droit So If there be Tenant in tail the Remainder in tail and Tenant in tail â—n Remainder levieth a fine of his Remainder to the King and afterwards dyeth without Issue the Kings estate is determined and there needs no Petition or Monstrans de Droit 4. He said That in the principall case nothing was in the King because it doth not appeare that there was any seisure or Offence found to entitle the King And the Tenant in tail in the Remainder died in the life of King James and then if the Kings estate were then determined as before by the death of the Tenant in taile the King which now is never had any title And hee said that he needed not to shew a greater title then he had And hee took a difference when Tenant in taile doth onely defend or make defence and when he makes title to Lands in the one Case he ought for to shew That the Tenant in taile died without issue and in the other Case not And therefore in the principall case he demanded Judgment for the Defendant The Case was adjourned to another day Mich. 4. Caroli in the Star-Chamber 511 TAILOR and TOWLIN's Case A Bill was preferred against the Defendant for a Conspiracy to Indict the plaintiff of a Rape And the Plaintiff aleadged in his Bill That an Indictment was preferred by the Defendant against the Plaintiff before the Justices of Assise and Nisi prius in the County of Suffolk And did not lay it in his Bill that the Indictment was preferred before the Justices of Oyer and Terminer and Gaole delivery and the same was holden by the Court to be a good Exception to the Bill for that the Justices of Assise and Nisi prius have not power to take Indictments But afterwards upon veiw of the Bill because the Conspiracy was the principall thing tryable and examinable in this Court and that was well layd in the Bill the Bill was retayned and the Court proceded to Sentence And in this Case Richardson Justice said That in Conspiracy the matter must bee layed to be falsè et malitiosè and if it be layed for a Rape It must be layd that there was recens persecutio of it otherwise it will argue a Consent And therefore because the Defendant did not preferre an Indictment of Rape in convenient time after the Rape supposed to be done but concealed the same for half a years time and then would have preferred a Bill of Indictment against the plaintiff for the same Rape he held that the Indictment was false and malitious And Hyde Chief Justice said That upon probable proof a man might accuse another before any Justice of Peace of an Offence and although his accusation be false yet the Accuser shall not be punished for it But where the Accusation is malitious and false it is otherwise and for such Accusation he shall be punished in this Court Trinit 8. Caroli in the King Bench. 513 JONES and BALLARD's Case AN Action upon the Case was brought for these words viz These Jones are proper Witnesses they will sweare any thing They care not what they say They have already forsworn themselves in the Chancery and the Lord keeper Committed them for it Jermyn took Exceptions because it was not said to be in the Court of Chancery nor that it was in any Deposition there taken upon Oath But it was adjudged per Curiam That the Action would lie and Jones Justice said that the Addition in the Chauncery was as much as if he had said he was perjured there And Hâ—msies case was vouâ—hed by him Where one said of a Witness presently after a Tryall at the Guild Hall in London You have now forsworn your self That it was adjudged that the words were actionable Trinit 8. Caroli in the Kings Bench. 513. SYMME's and SMITH's Case A Woman being entituled to copyhold Lands of the Manor of D did covenant upon reasonable request to be made unto her to surrender the Copy-hold Land according to the Custome of the Manor And it was found That the Custome of the Manor is That a surrender may be made either in person or by Letter of Atturney and that the plaintiff did request the woman to make the surrender by a Letter of Atturney which shee refused to do And whether shee ought to surrender presently or might first advise with her Councell was the Question It was argued for the plaintiff that shee ought to do it presently And Munser's Case C. 2. part and 16. Eliz. Dyer 337. Sir Anthonie Cooks Case were vouched that she was to do it at her perill And the Election in this Case was given to the Covenantee and hee might require it to be done either in Court in person or by Letter of Atturney And C. 2. part Sir Rowland Heywards Case and C. 5. part Hallings Case was vouched to that purpose Rolls contrary for the Defendant And he said That the woman was to have convenient time to do it and
the Court was That it is a good grant of an Annuity by these words annualem redditum But whether the Husband shall have a Writ of Annuity after the death of the wife for an Annuity during the Coverture they were in some doubt because it is but a thing in Action as is an Obligation Otherwise were it of a Rent which she had for life Note in pleading for a Rent he shall plead That he was seised c. Mich. 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 152 WINKFEILD'S Case Winkfeild devised Land in Norfolk to one Winkfeild of London Goldsmith and to his heirs in Fee And afterwards he made a Deed of Feoffment thereof to divers persons unto the use of himselfe for life without impeachment of waste the Remainder unto the Devisee in fee. But before he sealed the Deed of Feoffment he asked one if it would be any prejudice to his Will who answered No. And the Devisor asked again if it would be any prejudice because he conceived that he should not live untill Livery was made And it was answered No. Then he said that he would seale it for his intent was that his Will should stand And afterwards Livery was executed upon part of the Land and the Devisor died Rodes and Periam Justices The Feoffment is no Countermand of the Will because it was to one person but perhaps it had been otherwise if it had been to the use of a stranger although it were not executed Anderson Chiefe Justice and others the Will is revoked in that part where the Livery is executed And he said It would have been a question if he had said nothing And all the Justices agreed That a man may revoke his Will in part and in other part not And he may revoke it by word and that a Will in writing may he revoked by word Periam said It is no revocation by the party himselfe but the Law doth revoke it to which Windham agreed But he said That if the party had said nothing when he sealed the Feoffment it had been a revocation of the party and not of the Law Periam If the Witnesses dye so as he cannot prove the words spoken at the sealing of the Feoffment the Feoffment will destroy the Will and so he spake to Anderson who did not deny it All this was delivered by the Justices upon an Evidence given to a Jury at the Barre Mich. 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 153 NOte That it was said by Anderson Chiefe Justice That if one intrude upon the possession of the King and another man entreth upon him that he shall not have an Action of Trespasse for he who is to have trespasse ought to have a possession and in this case he had not for that every Intruder shall answer the King for his time and therefore he shal not answer to the other party To which Walmesley and Fenner Serjeants agreed Periam doubted of it for he conceived That he had a possession against every stranger Snagg Serjeant conceived That he might maintain an Action of Trespasse but Windham and Rodes Justices were of opinion that he could not maintain Trespass Walmesley he cannot say in the Writ Quare clausam frâ—git c. Rodes vouched 19. E. 4. to maintain his opinion Mich. 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 154 NORRIS and SALISBURIE'S Case IN an Action of Debt upon a Bond the Case was this Norris was possessed of wools for which there was a contention betwixt the Defendant and one A. And Norris promised A. in consideration that the goods were his and also that he should serve processe upon Salisbury out of the Admiral Court that he would deliver the goods to A. And afterwards he delivered the goods to Salisbury the Defendant who gave him Bond with Condition to keep him harmlesse from all losses charges and hinderances concerning and touching the said wools Afterwards A. served processe upon him and he did not deliver to him the goods for which A. brought his Action upon the Case against Norris who pleaded That he made no such promise which was found against him And afterwards Norris brought an Action of Debt upon the Bond against Salisbury because he did not save him harmlesse in that Action upon the Case And the opinion of the whole Court was That the Action of Debt would not lie because that the Action upon the Case did not concern the wools directly for the Action is not brought but for breach of the promise And that is a thing of which the Defendant had not notice and it was a secret thing not concerning the wools but by circumstances and so out of the Condition Anderson Chiefe Justice said That if A. promise B. in Consideration that B. is owner of goods and hath them to deliver them to C. the same may be a good consideration yet he somewhat doubted of it But Walmesley did affirme it to be a good Consideration Mich. 29 Eliz in the Common Pleas. 155 IT was holden by the whole Court That in an Action of Trespasse It is a good plea in barre That the Plaintiffe was barred in an Assize brought by him against the Defendant and issue joyned upon the Title But otherwise if it were upon the generall issue viz. Nul tort nul disseisin For then it might be that the Plaintiffe was never ousted nor disseised and so no cause to recover In which case it was no reason to put him from his Writ of Right Mich. 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. Intratur Mich. 27. Rot. 1627. 156 BRAGG'S Case A Woman having cause to be endowed of a Manor in which are Copy-holders doth demand her Dower by the name of certain Messuages certain Acres of land and certain Rents and not by the name of the third part of the Manor and she doth recover and keeps Courts and grants Copy-holds It was holden by the whole Court that in such Case that the Grants were void for she hath not a Manor because she hath made her demand as of a thing in grosse Otherwise if the demand had been of the third part of the Manor for then she had a Manor and might have kept Courts and granted Copies And the pleading in that Case was That she did recover the third part of the Manor per nomen of certain Messuages and Acres and Rents which was holden to be no recovery of the third part of the Manor Hill 29. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 157 NOte it was holden for Law That the Justices may increase but not decrease damages because the party may have an Attaint and so is not without remedy But note contrary by Anderson and Periam Justices Hill 39. Eliz. in the Common Pleas. 158 SErjeant Fenner moved this Case That the Lord of a Manor doth prescribe That if the Tenant do a Rescous or drive his Cattel off from the Land when the Lord comes to distrain that the Tenant shall be amerced by the Homage and that the Lord may distrain for the same Anderson