Sheriff of another County then where the occasion brought or by Warrant of a Iustice of Peace of another County for matter of the Peace and the like which are not like to the case of Partridge who was beâ—ten in the County of Glocester by Sir Henry Pole for which he brought his Action in London And Sir Hen. Pole would have justified by Assault of the Plaintiff in the County of Glocester with a trâ—verse that he was not guilty in London But it was then ruled in this Court that he could not do it to oust the Plaintiff to sue in London but in such a case he might have alledged that the Assault was done in London because it was also a thing transitory of which they shall take notice there and so help himself if the matter had been true But in the case at the Bar if the speciall matter alledged in the forraign County be false as here the Plaintiff may maintain his Action and traverse the special matter alledged by the Defendant And so a traverse in such a case may be upon a Traverse when falsity is used to oust the Plaintiff of that benefit which the Law gives him Hillary Term 38 Eliz. Wood versus Matthews 1. IN a writ of Error brought by Owen Wood against Griffeth Matthews upon a judgment given in the common Pleas the case was briefly thus The Issue in the Common Pleas was whether one were taken by a Cap. ad satisfaciendum or not and upon the triall therof at the Nisi prius the Jury found for the Plaintiff in this Action to wit that the party was not taken by the said Capias and upon the back of the Pannell entred dicunt per Quer. but on the back of the Postea the Clark of the Assises certified the Pannell thus to wit That the Jury say that no Capias was awarded which was otherwise then was put in Issue or found by the Jury and the Roll of the Record was according to the Postea and upon this Judgment given for the said Matthew then Plaintiff upon which amongst other Errors this variance between the Issue and Verdict was assigned for Error and after deliberation had upon this point and this matter alledged by the Defendant in the Writ of Error and certified out of the Common Pleas the Court awarded as to this point that the Record sent up out of the Common Pleas by the Writ of Error shall be amended according to that which was endorsed on the back of the Pannell for the endorsement upon the Pannell is the Warrant for the certifying of the Postea aâ—d so this Warrant over to him that makes the Entry in the Roll And therfore wheras it was alledged that the Postea was amended in the Common Pleas aftâ—r the Record removed it was holden to be well done there for although the Record were removed by the Writ of Error yet the Nisi prius the Postea and the like remain still there as it is of the Warrant of Attorney and the like And if the Postea had not been amended there but sent up with that which was endorsed upon the Pannel all shal be amended here according to that which was indorsed upon the Pannel and according to this there was a Presidâ—nt shewn Tr. 35. H. 8. between Whitfeild and Wright where the Issue was whether a quantity of Grain were delivered between two Feasts and endorsed upon the Pannel Dicunt pro quaer and yet the Postea certified and the Rolls also made that the delivery was made ad festa and upon this matter alledged in Banco Regis and the Error in this point assigned and certified out of the Common Pleas the Record removed by the Writ of Error was by award of the Court amended and the word Ad razed out and the word Inter written in lieu of it according as it appeareth it ought to have been by the Note upon the back of the Pannel And the like amendment was made lately in the Checquer Chamber upon Error brought there upon a Iudgment given in Banco Regis where the Iudorsment upon the back of the Writ was pro Quer. and the Postea and Roll was that the Plaintiff was guilty and there amended the last Term. Slanings Case 2. NIcholas Slaning of Bickley was seised in his Demesn as of Fee of the Mannor of Bickley and of a Mill in Walkhampton in the County of Devon called a blowing Mill and of another Mill there called a knocking Mill and of an acre of Land there also and of divers other Mannors and Lands in the said County of Devon the said Mills and acres of Land in Walkhampton then being in the possession of one Peterfeild and Atwill of an Estate for divers years then to come and being so seised he with Margaret his Wife levied a Fine of the said Mannor of Bickley and of other Lands omitting the said Lands in Walkhampton to certain Câ—nuzees who rendred the same back again to the said Margaret Slaning for her life with the remainder over to the said Nicholas and his Heirs After which the said Nicholas by Indenture daied 30. Octob. 21 Eliz. gave and enfeoffed all the said Mannors and Premisses to John Fits and others and the Heirs of the said Fits to the Vses Provisoes and Limitations mentioned in the said Indenture which was to the use of himself and the Heirs Males of his body by any other Wife the remainder to Nicholas Slaning of Newton Ferries and the Heirs Males of his body with divers remainders over with this Proviso to wit Provided and it is the intent of these presents and of the parties therunto that the said John Slaning and the Heirs Males of his body or the said Nicholas Slaning of Newton-ferries and the Heirs Males of his body in whomsoever of them the Inheritance in tail of all the Premisses shall happen to be by force of these presents shall pay to Agnes the Daughter of the said Nicholas Slaning of Bickly 200 l. or so much therof as shall be unpaid at the time of the death of her said Father according to the intent of his last Will with a Letter of Attorney to it by which he ordains John Hart and Robert Fort joyntly and severally his Attorney to enter into the said Mannor of Bickley Walkhampton c. and all other the Lands Tenements and Hereditaments in the said Indenture mentioned and possession for him to take and after such possossion taken for him and in his name to deliver full possession and seisin of the Premisses to the said John Fits c. according to the form and effect of the said Indenture wherupon possession and seisin was given of all but that which was in possession of the said Peterfield and Atwill And the said Pererfield and Atwill nor either of them never attorned to the said Grant After which Nicholas Slaning of Bickly made his last Will by which devised to the said Agnes his Daughter 200 l. to be paid in form following
Law or meerly of another nature then the Rent it self with which it is conjoyned by the word or then it is erroneous for albeit a common Recovery be now a common assurance of Land past by the assent of parties and therfore hath another conservation then that which passeth by pretence of Title yet we are not to omit grosse absurdities in such common Recoveries as to demand an acre of Land or Wood in the Mannor of Sale or Dale or black acre or white acre these are not good in common Recoveries because there is no certainty in the demand which of them the party is to recover which kind of absurdity is not to be admitted in these Recoveries for this is but a meer ignorance in the Law and the Ministers of it And to this Gawdy and the other Justices agreed but they sayd that a Pension issuing and a Rent shall be taken for all one for if a man grant a Pension of 20 s. a year issuing out of the Mannor of D. or of the Rectory of S these are Rents issuing out of them and if the demand had been of an annuall Rent or Annuity of 20 s. a year issuing out of the Rectory this had been good To which Popham agreed and yet sayd if it had been an annuall Rent of 20 s. c. or of an Annuity of 20 s. it had nof been good because that the word issuing is not referred to the Annuity but to the Rent only and therfore are meerly generall and not as the same but if the demand were of an annuity rent or payment of 20 s. issuing out of a Rectory it is good for this is but one and the same Then it was alledged that notwithstanding that which appears to the Court it cannot be taken that this was a common Recovery for upon the assignment of the Error it is not averred that it was a common Recovery to which Popham said that common Recoveries are such common Assurances to all persons that are well known to all and especially to us that they need not be averred for they are known by certain Marks to wit by the voluntary entry into the Warranty the common Voucher and the like And at last they all agreed that the Iudgment shall be affirmed 2. In Wast by Thomas Haydock against Richard Warnford the case was this One Michael Dennis was seised in his Demesne as of Fee of the third part of a Messuage and of certain Lands in Bury Blunsden in the County of Wilts and being so seised the last of April 9 â—liz demised them to Susan Warnford for 41. years from the Feast of S. Michael the Arch-angel then next ensuing who assigned this over to Richard Warnford after which the said Michael Dennis by bargain and sale enrolled according to the Statute conveyed the Reversion to John Simborn Esquire and his Heirs the said Iohn being then seised of another third part therof in his Demesne as of Fee after which to wit the first day of Iune 17 Eliz. the said Iohn Simborn demised the said third part which was his before his said purchase to the said Richard Warnford for 21 years then next ensuing and afterwards the said Iohn Simborn died seised of the Reversion of the said two parts and this descended to Barnaby Simborn his Son and next Heir who the 20 of Iune 28 Eliz. by bargain and sale enrolled according to the Statute conveyed be Reversion of the said two parts to the said Thomas Haydock and his Heirs after which the said Richard Warnford committed Wast in the said house wherupon the said Thomas Haydock brought an action of Wast against him according to the said two severall Leases and assigned the Wast in suffering the Hall of the price of 20 l. a Kitchin of the price of 20 l. and so of other things to be uncovered wherby the great Timber of them became rotten and so became ruinous to the disinherison of the Plaintiff and upon a Nihil dicit a Writ was awarded to enquire of Damages in which it was comprised that the Sheriff shall go to the place wasted and there enquire of the said Damages who returned an inquisition taken therof at Bury Blunsden without making mention that he went to the place wasted and that it was taken there wherupon Iudgment was given in the common Bench that the said Plaintiff shall recover his Seisin against the Defendant of the said places wasted with their Appurtenances Per visum Iurator Inquisitionis predict damna sua occasione vastâ— in eisdem locis in triplo secunâ—uÌ„ formam statuti c. And upon this a Writ of Error was brought in the Kings Bench and there by all the Iustices it was agreed that it was but Surplusage to comprehend in the Writ of enquiry of Damages that the Sheriff shall go to the place wasted and there enquire of the Damages in as much as by the not denying therof the Wast is acknowledged and therfore he need not go to the place wasted But where a Writ is awarded to enquire of the Wast upon default made at the grand Distresse there by the Statute of West 2. cap. 24. the Sheriff ought to go in person to the place Wasted and enquire of the Wast done and therfore in that case it is needfull to have the clause in it that the Sheriff shall go to the place wasted and there enquire of it for by the view the Wast may be the better known to them but where the Wast is acknowledged as here that clause need not and albeit it be comprehended in the Writ yet the Sheriff is not therby bound to go to the place wasted and to enquire there but he may do it at any place within his Bayliwick where he will and therfore it is no error in this point And they agreed also that the Wast is well assigned in the entire Hall c. although the Action were brought but upon the Demises of two third parts of it and it cannot be done in these parts but that it is done in the whole and also it cannot be done in the whole but that it is also done in the three parts but yet the doing therof is not to the disinheritance of the Plaintiff but in these two third parts and therfore no error in this manner of assigning of the Wast And they also agreed that the Action is well brought upon these severall Demises because neither the interest of the Term nor of the Inheritance was severed nor divided to severall persons at the time of the doing of the Wast but the two Terms in the one to wit in Warnford and the Inheritance of these immediatly in the other to wit in Haydock And by Popham also the thing in which the Wast is assigned is one and the same thing and not diverse to wit a Messuage and therfore by Brudnell and Pollard 14 H. 8. 10. if severall Demises are made of one and the same Messuage by one and the same person as
and not otherwise to wit 100 l. therof in thâ—se words On that day twelvemonth next after the day of his death and the other 100 l. that day twelvemonth next after c. and made the said John Slaning his Executor and afterwards to wit the 8. day of April 25 Eliz died without Issue Male of his body the said Agnes took to Husband one Edmund Marley and upon the 8. day of April 26 Eliz. the said John Slaning paid the first 100 l. to Agnes then being living and upon the 8. and 9. daies of April 27 Eliz. Nicholas Slaning of Plumpton Son and Heir of the said John Slaning who died in the mean time an hour before the Sun set and untill the Sâ—n was set came to the House where the said Edmund and his Wife inhabited in London and tendred the last 100 l. and that neither the said Edmund nor Agnes his Wife were there to receive it but that the said Edmund voluntarily absented himself because he would not receivâ— the 100 l. and that therupon the Wife of the said Edmund died having Issuâ— two Daughters the Lands being holden by Knights-service in Capite and the said Daughters being yet within age and all this being found by Office by the opinions and resolutions of Popham and Anderson and the rest of thâ— Councel of the Court of Wards the said Heirs now in Ward shall have nothing but that which doth not passe by the conveyance to John Fits and his joynt Feoffees which was only that which was in the possessions of Peterfield and Atwill and that the Livery was good of the rest albeit the Attorny did nothing of that which was in Lease notwithstanding the words of the Warrant that they should enter into all and then shall make the Livery And they agreed that the Condition doth not â—ind neither the said John Slaning nor Nicholas his Son because they had not all the Land according to the purport of the Condition which was that he who had all therof should pay the 200 l. wheras here that which was in the possession of Peterfeild and Atwill did not passe to them for want of Attornment for a Condition ought to be taken strictly And further the payment was referred by the Indenture to be according to the Will or by the Will and the 200 l. was devised as a Legacy which ought to be paid but upon demand and not at the peril of the Executor and therfore the nature of the payment of it is altered by the intent of the Will and being not demanded there is no default in the said Nicholas Slaning of Plumpton to prejudice him of his Land if it had been a Condition for then it shall be but a Condition to be paid according to the nature of a Legacy upon demand and not at the peril of the party And whether the word twelve-month shall be taken for a year or twelve months according to 28. daies to the month as it shall be of eight or twelve months or the like And they agreed that in this case it shall be taken for the whole year according to the common and usuall speech amongst men in such a case and according to this opinion Wray who is dead Anderson and Gawdy made their Certificate to the late Chancellor Sir Christopher Hatton in the same case then being in the Chancery and a Decree was made accordingly And many were of opinion that by his absence by such fraud he shall not take advantage of the Condition being a thing done on purpose if it had been to be performed at his peril Kellies Case WIlliam Kelly and Thomasine his Wife were seised of certain Lands in S. Eth in the County of Cornwall called Karkian to them and to the Heirs of their two bodies between them lawfully begotten by the Gift of one William Dowmand Father of the said Thomasine 11 H. 8. a long time after which Gift to wit 25 H. 8. A Fine Sur conusance de droit come ceo que il ad per was levied by Peter Dowmand Son and Heir of the said William Dowmand to William Kelley of the Mannor of Dowmand and of a 100. acres of Land 300 acres of Meadow 300. acres of Pasture and a 1000. acres of Furzse and Heath in Dowmand S. Eth. Trevile and divers other Towns named in the Fine who rendred the same back again to the said Peter in tail with diverse Remainders over and this Fine was with proclamations according to the Statute after which the possession of Karkian continued with Kelly and his Heirs according to the first Intail and the Mannor of Dowmand and the Remainder of the Lands in these Towns which were to the said Peter Dowmand to him and his Heirs according to the render untill nine years past that by Nisi prius in the Country upon the opinion of Manwood late chief Baron the Land called Karkian was recovered against the Heir of the said William Kelly by virtue of the said Fine and Render because all the Land which the said Peter Dowmand and the said William Kelly also had in all these Towns named in the Fine were not sufficient to supply the Contents of acres comprised in the said Fine And what the Law was in this case was referred to the chief Iustices the Master of the Rolls Egerton and the now chief Baron â—ut of the Chancery who all agreed upon all this matter appearing that nothing shall be said to be rendred but that which indeed was given by the Fine and Karkian does not passe to the said William Kelly by the Fine for as to it the Fine is but as a release of Peter to him and therfore shall not be said to be rendred to the said Peter by the Fine where no matter appeareth wherby it may appear that it was the intent of the parties that this shall be rendred And therfore Popham said that by so many Fines which have been levied in such a manner and to such who have Land in the same Towns where the Conusance hath been considering that alwaies more Land is comprised in Fines by number of acres then men have or is intended to passe by them at some time or in some age it would have come in question if the Law had been taken as Manwood took it but in all such cases the Possession hath alwaies gone otherwise which shews how the Law hath been alwaies taken in such cases And therfore if a man be to passe his Mannor of D. to another by Fine Executory and he levy the Fine to him by the name of the Mannor of D. and of so many acres of Land in D. and S. being the Towns in which the Mannor lies after which the Conuzor purchaseth other Lands in these Towns the Fine before the Statute of Vses shall not be executed of these Lands purchased after the Conusance and the Fine shall work to these which he had power and intent to passe and no further And it seemed to them that an
Vse may be averred without Deed upon a Fine sur Render And all agreed that if there had been a Deed to have declared the purport of the Fine that the Fine shall not be taken to extend further then is comprised in the Deed. And what is the cause therof the Deed or the intent of the parties and none can say but that it is the intent of the parties and not the Deed and the intent may as well appear without the Deed as with it albeit it be not so conclusive by Parole as by Deed. And therfore suppose I have 100. acres of Land in a Close in D. and I. S. hath another 100. acres in the same Close and Town and I. S. hath a 100. acres of Land in the same Town out of this Close and my intent is to levy a Fine to I. S. of the whole Close by the name of 200. acres of Land with a Render as before and I levy it accordingly shall the Render enure to the Land which I. S. had in the same Town It is cleer that it shall not although it be without Deed why then shall the Fine here be taken to work rather to the Land called Karkian then to any other Lands which any other had in the same Towns when it appeareth plainly that it never was the intent of the parties that the Fine should extend to these Lands called Karkian and it was decreed in Chancery accordingly Hall versus Arrowsmith 4. IN the case between Hall and Arrowsmith it was agreed by the whole Court in the Kings Bench That if a Copyholder for life hath licence to make a Lease for three years if he shall live so long and he makes a Lease for three years without such a Limitation that yet this is no forfeiture of his Estate because the operation of Law makes such a Limitation to the Estate which he made to wit that it shall not continue but for his life and then such an express Limitation in the case where the Law it self makes it is but a meer trifle and yet if a Lessee for life makes a Lease for years and he in the Reversion confirm it it remains good after the death of the Tenant for life but this then shall be as if it had been made by him in the Reversion himself and shall be his Lease But if the Lease there had been made determinâ—ble upon the life of Tenant for life the confirmation therof by him in the Reversion will not help him after the death of him who was Tenant for life Causa patet But in the principall case if the Copyholder had had an Estate in Fee by Copy it had been a forfeiture of his Estate to make an absolute Lease because in that case he does more then he was licensed to do And they agreed that such a licence cannot be made to be void by a Condition subsequent to the execution therof to undo that which was once well executed But there may be a Condition precedent united to it because in such a case it is no licence untill the Condition performed but the licence before mentioned is not a condition all Licence but a Licence with a Limitation and therfore hath not been of force if the Limitation which the Law makes in this case had not been and the Limitation in Law shall be preferred before the Limitation in Deed where they work to one and the same effect and not different Arthur Johnsons Case 5. ARthur Johnson was possessed of a Term for years and so possessed assigned this over to Robert Waterhouse and John Waterhouse being Brothers to the Wife of the said Johnson to the use of the said Wife the said Johnson dies and makes his Wife his Executrix after which the said Wife takes Robert Witham to Husband who takes the Profits of the Land during the life of his said Wife the Wife dies Intestate her said Brothers being next of kin to the said Wife took administration as well of the Goods of the said Wife as of her first Husband And whether the said Waterhouses or the said Witham shall have this Lease or the use therof was the question in the Chancery and therupon put to the two chief Iustices upon which they and the chief Baron and all the other Iustices of Serjeants-Inne in Fleetstreet and Beamont also were cleer in opinion that the said Administrators had now as well the Interest as the Vse also of the said Term as well in Conscience as in Law and that they had the use as Administrators to the said Wife and that the said Witham shall not have it because it is as a thing in Action which the Administrators of the Wife alwaies shall have and not the Husband As if an Obligation had been made to the use of the Wife And this opinion was certified accordingly to the Lord Keeper of the great Seal of England and it was so decreed Taunton versus Barrey 6. IN an Ejectione firmae brought by Giles Taunton Plaintiff in the King Bench against Giles Barrey Defendant the Case was thus Iohn Coles Esquire made a Lease of the Lands in question to the Father of the said Barrey for divers years depending upon the life of the Lessee and of the said Defendant and of the Survivor of them upon condition that the said Father should not alien without the consent of the said Coles his heirs after which the said Father devised the Term to the said Defendant and died making his Executor who assented And the question upon this point found upon a speciall Verdict was whether upon the matter the Condition were broken and by the opinion of the whole Court adjudged that it was for in such a case he ought to have left it to his Executor without making any Devise of it for the Devise is an Alienation against him and therfore it was agreed that the Plaintiff shall recover Term 37 Eliz. Rot. between Roper and Roper Michaelmas Term 38 39. Eliz. Everets Case 1. THis Case was moved by the chief Iustice to the other chief Iustices at Serjeants-Inne in Fleetstreet concerning one Everet who before was attaint for stealing of a Horse reprieved after Iudgment and Indited again for stealing another Horse before this Attainder And the Vicar of Pelton in the County of Somerset was Indited as accessary before this Felony for the procurement of it And Everet being again Indited upon this last Inditement did not plead that he was formerly Indited of another Felony c. but acknowledged the Inditement wherby the Accessary was Arrained tried and found guilty and had his Iudgment also as the principall but the Execution of the Accessary was respited And now moved whether upon this matter it shall be fit to execute the Accessary the principall being executed And it seemed convenient to all the Iustices and Barons that he shall be executed and that the matter was cleer in this case because the principall did not take advantage of his
shall so descend or come to John without any act or thing done or to be done by him to the contrary wherby also it fully appeareth that the assurance of the said John shall stand for all this Land upon the Covenant and not upon any use which was to be altered or changed by it But if an Vse may change by the Mannor upon the consideration yet it shall not change to the said John or his Issues untill the death of the said Sir Francis without Issue Male because that untill that happen if the said John had been living he had not had any Vse because it is that he shall have the Land then if he be then living and if it shall not be in him untill this time it shall not be in his Son untill Sir Francis be dead without Issue for it is if the said John or any Issue Male of his body c. be then living then it shall descend come or remain c. so that it doth not come to them untill it may appear whether the said John or any Issue Male of his body upon the body of the said Margaret be in rerum natura when Sir Francis shall be dead without Issue Male and therfore it yet remains upon a contingent whether the use shall be to the Heirs Males of the body of the said John if it shall be said that it is an Vse and therfore in the mean time the entire Fee-simple remains in Sir Francis not yet changed but for the Estate tail it self in himself if any change shall be as appeareth before that it shall not be and therfore by the attainder of the said Sir Francis the whole Fee-simple is now all forfeited to the Queen before that the use may be to the Heirs Males of the body of the said John And the Queen shall not come to this Land in any privity by the said Sir Francis but in the Post by the Escheat and therfore the possession of the Queen now or of her Patentee shall never be changed with this Vse which shall never be carried out of any other possession but such which remaineth in privity untill the use is to come in Esse no more now then as it might at common Law before the Statute of Vses 27 H. 8. And this as to the future Vse was the opinion of Popham and some other of the Iustices And nota 21 H. 7. plito 30. If a man covenant in consideration of the Marriage of his Son that immediatly after his death his Land shall evert remain or descend to his Son to him and the Heirs of his body or to him and his Heirs for ever that this is but a bare Covenant and doth not change any Vse And what diversity then is there in the case of Sir Francis Englefield who covenants that it shall descend or remain in possession or revert And as it seems the great difficulty which was in the case of Sir Robert Constable which was put by Gerard Attorney-generall 6 Eliz. and it appeareth in Dyer 1. Mar. was because that the Covenant was that it shall be to the Son in possession or use which for the incertainty in as much as it was in them to leave the one or the other or perhaps the Estate of their Land was such that part was in possession and part in use and therfore according to the intent taken rather for a Covenant then for matter sufficient to change the use But it was so that it was never helped by any right which he had but by the grace of the Queen he enjoyed it Easter Term 35 Eliz. Crocker and York versus Dormer 1. UPon a Recovery had by John Crocker and George York against Geffrey Dormer in a Writ of Entry in the Post of the Mannor of Farningho with the Appurtenances and of 6 Messuages 6 Cottages c. in Farningho and of a yearly Rent or pension of 4 Marks issuing out of the Church or Rectory of Farningho and of the Advowson of the Church of Farningho in the County of Northampton William Dormer Son and Heir of the said Geffrey brought a Writ of Error and assigned diverse Errors 1. Because that â—uch a form of Writ doth not lye of an Advowson but only a Right of Advowson Darrein presentment and Quare impedit 2. Because he demands the Advowson of the Rectory and also a Rent issuing out of the same Rectory 3. Because the Demand for the Rent is in the Disjunctive to wit a Rent or a Pension 4. Because it is a pension wheras a Pension is not sutable in our Law but in the Spirituall Court To which Gawdy said that there is a great diversity between a common Recovery which is an assurance between parties and a Recovery which is upon Title for a common Recovery is to an Vse to wit to the use of him against whom it is had if no other use can be averred and therfore as to the Vse it is to be guided according to the intent of the parties and by a common Recovery had against Tenant for life he in the Reversion if he be not party or privy to it may enter for a forfeiture as it was adjudged very lately in the Exchequer by the advice of all the Iustices in the case of a Recovery had against Sir William Petham Knight and in all these things it is otherwise in case of a Recovery upon Title and therfore in as much as this common Recovery is but a common Assurance between parties and is alwaies by assent between parties to the end that they may make assurance from one to another there shall be and alwaies hath been a contrary exposition to a Recovery which is by pretence of Title and it hath been common to put in such Recoveries Advowsons Commons Warrens and the like and yet alwaies allowed And if this shall be now drawn in question infinite Assurances shall by this be indangered which the Law will not suffer and therfore the demand of an Advowson and Pension in the Writ of Entry makes not the Writ vitious as it shall do in another Writ of Entry founded upon a Title and not upon an Assurance And as to that that the Rent and the Advowson also is demanded this is good because the Advowson is another thing then the Rectory it self out of which the Rent is demanded to be issuing And for the disjunctive demand of the Rent or Pension it makes no matter in this case because it is a common Recovery in which such a precise form is not necessary to be used as in other Writs and also a Pension issuing out of a Rectory is the same with the rent To which Clench and Fennor agreed in all but Popham moved that the greatest difficulty in this case is the demand made to the disjunctive to wit of the annuall Rent or Pension for if a Pension issuing out of a Rectory shall be said to be a thing meerly spirituall and not to be demanded by our
dies and afterwards John his Son and Heir dies without Issue the reversion by this descends to the said Christopher who dies leaving Issue And upon this Case made in the Court of Wards the two chief Iustices Popham and Anderson agreed first That upon the devise and death of the Father the said Christopher and William were Joynt-tenants of the Land and not Tenants in Common notwithstanding the word severally because it is coupled with the said word joyntly But yet they agreed also that by the descent from John to Christopher the Fee-simple was executed in the said Christopher for the Moyety in the same Mannor as if he had purchased the Reversion of the whole or of this Moyety and that it is not like to the Case where Land is given and to the Heirs of one of them in which case for the benefit of the Survivorship it is not executed to divide the Ioynture because the Estates are made at one and the same time together and therfore not like to the case where the Inheritance cometh to the particular Estate by severall and divided means And a Decree was made accordingly Trin. 36. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1. IT was agreed by all the Iustices and Barons of the Exchequer upon an Assembly made at Serjeants-Inn after search made for the ancient Presidents and upon good deliberation taken If a man have two houses and inhabit somtimes in one and somtimes in the other if that House in which he doth not then inhabity be broken in the night to the intent to steal the Goods then being in his house that this is Burglary although no person bee then in the House and that now by the new Statute made such an Offender shall not have his Clergy for before the Statutes were made which take away Clergy in case of Burglary where any person was put in fear no mention was made in the Inditements of Burglary that any person was in the House But it was generall that the house of such a one Noctanter fregit and such Goods then there Felonice cepit And the breaking of a Church in the night to steal the Goods there is Burglary although no person be in it because this is the place to keep the Goods of the Parish And in the same manner the house of every one is the proper place to preserve his Goods although no person be there And that the Law was alwaies so it is to be collected by the course of the Statutes therof made for first the Statute of 23 H. 8. doth not take Clergy from any in case of Burglary unlesse some of the same Family be in the house and put in fear And in 5 Eliz. 6. The Offendor shall be ousted of his Clergy if any of the Family be in the house be they sleeping or waking And these Statutes were the cause that it was used of late time to put in the Inditements of Burglary that some person of the Family was then in the house to put them from their Clergy But this doth not prove that it shall not be Burglary but where some person was in the house and by 18 Eliz. Clergy is taken away in all cases of Burglary generally without making mention of any person to be there which enforce the resolution aforesaid and according to it they all agreed hereafter to put it in Execution Finch versus Riseley 2. IN this Term the case betweeen Finch and Riseley was in question before all the Iustices and Barons for this assembled at Serjeants-Inn in Fleetstreet where after Arguments heard by the Councell of the parties upon this point only If the Queen make a Lease for years rendring Rent with a Proviso that the Rent be not paid at the day limited that the Lease shall cease without making mention that it was to be paid at the receit whether the Lease shall cease upon the default of payment before Office found therof And by Periam and some of the Iustices the Lease stall not cease untill an Office be found of the default because it is a matter in Fait which determines it to wit the not-payment And by Gawdy it shall be taken as if it had been for the not-payment that the Proviso had been that the Lease shall be forfeited In which case it is not detennined untill Re-entry made for the forfeiture which in the Queens case ought alwaies to be by Office which countervails the re-entry of a common person As where the Queen makes a Lease rendring Rent and for default of payment a Re-entry albeit the Rent be not paid yet untill Office found therof the Rent continues Popham Anderson and the greater part of the Iustices and Barons resolved that it was cleer in this case that Ipso facto upon the default of payment the Lease was determined according to the very purport of the contract beyond which it cannot have any beeing and therfore there needs no Office in the case But where it is that it shall be forfeited or that he shall re-enter there untill advantage taken of the forfeiture in the one case or untill re-entry made in the other case the Term alwaies continues by the contract And where in the case of a common person there is need of a re-entry to undo the Estate there in the case of the King there needs an Office to determine the Estate for an Office in the Kings case countervails an entry for the King in person cannot make the entry And upon this resolution of the greater part of the Iustices in Mich. Term 31 32 Eliz. the same case was in question in the Office of Pleas in the Exchequer between the said Moil Finch Plaintiff and Thomas Throgmorton and others Defendants and there adjudged by Manwood late chief Baron and all the other Barons unanimously after long argument at the Bar and Bench that the Lease was void upon default of payment of the Rent according to the Proviso of the Lease and this immediatly without Office for the reasens before remembred upon which Iudgment was given a Writ of Error was brought before the Lord Keeper of the great Seal and the Lord Treasurer of England where it long depended and after many arguments the Iudgment given in the Exchequer by the advice of Popham and Anderson was affirmed and that upon this reason for the Proviso shall be taken to be a limitation to determine the Estate and not a Condition to undo the Estate which cannot be defeated in case of a Condition but by entry in case of a common person and but by Office which countervails an entry in the case of the Queen And this Iudgment was so affirmed in Mich. Term 36 37 Eliz. Smiths Case 3 IT was found by Diem clausit extremum after the death of Richard Smith that in consideration of a marriage to be had between Margaret Smith and William Littleton a younger Son to Sir John Littleton Knight and of 1300. marks paid by the said Sir John to the said
Richard he made assurance by Fine of his Lands being 174 l. a year viz. Of part therof of the value of 123 l. a year of which part was holden of the Queen by Knights Service in Capite to the use of himself for his life and after his decease to the use of the said William and Margaret and the Heirs of the body of the said William begotten on the body of the said Margaret and for default of such Issue to the use of the right Heirs of the said William And of the residue therof being also holden in Capite of the Queen to the use of himself for his life and after his decease to the use of the first Issue Male of the said Richard and to the Heirs Males of his body and then to other Issues of his body and for default of such Issue to the said William and Margaret and the Heirs of the body of the said William on the body of the said Margaret lawfully begotten and for default of such Issue to the right Heirs of the said William with this Prouiso That it shall be lawfull for the said Richard to make a Joynture to his wife of the Lands limited to his Issue Males and for making of Leases for 21. years or three lives for any part of the said Land rendring the ancient Rent except of certain parcels and that William died without Issue and that Gilbert Littleton was his Brother and Heir and that the said Margaret married the said George Littleton youngest brother to the said William which are yet living And that the said Richard married Dorothy and made her a Joynture according to the Proviso And that the said Richard had Issue Iohn Smith and died the said Iohn being his Son and Heir and within age After which a Melius inquirendum issued by which it was found that the said Margaret was the Daughter of the said Richard and that the said Land was of the value of 12000 l. at the time of the assurance And how much of the Land shall be in ward and what Land and what the Melius inquirendum makes in the case was the question put to the two chief Iustices Popham and Anderson who agreed that the Queen now shall have the third part as well of that which was assured to William and Margaret immediatly after the death of the said Richard as of that which was limited to Dorothy for the life of the said Margaret for although money were paid yet this was not the only consideration why the Lands were assured but the advancement of the Daughter and now by the surviving of the said Margaret shee shall be said to be in the whole which was assured to her by her Father and for her advancement and the Land as it appears was of greater value then the money given and may as well be thought to be given for the Remainder of the Fee And agreeable to this was the case of Coffin of Devonshire about the beginning of the Raign of the now Queen which was that the said Coffin for moneys paid by one Coffin his Cosin having but Dâ—ughters himself conveyed his Land to the use of himself and his wife and to the Heirs Males of his body and for default of such Issue to the use of his said Cosin and his Heirs for which his said Cosin was to give a certain sum of money to the Daughters for their marriage Coffin dies his said Daughters being his Heirs and within age and were in ward to the Queen the Lands being holden by Knights Service in Capite And the third part of the Land was taken from the wife of Coffin for the life of the said wife if the Heirs continue so long in Ward And it was also agreed by them and the Councell of the Court that the Melius inquirendum was well awarded to certifie that the said Margaret was the Daughter of the said Richard of which the Court could not otherwise well take Conusance for they thought that it was not matter to come in by the averment of the Attorney-generall as Dyer hath reported it But now by the Statute it ought to be found by Inquisition and being a thing which stands with the former Inquisition it ought to be supplied by the Melius inquirendum for the same Statute which gives the Wardship in case where Land is conveyed for the advancement of the Wife or Infants or for the satisfaction of Debts and Legacies of the party by the implication of the same Statute this may be found by Inquisitton and if it be omitted in the Inquisition it ought to be found by a Melius inquirendum but not to come in by a bare surmise And therfore if in the Inquisition it be found that the Ancestor had conveyed his Land by the Melius inquirendum it may be found that it was for the payment of his Debts or Legacies or that the party to whom or to whose use it was made was the Son or Wife of the party that made it and that by the very purport of the Statutes 32. 34 H. 8. as by Fitzherbert if it be surmised that the Land is of greater value then it is found a Melius inquirendum shall issue and so shall it be if it be found that one is Heir of the part of the Mother but they know not who is Heir of the part of the Father so if it be not found what Estate the Tenant had or of whom the Land was holden so upon surmise made that he is seised of some other Estate or that he held it by other Services by Fitzherbert a Melius inquirendum shall Issue and upon this order given it was decreed accordingly this Term. Morgan versus Tedcastle 4. IN the same Term upon matter of Arbitrement between Morgan and Tedcastle touching certain Lands at Welburn in the County of Lâ—ncoln put to Popham Walmesley and Ewens Baron of the Exchequer Wheras Morgan had granted to Tedcastle a 100. acres of Land in such a field and 60 in such a field and 20. acres of Meadow in such a Meadow in Welburn and Hanstead in which the acres are known by estimations or limits there be shall take the acres as they are known in the same places be they more or lesse then the Statute for they passe as they are there known and not according to the measure by the Statute But if I have a great Close containing 20. acres of Land by estimation which is not 18. And I grant 10. acres of the same Close to another there he shall have them according to the measure by the Statute because the acres of such a Close are not known by parcels or by meets and bounds and so it differeth from the first case And upon the case then put to Anderson Brian and Fennor they were of the same opinion Quod nota Humble versus Oliver 5. IN Debt by Richard Humble against William Oliver for a Rent reserved upon a Lease for years the case was
wit the 6th day of July in the same 6th year by his Deed of the same date the said Christopher enfeoffed the said Sir John Chichester and his Heirs of the said Mannor and by the same Deed warranted it for him and his Heirs to the said Sir John Chichester and his Heirs wherupon the said Sir John Chichester entred into the said Mannor after which to wit the first day of October 12 Eliz. the said Christopher died after which the 7th day of November 13 Eliz. the said Stretchley Chudleigh died without Issue of his body And after the death of the said Sir Richard Chudleigh to wit the 6th day of September 7 Eliz. the said Sir John Chichester enfeoffed one Philip Chichester and his Heirs of the said Mannor to the use of the said Philip and his Heirs And the said Close being Copyhold and Customary Land of the said Mannor demisable by the Lord of the same Mannor or his Steward for the time being for life or lives by Copy of Court-roll according to the custom of the said Mannor The said Philip at a Court holden at the said Mannor for the said Mannor the 8th day of December 15 Eliz. by Copy of Court-roll granted the said Close to the said John Frain for Term of his life according to the custom of the said Mannor after which to wit the 11th day of March 28 Eliz. the said John Chudleigh being now Heir to the said Christopher enfeoffed the said William Dillon of the said Mannor to have and to hold to him and his Heirs to the use of the said William and his Heirs for ever wherby he entred and was seised untill the said John Fraine entred into the said Close upon him the 8th day of February 30 Eliz. upon which entry of the said Fraine this Action is brought And for difficulty of the case it was adjourned into the Exchequer Chamber before all the Iustices and Barons of the Exchequer And there it was agreed by all that a Warranty descending upon an Infant shall not bind him in case that the entry of the Infant be lawfull into the Land to which the Warranty is united But the Infant ought in such a case to look well that he do not suffer a descent of the Land after his full age before he hath made his re-entry for then the Warranty when he is to have an Action for the Land shall bind him And they agreed also that a Copyhold granted by a Disseisor or any other who hath the Mannor of which it is parcel by wrong shall be avoided by the Disseisee or any other who hath right to the Mannor by his entry or recovery of the Mannor And so by Popham it was agreed by the Iustices in the case of the Manner of Hasselbury Brian in the County of Dorset between Henry late Earl of Arundell and Henry late Earl of Northumberland but then he said that it was agreed that admittance upon surrenders of Copyholders in Fee to the use of another or if an Heir in case of a Descent of a Copyhold were good being made by a Disseisor of a Mannor or any other who hath it by Tort because these are acts of necessity and for the benefit of a stranger to wit of him who is to have the Land by the surrender or of the Heir And also Grants made by Copy by the Feoffee upon condition of a Mannor before the Condition broken are good because he was lawfull Dominus pro tempore And for the matter upon the Statute of 27 H. 8. what shall become of this future use â—imited to the first second and other Issues Males not in Esse at the time of the Feoffment Ewens Owen Bateman and Fennor said That an Use at Common Law is Use what it is no other then a confidence which one person puts in another for a confidence cannot be in Land or other dead thing but ought alwaies to be in such a thing which hath understanding of the trust put in him which cannot be no other then such a one who hâ—th reason and understanding to perform what the other hath committed to him which confidence shall bind but in privity and yet the confidence is in respect of the Land but every one who hath the Land is not bound to the confidence but in privity shall be said to be in the Heir and the Feoffee who hath knowledge of the confidence and in him who cometh to the Land by Feoffâ—ent without consideration albeit he hath no knowledge therof and yet every Feoffee is not bound although he hath knowledge of the confidence as an Alien Person Attaint and the like not the King he shall not be seised to anothers use because he is not compellable to perform the confidence nor a Corporation because it is a dead body although it consist of naturall persons and in this dead body a confidence cannot be put but in bodies naturall And this was the Common Law before the Statute of 27 H. 8. Then the Letter of the Statute is not to execute any Vse before that it hapneth to be an Vse in Esse for the words are Where any person is seised to the use of any other person that in such a case he who hath the Vse shall have the same Estate in the Land which he had before in the Vse Ergo by the very letter of the Law he ought to have an Estate in the Vse and there ought to be a person to have the Vse before the Statute intends to execute any possession to the Vse for the words are expresse that in every such case he shall have it therfore not another And therfore the Statute had purpose to execute the Vses in possession Reversion or Remainder presently upon the conveyance made to the Vses But for the future Vses which were to be raised at a time to come upon any contingent as to the Infants here not being then born the Statute never intended to execute such Vses untill they happen to have their beeing and in the mean time to leave them as they were at Common Law without medling with or altering of them in any manner untill this time and if before this time the root out of which these contingent Vses ought to spring be defeated the Vse for this is utterly destroyed and shall never afterwards have his being as here by the Feoffment made by the said Sir John Saintleger and his Co-feoffees who then were but as Tenements pur auter vie to wit for the life of Christopher and which was a forfeiture of their Estate and for which Oliver Chudleigh might have entred it being before that the said Strechley or John Chudleigh were born the privity of them from Estate being the root out of which this future use ought to have risen is gone and destroyed and therfore the Contingent Vses utterly therby overthrown As if before the Statute of 27 H. 8. Tenant for life had been the remainder over in Fee to an Vse
If the Tenant for life had made a Feoffment in Fee and he in the Remainder had released to the Feoffee the Vse had been gone for ever so in all these cases of contingent Vses at this day for he who cometh to the possession of Land by Disseisin or wrong done to the Possessor who is seised to anothers use shall never be seised to anothers use And the case being so that it is out of the letter of the Statute to execute such contingent Vses it is more strong for them out of the meaning of the Statute to execute then before they happen to be in Esse for this shall be to make all mischiefs comprehended in the Preamble of this Statute and against which the Statute intended to provide sufficient remedy in a worse mischief then they were before the making of the same Statute and this shall be but a perverse instruction of the Statute And they said that the subtleties used from time to time by means of those Vses to the great deceit and trouble of the people were the cause of the making of this Statute 27 H. 8. and by all the Statutes formerly made touching Vses it appeareth that they were all taken to be grounded upon fraudulent and crafty devises and therfore this Law had no great purpose to favour them but a Fortiorari not to make them in worse case by means of the Statute then they were before and therfore it shall not be taken that the Vse is executed by the Statute which stands upon a contingency of which a greater mischief will ensue then there was in such a case before the Statute and therfore by the Feoffment made in the interim before the birth of the Infants which otherwise ought to have preserved the Vse this Vse was utterly destroyed and although the Feoffee of Christopher had notice of the Vse yet this doth not now help in the case because the Feoffment did wrong to the Estate first setled which was subject to the Vse and extinct in the same possibility which had been otherwise in the Feoffees to have given livelyhood to the said Contingent Vse And therfore the Iudgment by them ought to be that the Plaintiff shall be barred Walmesley That the great mischief which was at Common Law upon these Feoffments to Uses was that none could know upon the occupation of the Land who was true Owner of the Land for Cestay que Vse was the Pernor of the Profits but in whom the Freehold or Inheritance of the Land was there were not many which knew wherby great mischief came to the assurances which men had of Land which they purchased and by it men knew not against whom to bring their Actions to recover their Rights and by it Wives lost their Dowers Husbands their Tenancy by the Curtesie Lords their Escheats Wardships and the like And this mischief hapned by reason that one had the profit and another the estate of the Land And the Statute was made to put the Land and the Estate quite out of the Feoffee who before did not meddle with the Land to Cestay que Use who before had but the occupation and profits of the Land and to this intent the letter of the Law serves very well which sayes that the Estate of the Feoffee shall be cleerly in Cestuy que Use and therfore nothing by the intent and letter of the Law is now to remain in the Feoffee no more then a Scintilla juris nemor'd in Brents Case in my Lord Dyer Eliz. and the whole Estate in the interim untill the contingent happen shall be in them who have their Vses in Esse and when the Contingent happen the Statute gives place to this Contingent Vse and by the execution therof comes between the Estates before executed and as out of these by the Statute but nothing is now after the Statute in the Feoffees for the purpose of the Statute was as I have said to take away all from the Feoffee for all was devested from him because that betwixt the Feoffor the Feoffee was all the fraud before the Statute and the very letter of the Statute is to extinguish and extirpate the assurances fraudulently made which was alwaies by reason of assurances made between the Estate of the Land in one and the possession therof in another and to cause that now that the Estate shall be to the use where the occupation was before And this Statute was not made to extinguish or discredit Vses but to advance them as by bringing the very Estate in possession to the Vse and by it the trust now taken from all others who were trusted with it before so the Statute doth not condemn the uses but the fraud which was by reason of them before And the Statute being that the Estate Right and Title of the Feoffees shall go to the uses therfore nothing remaineth in the Feoffees but all by authority of Parliament adjudged to be in Cestay que use which is the highest Iudgment that can be given in any Court and the words Stand and be seised at any time refer as well to the future as present uses and the Statute intended as well to help the uses which shall be upon any Contingent as those which are at present for a future or contingent Vse is to be said an Vse according to its nature or quality and it shall be executed according to its quality when it happen And the words are that the Estate which was in the Feoffee shall be in Cestay que use and not the Estate which is and therfore when the use hapneth to be in an instant the Estate which at the first Livery was in the Feoffee to this use shall now be executed in possession to this contingent use albeit it self was altogether executed as I said before in the Vses which were in Esse and if so it followeth that nothing which is done in the mean time by the Feoffee or can be done by any other can prejudice or hurt the execution of this Vse in contingency when the contingency happen And for the case of Brook 30 H. 8. it is plain in paint which is this A Covenant with B. that if B. enfeoff him of three acres of Land in D. that then the said A. and his Heirs and all others seised of such Lands shall stand therof seised to the use of the said B. and his Heirs after which A enfeoffed a stranger of this Land after which B. enfeoffed the said A of the said three acres now the use shall be to the said B. and his Heirs of the said other Land for the Statute so binds the Land to this Contingency when it happens that by no means it can be defeated and this is the cause that Leases made by force of Provisoes comprised in assurances are good and cannot be avoided for the Interests to these Leases is wrought by the first Livery and the Statute atd therfore upon the matter I conceive that Judgment ought
Grantor at his Election provided then afterwards that he shall charge his person is not good Causa patet And all agreed that upon a Rent granted upon equality of partition or for allowance of Dower or for recompence of a Title an Annuity doth not lye because it is in satisfaction of a thing reall and therfore shall not fall to a matter personall but alwaies remains of the same nature as the thing for which it is given And afterwards the same Term Iudgment was given in the Common Bench that the Plaintiff shall recover which is entred c. And in the same case Clark vouched that it was reported by Benloes in his Book of Reports where a Rent was granted out of a Rectory by the Parson who after wards resigned the Parsonage that it was agreed in the Common Pleas in his time that yet a Writ of Annuity lies against the Grantor upon the same Grant to which all who agreed on this part agreed that it was Law Butler versus Baker and Delves 3. IN Trespasse brought by John Butler against Thomas Baker and Thomas See this case in Cookes 3. Report foâ— 25 Delves for breaking his Close parcell of the Mannor of Thoby in the County of Essex upon a speciall Verdict the Case was thus William Barners the Father was seised in his Demesne as of fee of the Mannor of Hinton in the County of Glocester holden of the King by Knights-service in Capite and being so seised after the Marriage had between William his Son and heir apparant and Elizabeth the Daughter of Thomas Eden Esquire in consideration of the same Marriage and for the Joynture of the said Elizabeth assured the said Mannor of Hinton to the use of the said William the Son and Elizabeth his Wife and the Heirs of their two bodies lawfully begotten and died by whose death the Reversion also of the said Mannors descended to the said William the Son whâ—rby he was seised therof accordingly and being so seised and also seised of the Mannor of Thoby in his Demesne as of Fee holden also of the Queen by Knights-servivice in chief and of certain Lands in Fobbing in the said County of Essex which Land in Fobbing with the Mannor of Hinton were the full third part of the value of all the Land of the said William the Son and he made his Will in writing wherby he devised to his said Wife Elizabeth his said Mannor of Thoby for her life in satisfaction of all her Joynture and Dower upon condition that if she take to any other Joynture that then the Devise to her shall be void and after her decease he devised that the said Mannor shall remain to Thomas his Son and the Heirs Males of his body and for default of such Issue the remainder to Thomas brother of the said William for his life the remainder to hir first second and third Son and to the Heirs Males of their bodies and so to every other Issue Male of his body and for default of such Issue the remainder to Leonard Barners his brother and to the Heirs Males of his body the remainder to Richard Barners and the Heirs Males of his body the remainder to the right Heirs of the Devisor William the Son dies having Issue Thomas his Son and Grisell his Daughter Wife to the said Thomas Baker the said Elizabeth by Paroll in pais moved her Estate in the said Mannor of Hinton and after this entred into the said Mannor of Thoby after which the said Elizabeth died and Thomas the Son and Thomas the Uncle died also without Issue Male after which the said Leonard took one Mary to Wife and died having Issue Anthony Barners after which the said Mary took the said John Butler to Husband and after this the said Anthony assigned to the said Mary the said Mannors of Thoby in allowance for all her Dower wherby the said John Butler as in the right of his Wife entred into the said Mannor of Thoby wherby the said Thomas Delves by the commandment of the said Baker entred into the said Close of which the Action is brought as in right oâ— the said Grisell And whether this entry were lawful or not was the question which was argued in the Court in the time of the late Lord Wray and he and Gawdy held strongly that the entry of the said Delves was lawfull but Clench and Fennor held alwaies the contrary wherupon it was adjourned into the Exchequer Chamber But they all agreed that the Waiver made by the said Elizabeth by parole in pais was a sufficient Waiver of her Estate in Hinton and the rather because of the Statute of 27 H 8. cap. 10. the words of which are That if the Joynture be made after the Marriage that then the Wife surviving her Husband may after his death refuse to take such Joynture And now it was moved by Tanfield that Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff for by the Waiver of the Wife the Inheritance of Hinton is now to be said wholly in the Husband ab initio and therfore that with Fobbing being a whole third part of the whole Land which now is to be said to be left to discend to the Heir of the Devisor as to Thoby is good for the whole and if so then no part therof descends to Grisell and therfore the entry of the said Delves in her right is wrongfull Coke Attorney-general to the contrary for he said That it is to no purpose to consider what Estate the Devisor had in the Mannor of Hinton by reason of this Waiver made by his Wife Ex post facto after his death But we are to see what Estate the Devisor had in it in the view of the Law at the time of his death before the Waiver and according to it the Law shall adjudge that he had power to make his Devise by means of the Statute and at this time none can adjudge another Estate in him but joyntly with his wife of which Estate he had no power to make any disposition or to devise it or to leave it for the third part to his Heir for the Statute which is an explanatory Law in this point saies that he ought to be sole seised in such a case And further the Statute of 34 H. 8. at the end is that the Land which descends immediatly from the Devisor shall be taken for the third part and this Land did not descend immediatly for it survived to the Wife untill she waived it and therfore this Land is not to be taken for any third part which the Statute purposed to have been left to the Heir and therfore so much shall be taken from Thoby as with Fobbin shall be a third part to descend wherbâ— Grisell the Heir hath good right yet to part of Thoby and therfore the entry of the said Delves in her right by commandment of her husband not wronfull Periam chief Baron Clench Clark Walmsley and Fennor That now
by reason of the Waiver in the Devisor shall be sole seised ab initio for the said Elizabeth might have had Dower therof if she would as in the like case it is adjudged in 17 E. 3. 6. and therfore a sole Seisin in the Husband and the descent to the Heir in such a case upon the Waiver shall take away the entry of him who hath right to it And therfore the case now for the Mannor of Hinton is within the very letter of the Statute as well for the sole Seisin which was in the Devisor as for the immediate descent which was from the Devisor to his Heir and therfore remains to the Heir for a good third part of the Inheritance of the Devisor by the very letter of the Statute and if the Letter had not helped it yet it shall be helped by the purport and intent of the Statute which ought to be liberally and favourably construed for the benefit of the Subject who before the Statute of Vses might have disposed of his whole Land by reason of Vses by his Will and the Statute of 27 H. 8. excludes him therof and therfore the Statute of 32. 34 H. 8. are to be liberally expounded as to the Subject for the two parts and the rather because it appeareth by the preamble of the Statute of 32 H. 8. that it was made of the liberality of the King and because that by 34 H. 8. it appeareth that it was made to the intent that the Subject shall take the advantage and benefit purposed by the King in the former Statute by all which it appeareth as they said that the said Statutes shall be liberally expounded for the advantage of the Subject and for his benefit and not so strictly upon the letter of the Law as hath been moved and so they concluded that Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff Popham and Anderson the two chief Iustices and all the other Iustices and Barons held the centrary and that Iudgment ought to be given against the Plaintiff and that by the very letter and purport of the Statutes of 32 34 H. 8. for they said they are to consider what Estate the Devisor hâ—d â—â— the Land at the time of his Devise made without regard to that which might happen by matter Ex post facto upon the Deed of another and if it had beâ—n demanded of any apprised in the Law at the time when the Will wâ—s made what Estate the Devisor then had in the Mannor of Hinton 〈◊〉 is so unlearned to say that he had other Estate in it then joyntly with his Wife And if so it follows that this Mannor was then out of the letter and intent of the Law for he was not then sole seised therof nor seised in coparcenary nor in common and by the words he should be sole seised in Fee-simple or seised in Fee-simple in coparcenary or in common It appeareth that the intent of the Statute was that he shall have full power of himself without the means or aid of another to dispose of the Land of which he is by the Statute to make disposition or to leave it to his Heir and this he hath not for the Mannor of Hinton here And further the words of 32 H. 8. are That the Devisor hath full power at his Will and pleasure to devise two parts of his Land so holden as here and this is to be intended of such Land of which he then had full power to make disposition â—nd this he could not then do for the Mannor of Hinton And further the words of 34 H. 8. are that the devision for the parts shall be made by the Devisor or Owner of the Land by his last Will in writing or otherwise in writing and in default therof by commission c. And can any say with reason that it was the intent of the Statute that he shall make the Devision of other Lands then of those of which he then had full power to devise or to leave to his heir without any future accident to help him or the mean of Anthony by matter Ex post facto It is cleer that reason cannot maintain it And the words following in the Act which are That the King shall take for his third part the Land which descended to the Heir of the â—state tail or of Fee-simple immediatly after the death of the Devisor much enforce the opinion on this side for it cannot be said upon the death before the Waiver that this Mannor of Hinton was immediatly descended ergo it ought not to be taken for the third part And further the words are If the Lands immediatly descended upon the death of the Devisor c. do not amount to a full third part that then the King make take into his hands so much of the other Lands of the Devisor as may make a full third part c. wherby it is cleer that in this case if the wife had not waived her Estate for ten years after the death of the Devisor that for all this time the Queen could not meddle with the Mannor of Hinton and therfore in the mean while she might well have so much of the Mannor of Thoby which might well have made a full third part to her and for so much which she took the Will was alwaies void which shall never be altered nor made good by any Waiver Ex post facto And although the Waiver of the Fame put the Inheritance entirely in the Devisor and in his Heir in relation to divers respects yet as to other respects he shâ—ll not be said in them with such relation and especially upon the Statute in which we now are to respect the power as it was in him at the time of his death before this future Contingent And by Popham If the exposition on the other side shall hold place upon the Statute perhaps a man shall not see by the space of six years or more after the death of a Devisor how his Devise shall work As a Feoffment in Fee is made to I. S. and a Feme Covert and their Heirs of 10 l. Land holden by Knights-service in Capite which I. S. hath 20 l. Land in fee so holden also I. S. makes a Devise of his 20 l. Land the Husband lives 60. years after none will or can deny but that for this time the Devise is not good for two parts now the Husband dies and the Wife waives the Estate made to her this puts the Inheritance therof in the Heir of I. S. with relation to divers respects but not to this respect to make the Will now good for the whole 20 l. Land which therfore was void for the third part therof for the Will which once was void by matter Ex post facto after the death of the Devisor cannot be made good And by him the descent in such a case is not such that it shall take away the entry of him who hath right because
it was not an immediate descent in Deed but upon the operation of Law which gave Wardship and the like but not to prejudice any third person And he said that although the Queen or other Lord upon eviction of the Land descended or the determination of the Estate therof may resort to Lands devised or assured and take a third part therof yet therby the Devise or Assurance remains effectuall against the Heir but this is by a speciall clause in the Statute of 34 H. 8. which gives it to them but no such remedy is given to the Devisee to help him if his part be abridged or evicted And the words are precise to wit If the part left or assigned to the King or to any Lord at any time during their Interest therin be evicted c. that they shall have so much oâ— the two parts residue as shall make a full third part of the remainder not evicted c. Wherby it appeareth that this is given only for the benefit of the Lords and not of the Heir nor of the Devisee fâ—r if after the Interest of the Queen or other Lord be determined this which was left he evicted from the Heir it shall not be helped against the devise but the Devise remains good to the Devisee against the Heir for the whole Land devised wherby it appeareth that it was the very purport and intent of the Statute that the Devise remain as it was at the time of the death of the Devisor without having regard to that which hapneth Ex post facto unlesse for this point helped by this speciall clause of the Statute and this is for the Lord and his Interest only and for no other And by him also cleerly the Statute which is an explanatory Law shall never be taken by equity in the precise point explained to impugne the point of explanation as here the Statute wills that the Estate of Inheritance comprised in the former Statute shall be explained to be Fee-simple it cannot now by any equity be as to the power to make a Devise which is meerly given by the authority of the Statute said to be of any other Estate then Fee-simple of which a Devise may be made And therfore if Land be given to another and his Heirs for the term of another mans life a Devise cannot be made of this because it is not an Inheritance in Fee-simple but only the limitation of a Free-hold And where the Statute saith having a sole Estate we cannot by any equity that it shall be taken of any joynt Estate as to make any disposition of that which she had in Ioynture and therupon the greater part resolved that Iudgment shall be given against the Plaintiff for the Defendants Southwell versus Ward 4. IN a second deliverance between Richard Southwell Esquire Plaintiff and Miles Ward Avowant by Demurrer upon the Avowry the Case appeared to be this That Iohn Prior of the Church of Saint Faiths in Horsham in the County of Norfolk was seised in his Demesne as of fee in the right of his said Priory of 8. Messuages 300. acres of Land 30. acres of Meadow 60. acres of Pasture and 200. acres of Wood with their Appurtenances in Horsham aforesaid And so seised the said Prior with the assent of his Covent by their Deed indented shewn forth bearing date the first day of Ianuary 13 E. 4. and by licence of the King aforesaid granted to William then the Master of the Hospitall of St. Giles in Norwich and to the Brothers of the same Hospitall and to their Successors 200. Fagots and 200. Focalls called Astle-wood yearly to be taken of all the Lands and Tenements of the said Prior and Covent in Horsham aforesaid by the Servants of the said Prior and Covent and their Successors yearly to be carried to the said Hospitall at the costs and expences of the said Prior and Covent and their Successors at the Feast of St. Michael or 20 s. of lawfull money for them at the election of the said Master and Brethren and their Successors to take yearly in the same Lands and Tenements in Horsham to the use of the poor and infirm persons there being or coming So that if it happen the said Fagots and Focalls or the said 20 â— for them to the said Master and Freres in form aforesaid to be arrear in alâ—o part c. then they may distrain in the said Lands and Tenements and the Distresse detain until they be fully satisfied of the said Fagots and Focals or of the said 20 s. for them as is aforesaid with this Proviso further That if at any one or more times the said Master and Brethren have chosen to have the Fagots and Focals yet at any other time they make the 20 s. for them and although they have taken the 20 s. for them once or oftner yet at any other time they may take the Fagots and Focals themselves and that they may so vary tâ—ties quâ—ties and dâ—strain for them accordingly reasonable notice being given of their Election in form aforesaid And the said Master and Brethren granted by the same Deed to the said Prior and Covent and their Successors that they or others sufficiently warranted by them would give sufficient notice of their election yearly the first Sunday of April in the Church of the said Hospital to some Officer of the said Prior and Covent and their Successors if they send any thither for this cause By force of which Grant the said Master and Brethren were seised of the said yearly rent of the said 200. Fagots and 200. Facals called Astlewood accordingly and so being seised they by their sufficient Writing enrolled of Record in the Chancery in the first year of the late King Ed. 6. gave and granted to the same King the said Hospitall all the Lands Tenements and Hereditaments of the said Hospitall To have and to hold to him and his Heirs and Successors for ever wherby the said King was therof and of the said annuall Rent seised accordingly and so seised the 7. day of May in the same year the said King Edw. by his Letters Patents bearing date the same day and year granted the said Hospitall and the rent of the said Fagots and Focals and other the Premisses to the Major Sheriff Citizens and Commons of the City of Norwich and to their Successors for ever and for 1600. Fagots and 1600. Focals of the said annuall rent of 200. Fagots and 200. Focals being arrear at the Feast of S. Michael the Arch-angel 23 Eliz. the said Ward took the Distresse and made Conusance as Bailiff to the said Major Sheriff c. And it was moved that the Avowry was not good first because it being matter of Election which was granted to the Master and Brethren and their Successors to wit the Fuell or the 20 s. it doth not appear that they ever made any election of the one or the other and untill it appeareth that they have
but as referring to the provision subsequent in the Statute in which case this matter shall be used but as the Proviso it self shall be and according to this it hath been commonly put in practise by all the Iustices in all places after the Statute untill now And they agreed also that it need not be shewn whether he were made a Iesuit or Priest c. either beyond Sea or within the Realm because whersoever it was it is within the Law if he were made by the pretended authority of the See of Rome But they agreed that it ought to be comprised in the Indictment that he was born within this Realm or other Dominions of the Queen but need not to shew where but generally Et quod I. S. natus infra hoc Regnum Angliae c. And the Indictment ought to comprise that he was a Iesuite or Priest c. by authority challenged or pretended from to the See of Rome because that this is in the body of the Act without such reference as in the other point and according to this resolution the proceeding was against the said Southwell Easter Term 37 Eliz. Pigots Case 1. AFter the death of Valentine Pigot Esquire a Commission was awarded in nature of a Mandamus and after the death of Thomas Pigot Father of the said Valentine a Commission was awarded in nature of a Diem clausit extremum and the said Commissions were awarded to one and the same Commissioners who by one Inquest took but one Inquisition upon these severall Commissions in this form Inquisitio indentata captâ— apud c. virtute Commiss in natura brevis de diem clausit extremum eisdem Commiss direct c. ad inquirendum post mortem Thomae Pigot Ar. nuper defuncti patris predict Valentin per sacramentum c. Qui dâ—cunt c. After which all the points of the Câ—mmission after the death of the sâ—id Valentine are enquired of but for the Commissions after the death of the said Thomas Pigot it is imperfect in some points as who is his Heir c. is not found And by Popham and Anderson this Inquisition is void as to Valentine as well as for Thomas for their authorities which are the Commissions are by severall Warrants which cannot be simul semel by one and the same Inquisition executed and satisfied but ought to be divided and severall as the Warrant is severall and yet the same Inquest which found one Inquisition by one Warrant may also find another Inquisition by the other Warrant but divided and severall and not as one for as it is made it does not appear upon which of the Commissions the Inquisition as to Valentine is taken for as it is made it may be as well upon the one as upon the other for it is said to be by vertue of both the Commissions which cannot be and therfore is not good in any part and severall Warrants ought to be severally execused and therfore although the Escheator as appeareth by 9 H. 7. 8. may take â—â— Inquisition Virtue officii and at the same day another Inquisition Virtue brevis by one and the same Inquest yet this cannot be drawn into one Inquisition And that which is found Virtue officii contrary to that which before the same day Virtute libris as that it found more Land is good for the King And this their opinion was certified to the Court of Wards Sir Rowland Haywards Case 2. THis Case was also sent to the same chief Iustices out of the Court of See this case in Coke â— Report 35. Wards Sir Rowland Hayward being seised in his Demesne as of Fee of the Mannors of D. and A. in the County of Salop and of other Lands in the same County part wherof were in Lease for years by severall Indentures rendring certain rent part in the possessions of severall Copyholders and part in Demesne in possession out of Lease by Indenture dated 2. September 34. Eliz. made mention that this was for and in consideration of a certain sum of money to him paid by Richard Warren Esquire and others demised granted bargained and sold to the said Richard Warren and the others the said Mannors Lands and Tenements and the Reversion and Remainder of them and of every part of them and the Rents and Profits reserved upon any Demise therupon for 17. years next ensuing the death of the said Sir Rowland rendring a Rose at the Feast of S. John Baptist yearly if it be demanded which Deed was acknowledged to be enrolled and afterwards by another Indenture covenanted and granted for him and his Heirs hereafter to stand seised of the said Mannors Lands and Tenements to the use of the said Sir Rowland and of the Heirs Males of his body and afterwards and before any Attornment to the said Richard Warren and his Co-lessees or any of them the said Sir Rowland died seised of the said Mannors Lands and Tenements leaving a full third part of other Lands to descend to his Heir And it was moved on the Queens part that for part to wit for that which was in possession it past to the said Richard Warren and the other by way of Demise at Common Law and therfore it doth not passe afterwards by way of Bargain and Sale as to the Remainder and that therfore for the Services of the Mannors and for the Rents reserved upon the Demise these remain to the Heir who was in Ward to the Queen and within age and therfore to the Queen by reason of the Tenure which was in Capite by Knights-service But by Popham and Anderson it is at the Election of the said Richard Warren and his Co-lessees to take it by way of Demise or by way of Bargain and Sale untill that by some act done or other matter it may appear that their intent is to take it another way for the Vse in this case may well passe without the Inrolement of the Deed because the Statute of 27 H. 8. of Inrolements extends but to where a Free-hold is to passe and the Vse so passing this shall be executed by the Statute of 27 H. 8. of Vses and therfore if the said Richard Warren and his Co-lessees after the death of the said Sir Rowland Hayward would elect to take it by way of Bargain and Sale they shall have all the Reversions Remainders Rents and Services as well as the Land in possession executed to them by the Statute of Vses And of the same opinion were all the Iustices in Trinity Term following upon their meeting at Serjeants-Inne for another great cause Trinity Term 37 Eliz. 1. VPon an Assembly of all the Iustices and Barons of the Exchecquer at Where a Justâ—ce of Peace bails one who is not bailable he shall be sined and albeit he be committed but for sufficiâ—â—â— of Felony and haâ—h no notice of his offence Serjeants-Inne in Fleetstreet this Term it was resolved by them and so agreed to be hereafter put
my Furze And after Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment thâ—t these words were not actionable But it wâ—s said on the other side that to say thou art a Theef is actionable and the subsequent words are in the Copulative and enure as a confirmation of the precedent words But if it had been for Thou hast stoln my Furze this had been â—n explanation of the precedent words and therfore in that case the action would not have been And it was answered and resolved by the Court that the word and in some cases shall be taken as the word for and so it shall be in this case and therfore adjudged that the action lies Mich. 22. Jac. In the Star Chamber TWo men came Ore tenus into the Star Chamber for stealing of the Kings Deer and were fined a 100 l. a peece and three years Imprisonment unlesse it would please he King to release them sooner and before Fines in the Star Chamber for killing the Kings Deer they should be released of their Imprisonment to be bound to their good behaviour And it was observed by the Attorney-generall that the offence was the greater in regard that the King had but one darling pleasure and yet they would offend him in that And it was said by some of the Court that it was a great folly and madnesse in the Defendants to hazard themselves in such a manner for a thing of so small value as a Deer was The Lord President said that Mr. Attorney was the best Keeper the King had of his Parks in regard he brings the Offenders into this Court to be punished The Lord Keeper said that the Defendants in such a case being brought Ore tenus â—re not allowed to speak by their Counsell and yet these men have had their Counsell but it was Peters Counsellors meaning their sorrow and contrition at the Bar which much moved him so that if his vete might prevail he would set but 20 l. fine upon them In the same Term in the same Court THe Lord Morley and Sir Richard Mollineax being beyond Sea their Sollicitor in their names exhibited a scandalous Bill in the Star Chamber against the Bishop of Chichister and after their return this continued so for three years without any disclaiming therof by them and now the matter being questioned they said that it was not done with their privity But because they had not disclaimed the Fact before they were fined a 100 l. to the King and a 100 l. to the Bishop for Damages and the Bill was to be taken of the File The same Term in the same Court. Lewes Plaintiff versus Jeoffreys and others Defendants THe Plaintiffs Brother had been a Suitor to a woman which matter proceeded to a Contract and afterwards the Defendant Jeoffreys hapned to be a Suitor to her also wherupon being Rivalls they fell out and the Plaintiffs Brother called the Defendant Jackanapes which was taken very ill by the Defendant being a Iustice of Peace in the County of Worcester and the other being but a mean man in respect of him so that he told him that if he would meet him on Horse-back he would fight with him afterwards one of the Sons of the Defendant went to the said Brother being upon his own Land and gave him a mortall wound wherupon a friend on the behalf of the party wounded came to the Defendant being a Iustice of Peace and brought him a peece of his Skull to the end that his Son should be forth coming at the next Assises declaring to him the danger of death the man was in wherupon the Defendant took a Recognisance of 10 l. of his Son and of his sureties of 5 l. a peece to answer this at the next Assise And in the mean time the party died of the said wound and the Son did not appear at the Assises and the Iudges of Assise fined the Defendant 100 l. for taking such slender security for the appearance of his Son which was paid and yet notwithstanding the Defendant was fined 200 l. more for this offence and also 200 l. for his misdemeanor in his challenge albeit the Defendant A Challenge fined in the Star Chamber was of the age of 63 years and so it seems that he intended to fight with him But he being a Iustice of Peace who is Conservator pacis he did against his oath to do any thing which may tend to the breach of the Peace And for the other matter it was said by the Court that the Defendant being Father to the offendor it had been better for him to have referred this matter to another Iustice of Peace or at least to have had the assistance of another And the party being in such great danger of death his son was not bailable Hillary 1. Car. In the Kings Bench. Bowyer versus Rivet THe case was thus Sir William Bowyer 12. Jac. recovered against Sir Thomas Rivet in an Action of debt Sir William made his wife his Exceutrix and died the wife made Bowyer her Executor and died then Sir Thomas Rivet died Bowyer brought a Scire facias to have execution upon the Iugment against Sir Thomas Rivet the younger as Heir apparant to the Land to him descended from Sir Thomas Rivet who pleaded Riens per descent from Sir Thomas Rivet and it was found that he had two acres and a half of Land by discent and it was prayed by Goldsmith that Iudgment might be given against Sir Thomas Rivet generally for he said that this false Plea shall charge him and his own Lands and cited Plowden 440. where in debt against an Heir upon his false Plea his own Lands shall become liable to the debt and Co. lib. 3. 11. b. Sir William Herberts case where the case was upon a Scire facias against the Heir as it is in this case But on the other part it was argued by Richardson the Kings Serjeant Banks and all the Iustices that Execution shall be awarded in no other manner against the Heir then it should be against his Ancestor or other Purchasor to wit of a Moyety of that which he had by discent for as much as in this case he cannot be to this purpose charged as Heir but he ought to be charged as Ter-tenant and as a Purchasor and a Purchasor shall never hurt himself but his false Plea And Banks argued that the Heir in this case is charged as a Purchasor and the false Plea of a Purchasor shall never charge himself 33 E. 3. Fitz. Execution 162. and 6 E 3. 15. and that in this case he is charged as Ter-tenant appears by three reasons 1. Debt will not lye against an Heir but where he is bound as Heir but in this case Execution is to be sued against him as another Ter-tenant Dyer 271. 11 E. 3. 15. and in 27 H. 6. Execution 135. and Co. lib. 3. 12. b. That in Iudgment upon Debt or Recognisance the Heir is charged and
Execution shall be sued against him as Ter-tenant 2. There is not any lien as Heir for the Iudgment doth not mention the Heir and therfore he cannot be charged unlesse he be expresly bound and in the Record of the Recovery it doth not appear that the first lien shall bind the Heir for he declares that he bound himself and not that he bound himself and his Heirs 3. If the Heir were bound in the Obligation so that he were once bound as Heir yet the Iudgment determines the specialty so that now he is not bound and in the Iudgment the Heir is not mentioned as in 10 H. 4. 21. 24. If an Abbot contract to the use of the house without consent of the Covent this shall bind if he dies but if he takes an Obligation of the Abbot and then he dies this shall not bind the house for the Contract is determined by the Obligation and this is the reason that in the time of E. 3. in a recovery upon debt the Obligation was cancelled 4. Here he cannot be charged as Heir for it appeareth by the Record Where a debt is recorded upon bond the Obligation was cancelled that his Father is living for it is brought against him as Heir apparant which he cannot be but during the life of his Father And as to the objection that in this case he shall have his age and therfore shall be charged as Heir Non sequitur for if execution be sued against the Heir of a Purchasor he shall have his age and yet he is not Heir neither can charged as Heir to the Conusor But because it is a rule in Law that the Heir which hath by discent shall not answer where his Inheritance may be charged during his Nonage Whitlock to the same intent because the Heir is not charged here as Heir but as Ter-tenant wherby his false Plea shall not hurt him with which Jones also agreed and said that he here considered three things 1. That the lien of the Ancestor binds the Heir 2. How the Heir shall behave himself in pleading 3. Our point in question For the first there are two things requisite to bind one as Heir 1. A lien expresse for if one bind himself and not his Heir this shall not bind his Heir in any case 2. A discent of Inheritance for without this he shall not be bound by the act of his Ancestor and he is bound no longer then Assets discend for he alien before the Writ purchased the lien is gone 2. He ought to behave himself truly and plead truly and confesse the assets discended to him when debt is brought against him as heir otherwise his own Lands shall be charged with the debt as it is in Pepys case in Plow Com. But where it is said in Pepys case that upon a Nihil dicit or Non sum informatum c. If the Iudgment passe upon them that it shall be generall I am not of that opinion for the common experience of the Courts is that such a generall Iudgment shall not be given against the Heir unlesse it be upon a false plea pleaded with which agrees Lawsons case Dyer 81. and Henninghams case Dyer 344. where the Iudgment passed by Nihil dicit so that the saying in Plow 440. a. that what way soever the Heir be condemned in debt if he do not confesse the Assets c. that it shall be his proper debt is not now taken for Law And I also hâ—ld that if the Heir plead falsly and there is found more Assets Where upon a false plea by an Heir the Plaintiff may elect to take the Assets in execution or an Elegit of all his Land that yet it is in the election of the Plaintiff to charge him and to take execution of the Assets only or to take an Elegit of all his Land and he is not bound to take an Elegit of all his Land in this case for otherwise this inconvenience may arise If the Heir hath a 100. acres by discent and two by purchâ—se if upon the false Plea of the Heir the Plaintiff cannot have any other execution but an Eligit of the Moyety of his Lands then he by this is prejudiced for otherwise he might have all he Assets in execution and so the Heir by this way shall take advantage of his false plea. 3. He held as Whitlock before and for the same reason Doderidge Iustice How the Heir shall be bâ—und by the act of his Father is worthy of consideration upon which Prima facie the Books seem to disagree but being well considered accord with excellent harmony I have considered this case it was moved at Reading Term and because my Notes are not here I will speak more briefly and will consider 1. Hâ—w an Heir shall be charged upon the Obligation of his Father and as to that in debt against an Heir he is charged as Heir so that at this day it is taken as his proper debt wherby the Writ is in the Debet and Detinet How an Heir shall be charged upon the Obligation of his Father but in the Detinet only against Executors But in former time from the 18. of Ed. 2. till 7 H. 4. if an Executor had Assets the Heir was not chargable but in 7 H. 4. the Law changed in this point for now it is accounted his own debt and debt will lye against his Executor as it is said in Plow Com and so against the Heirs of the Heir to many generations albeit of this Plowden makes a doubt and his plea that he had nothing at the day of the Writ purchased nor ever after is good for if he alien the Assets he is discharged of the debt in regard he is not to wait the action of the Obligee 2. The Heir shall be châ—â—ged upon or Recognisance not as Heir but as Ter-tenant for he is not bound in the Recognisance but only the Conusor grant that the debt shall be levied of all his Lands and Tenements but not against his Heirs And here he is not meerly as Ter-tenant for he shall not have contribution agâ—â—st â—her Ter-tenants but only against those who are Heirs as himself is but to all other intents he is Ter-tenant and so charged Why an Heir is not chargable for debt after he hath fold the assets as 32 E. 3. and 27 H. 6. aâ—â— 3. That upon a Iudgment as our case is the Heir shall be charged as Ter-tenant and not otherwise The Book which hath been cited viz 33 E. 3. Execution 162. is expresse in the point the broken years of Fitzherbert are obsâ—urely reported but by comparing of cases it will appear to be our case exâ—resly 4. That albeit an Heir shall be charged upon the Obligation of his Ancestor where he is particularly bound yet upon his false plea no execution shall be but upon the assets So it seems to me that in the principall case the Iudgment shall be speciall and it seems to be a
very plain case Crew chief Iustice agreed and in his argument he affirmed what Jones said that a generall Iudgment shall not be given against the Heir if he do not plead falsly that he hath no Assets and not upon Nihil dicit And so Iudgment was given that the Plaintiff shall have Execution of the Moyety of the Lands discended to the Defendant and so note the diversity of debt against the Heir and Scire facias against the Heir Dickenson versus Greenhow Hill 1. Car. In the Kings Bench Intr. Hill 18. Jac. Rot. 189. IN an Attachment upon a Prohibition the Plaintiff declared that where Robert the last Abbot of Cokersham in Lancashire was seised in Fee of three acres of Land parcel of his Monastery and that the Abbot and his Com-monks and all the Predecessors of the Abbot were time out of mind of the order and rule of Praemonstratenses and that the order of Praemonstratenses and all Monks therof were time out of mind discharged of payment of tithes for their Lands and Tenements Quamdiu manibus propriis aut sumptubus excolâ—bant And that the said Abbot and all his Predecessors time out of mind had holden the said three acres discharged of payment of Tithes Quamdiu c. and so held them untill the dissolution of the Monastery and shew the surrender to H. 8. and the Statute of 31 H. 8 by force wherof H. 8. was seised and held them discharged and from him derive them to E. 6. and from E. 6. to Queen Mary and from her to Queen Elizabeth and from her in the 42. year of her Raign to Wagstaff and from him by mean conveyances to Dickenson the Plaintiff Quorum pretextu he was seised and enjoyed them in Propria manurantia and shew the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 15. wherby it is enacted that Tithes shall be paid as usually they were c. Quorum pretextu the Plaintiff held the three acres discharged of Tithes and that notwithstanding and against the Prohibition the Defendant did draw him into Plea for them in Court Christian and the Iudge therof held plea and the Defendant did there prosecute him to the disinherison of the Crown And upon this the Defendant demurred and prayed a consultation And Sir John Davies the Kings Serjeant argued for the Defendant that a Consultation should be granted because that his matter of discharge is double 1. His Priviledge 2. The prescription and if either of them will not help him then he ought to be charged For the Priviledge he took it that the Praemonstratenses never had such a priviledge It is a Maxime in Law All Lands chargable with Tithes that all persons ought to pay Tithes and all Lands shall be charged with them of common right but also there are divers discharges of them and allowed by our Law as is manifest by the orders of Templers Hospitalers and Cistertians which discharges our Law allows and these are 1. By prescription 2. By reall composition 3. By priviledge obtained and that by two wais 1. Either by the Bull of the Pope for he taking upon himself to be the great Dispensâ—r and Steward of the Church took upon him to discharge them but this as it is holden by the Canon he could not absolutely do but might divert them to a Clergy-man or grant to another to hold them by way of retainer and this ought to be to a Clergy-man also Or 2. By a generall Counsell for some orders were discharged by generall Counsels So some obtained Priviledges by the Popes Bulls which are his Patents some by Counsels which are as his Statutes and Decrees were as Iudgments but yet none of them had ever any force in our Law nor did bind us in England more then voluntarily retained and approved by usage and custom for as it is said in 11 H 4. the Pope cannot alter the Law of England and this is evident for in all cases where the Bulls or Constitutions of the Pope crosse the Law of the Land they have alwaies been rejected The Popes Bulls of four sorts as for instance 1 In the Bulls which are of four sorts 1. Of Provision 2. Of Citation 3. Of Exemption And 4. Of Excommunication And as for those of Excommunication it appeareth that it was Treason at Common Law and that the Treasurer did kneel to E. 2. for one who brought them in and in the perpetuall course of the Books afterwards they have alwaies been disallowed in Pleas. So his Bulls of Citation before the Statute of Provision was a hainous offence and so are Bulls of Provision and Exemption For his Canons where they were against the Law they were neglected It appeareth by the Canon Quod nullus capiat beneficium a Laico and yet notwithstanding continued long after for Benefices and does yet for Bishopricks that the Clergy shall take them from the King and a lay-hand And also there is a Canon for exemption of Clarks out of temporall Iurisdiction but yet as Brain saith 10 H. 7. 18. it was never observed here So the Canon saith that the time of the Laps shall be accounted Per septimanas but our Law not regarding this saith that it shall be accounted Per menses in the Calender as it is expresly adjudged in 5 E. 3. Rot. 100. Rot. claus in turri And there is a great reason for it as it is in 29 H. 3. memb 5. in turri It is not necessary for Bishops of England to go to generall Councells so as in Parliament those that do not â—end Knights or Burgesses shall not be bound by Statutes And the Counsels of Lyons of Bigamis c. are expounded by Statutes how they shal be taken so that it they have a Priviledge as in truth they have by the Popes Bulls if it were not allowed in England they are not of force to priviledge them against the Common Law of the Land for payment of Tithes but this was never here allowed And now for the Prescription this cannot help them for Monks are not of Evangelicall Priesthood to wit capable of Tithes in the Pernamy but meerly Lay-men and then as the Bishop of Winchesters case is they cannot prescribe in non decimando And Bede saith of them that they are Merè laici so that if their Priviledge were allowed their Prescription will not help them The priviledge of Praemonstratenses was by the Counsell generall of for their discharge which denies that all religious persons should be discharged of Tithes of Lands in their own hands Quamdiu c. But afterwards Adrian restrained it to Templars Hospitalars and Cistertians omitting the Praemonstratenses and the decree of Adrian was received also wherby the Law took notice of the discharge of the said three Orders True it is that the Praemonstratenses have a Bull of Pope Innocent the third of discharge and as large liberties as the Cistertians but they never put this in ure And it seems 1. That there were of them 29. Abbots
own land as in another mans so the Warren hath existence notwithstanding the unity Dyer 326. Where the Queen was seised of Whaddon Chase and the Lord Gray was Lievtenant there in Fee and he and his Ancestors and their Keepers had by prescription used to hunt wandring Deer in the Demesns of the Mannor of S. adjoyning as in Purlieues the Mannor of S. comes into the Queens hands who grants this to Fortescue in Fee with free Warren within the Demesns c. it was holden that the unity doth not extinguish the Purlieu Dyer 295. Two Closes adjoyn the one by prescription is bound to a Fence the Owner of one purchase the other and suffer the Hedges to decay and dies leaving two Daughters his Heirs who make partition Quaere whether the prescription for the Inclosure be revived true it is that it is made a quaere but he saith see the like case 11 H. 7. 27. of a Gutter which proves our case as I will shew afterwards For the Minor proposition that the watering hath being notwithstanding the said unity I will prove it by 12 H. 7. 4. A Precipe quod reddat of Land Aqua Co-opert Mich. 6. Jac. Challenor and Moores case An Ejectione firmae was brought of a Watering-course and there resolved that it does not lye of it because it is not firma sed currit but of Terra aqua co-operta it doth lye Also I will take some exceptions to the Bar there is no Title in the Bar for the Defendant Pigot and so we being in possession albeit in truth we have no Title yet he who hath no Title cannot oust us neither can stop the said Water-course and it is only shewn in the Bar that Searles entred and enfeoffed Pigot but for any thing as yet appears the true Owner continued in possession 21 Jac. C. B. Cook against Cook in a Writ of Dower the Defendant pleads an Entry after the Darrein continuance and doth not plead that he ousted him and upon this the Plaintiff Demurs and there adjudged that it is no plea in Bar because he doth not say that the Defendant entred and ousted the Tenant 2. Exception the action is brought against four Scil. Pigot Cole Branch and Elyman and Pigot hath conveyed a Title from Searles the three other Defendants justifie but Pigot doth not say any thing but that Searles enfeoffed him 7 H. 6. an action of Wast is brought against many one answers and the other not this is a discontinuance And for the principall matter I will conclude with 11 H. 7. 25. Broo. Extinguishment 60. Two have Tenements adjoyning and the one hath a Gutter in the others Land and afterwards one purchase both and then he alien one to one and another to another the Gutter is revived notwithstanding the unity because it is very necessary and so he prayed Iudgment for the Plaintiff Bear for the Defendant I in a manner agree all the cases which have been put on the other side and I conceive that the Water-course is not Stagnum but Servitium which is due from the one land to the other It is but a liberty and therfore I agree Challenors case which is but a liberty that an Ejectione firmae doth not lye of it but Ejectione firmae lies De stagno For the first exception I answer and confesse that to alledge an Entry after the Darrain continuance without alledging an Ouster of the Tenant cannot abate the Writ for the Defendant may enter to another intent as appeareth in the Commentaries and with the assent of the Tenant But here it was alledged that a Feoffment was made and a Livery which implies another For the matter in Law I conceive that the Water-course is extinguished and it may be compared to 21 E. 3. 2. The case of a way which is extinguished by unity of possession Hill 36. Eliz. Rot. 1332. Hemdon and Crouches case Two were seised of two severall acres of Land of which the one ought to inclose against the other one purchase them both and lets them to severall men and there the opinion was and adjudged accordingly that the Inclosure is not revived but remains extinguished 39 Eliz. Harringtons case the same thing resolved and albeit in Dyer 295. is a quaere yet the better opinion hath been taken according to these resolutions H. 4. Jac. Jordan and Ayliffes Case when one had a way from one acre to another and afterwards he purchased the acre upon which he had the way and afterwards sold it and in that Case the opinion of 3. Iustices was that the way was extinguished also 11 H. 4. 50. and 11 H. 7. 25. prove this case for the said case is compared to the custome of Gavelkind and Burrough English and there the quaere is made whether by the custome it be revived and if it be a custome which runs with the Land the unity of possession doth not extinguish it Co. lib. 4. Terringhams case and 24 E. 3. 2. common appendant is destroyed by unity of possession and yet it is a thing of common right but a Water-course being a thing against common right a fortiori it shall be extinguished Now I will take some exceptions to the Declaration 1. Because he hath laid a prescription for a Water-course as to say that it was belonging to a Rectory to which c. and this is a good exception as appears by 6 E 6 Dyer 70. Ishoms case where exception was taken that before his prescription he doth not say that it was Antiquum parcum which exception as it is there said was the principall cause that Iudgment was given against him and also as the case is here it ought to be a Rectory impropriate and this cannot be before the time of H. 8. which is within time of memory for before the said time no lay person could have a Rectory impropriate and therfore I pray Iudgment for the Defendant Barksedale said that the prescription is well laid and that he would prove by 39 H 6. 32. and 33 H. 6. 26. and per curiam the prescription is good enough and albeit it is not said that it is Antiquae Rectoria yet it is well enough Mich. 1 Car. at Reading Term in Broek and Harris case he doth not say that it was Antiquum Messuage and yet resolved good Doderidge the case of 6 E. 6. differs in this point from this case for a Rectory shall alwaies be intended ancient and so is not a Park for this may be newly created and he put this case suppose I have a Mill and I have a Water-course to this in my own land and I sell the Land I cannot stop the Water-course Crew chief Iustice seemed of opinion that the prescription is gone and that the better opinion in Dyer 13 Eliz. hath alwaies been that the Inclosure is gone by unity of possession but yet the Water-course is matter of necessity Doderidge and Whitlock the way is matter of election but the course of water is