Tenant to the Praecipe the Statute shall be so construed that the intent of the Parties shall stand 5. The Lands in the Parishes pass 1 Anders 83. because the Deed and Common Recovery make but one Conveyance and Assurance in the Law and therefore as a Construction is not to be made upon part but upon the whole Deed so not upon the Deed or Recovery alone but upon both together 2 Co. 75. Lord Cromwel's Case 6. Antea 'T is the Agreement of the Parties which governs Fines and Recoveries and Lands shall pass by such Names as are agreed between them though such Names are not proper and therefore a Fine of a lieu conus is good though neither Vill or Parish is named therein Poph. 22. 1 Cro. 270 276 693. 2 Cro. 574. So if a Fine be levied of a Common of Pasture in Dale Cro. Car. 308. Winch 122. Sid. 190 191. Antea 't is good though Dale be neither Vill or Hamlet or lieu conus out of a Vill 2 Roll. Abr. f. 19. So in Sir George Symonds his Case Lands as parcel of a Mannor were adjudged to pass though in truth they were used with the Manor but two years and the reason of all these Cases is because it was the Agreement of the Parties that they should pass Object If it be objected That all these Authorities are in Cases of Fines but the Case at Bar is in a Common Recovery which makes a great difference Answ The proceedings in both are amicable and not adversary and therefore as to this purpose there is no difference between them and for an Authority in the point the Case of Lever and Hosier was cited which was adjudged in this Court Trin. 27 Car. 2 Where the Question was Antea whether upon a Common Recovery suffered of Lands in the Town of Sale or the Liberty thereof Lands lying in Dale being a distinct Vill in the Parish of Sale should pass or not and after divers Arguments it was allowed to be well enough being in the Case of a Common Recovery And so was the Case Pasch 16 Car. 2. in B. R. In a special Verdict the Case was That Sir Thomas Thinn being seised of the Mannor of Buckland in Tail and of twenty Acres of Land called and known by a particular name which twenty Acres of Land were in Ed. the 6th's time reputed parcel of the said Mannor and always used with it Sid. 190. sold the said Mannor and all the Lands reputed parcel thereof with the Appurtenances of which he did suffer a Common Recovery and it was adjudged upon great consideration that though the Recovery did not mention the twenty Acres particularly yet it did dock the Entail thereof because the Indenture which leads the Vses of the Recovery was of the Lands reputed parcel thereof or enjoyed with it and that the shortness in the Recovery was well supplied by the Deed in which Case the Court were guided by the resolution in Sir George Symond's Case Vide 6 Co. Sir Moyle Finch's Case The Authorities against this Opinion are two Antea Lever and Hosieâ— 1. That of Stock versus Fox Cro. Jac. 120. There were two Vills Walton and Street in the Parish of Street and a Fine was levied of Lands in Street it was adjudged that the Lands in Walton did not pass by this Fine But there is another Report of this very Case by my Lord Chief Iustice Roll in his Abr. tit Grants 54. where 't is said if there be in the County of Somerset the Vill of Street and the Vill of Waltham within the Parish of Street and a Man being seised of Lands in the Vill of Street and of other Lands in the Vill of Waltham all within the Parish of Street and he Bargains and Sells all his Lands in Street and having Covenanted to levie a Fine doth accordingly levie it of Lands in Street and doth not mention either in the Indenture or in the Fine any Lands in Waltham the Lands lying there shall not pass from which Report there may be a fair Inference made That it was the Lord Rolls his Opinion that if Waltham had been named in the Indenture though not in the Fine the Lands would have passed and in this Case the Parishes are named in the Indenture of Bargain and Sale but besides in that Case the Party had Lands both in Street and Waltham and so the Conveyances were not in vain as they must be here if the Lands in the Parishes do not pass Antea 2. The other Case is that of Baker and Johnson in Hutton 106. But this Case is quite different from that because there was neither Vill or Parish named in the Indenture but here the Indenture was right for the Lands are mentioned therein to lie in the Parishes c. And for these Reasons Iudgment was prayed for the Defendant This Case was afterwards argued in Michaelmas-Term following by Serjeant Pemberton and Maynard for the Plaintiff who said Ex parte Quer. That the Government of this Nation was Ecclesiastical and Civil the Ecclesiastical runs by Parishes and the Civil by Vills That a Parish is constituted by the Ecclesiastical Power and may be altered by the King and Ordinary of the place that the Parson was superintendent of the Parish and the Constable of the Vill which was also constituted by the Civil Magistrate and from hence it is that in real Actions which are adversary Lands ought not to be demanded as lying in a Parish but within a Vill that being the place known to the Civil Iurisdiction and if a Trespass which is local be laid at Dale generally there being both the Parish and Vill of Dale the proof of the Trespass done in the Parish is not good for it must be at the Vil. They agreed that in conveying of Lands a Fine or Common Recovery of Lands in a Parish or Lieu conus was good 2 Cro. 574. But if there be both a Vill and a Parish of the same Name and severally bounded if the Vill be only named without the Parish nothing doth pass but what is in the Vill because where a place is alledged in Pleading it must be of a Vill Moor 710. 1 Inst 125. b. 2 Cro. 121. And this was the ancient way of demanding Lands in a Praecipe quod reddat because of the Notoriety of Vills from whence Visnes do arise and because the Vill is more particular and of more certainty than a Parish and therefore 't is requisite that the Demandant should be very particular in his Demand that the Tenant may know how to make his defence and the Sheriff of what to deliver possession Besides a Vill is more ancient than a Parish and Lands have been demanded within them time out of mind so that the Demand when 't is doubtful of what 't is made shall be supposed of that which is most ancient and such Construction is most conformable to the like Cases
that he was seised of a Mesuage and several Lands in the Parish of Dale and that he and all those whose Estate he hath have used to have right of Common for all Commonable Cattle Levant and Couchant upon the Premisses in a certain Meadow there called Darpmore Meadow and in a certain place called Cannock Wood. That the Defendant praemissorum non ignarus had enclosed the said places in which the Plaintiff had right of Common and likewise put in his Cattle as Horses Cows Hoggs Geese c. so that he could not in tam amplo beneficiali modo enjoy the same The Defendant as to the Inclosure and putting in of his Hoggs and Geese pleaded Not Guilty And as to the residue That the Lord Paget was seised of a Mesuage 300 Acres of Land 40 Acres of Meadow and 100 Acres of Pasture and likewise of Darpmore Meadow and Cannock Wood and being so seised did by Deed of Bargain and Sale enrolled in consideration of 2000 l. convey the said Mesuage 300 Acres of Land 40 Acres of Meadow and 100 Acres of Pasture to the Defendant and his Heirs and by the same Deed did Grant unto him all Waies Commons and Emoluments whatsoever to the said Mesuage and Premisses belonging or therewithal used occupied or enjoyed or taken as part parcel or member thereof virtute cujus the Defendant became seised of the Premisses and that the same were leased and demised for years by the said Lord Paget and all those whose Estate he had a tempore cujus contrarii memoria hominum non existit and that the Tenants or Occupiers thereof a tempore cujus c. used to have Common in Darpmore Meadow and Cannock Wood for all commonable Cattle Levant and Couchant upon the Premisses and used to put in their Cattle into the said places in which c. virtute cujus the Defendant having Right did put in his said Cattle into the said Places to take Common there and averred That there was Common sufficient both for the Plaintiff and himself To this Plea the Plaintiff Demurred This Case was argued by Serjeant Pemberton for the Plaintiff and by Serjeant Weston for the Defendant Ex parte Quer. and for the Plaintiff it was said That it was no good Plea but rather a design to introduce a new way of Common The Reasons offered why the Plea was not good were 1. Cro. Car. 419. That the Defendant could not prescribe because of the Vnity of Possession for the Lord Paget had the Premisses in and to which c. and therefore he hath prescribed by a collateral matter Viz. by alledging that the Land was usually let to Tenants for years but doth not say whether they were Tenants by Copy of Court Roll or not neither doth he make out any Title in them In some Cases where a Man is not privy to the Title he may say generally that the Owners and Occupiers used to do such a thing c. and this way of Pleading may be good but here the Defendant claiming under them ought to set forth their Title or else he can have no Right to the Common 2. By this Plea he intended that the Lord Paget had made a New Grant of this Common for he sets forth That he granted the Premisses and all Commons used with the same and so would intitle himself to a Right of Common in those two places as if Common had been expressly granted to him there which if it should 't is but argumentative and no direct affirmance of a Grant upon which the Plaintiff might have replied non concessit for no Issue can be joyned upon it 3. He ought to have set forth That the Tenants lawfully enjoyed the Common there but he lays only an usage to have Common which may be tortious 4. He doth not say That there is sufficient Common for all the Commoners but only for the Plaintiff and himself 'T is true the Owner of the Soil may feed with his Tenant who hath a Right of Common but he cannot derogate from the first by streightning the Common by a second Grant and so leave not sufficint for the Tenant 5. This Plea amounts to the General Issue Cro. Car. 157. and the Plaintiff hath specially assigned that for a Cause of Demurrer for he saith That the Defendant without any Title put in his Cattle by which the Plaintiff had not sufficient Common and the Defendant pleads he put in his Cattle rightfully and the Plaintiff had Common enough which if it signifie any thing must amount to Not Guilty Ex parte Def. But on the other side the last Objection was endeavoured to be answered first because if that hold yet if the Plea be never so good in Substance the Plaintiff would have Iudgment It was agreed that this Plea doth amount to a General Issue and no more but that every Plea that doth so is not therefore bad for if it otherwise contain reasonable matter of Law which is put upon the Court for their Iudgment rather than referred to the Iury there is is no cause of Demurrer for it is the same thing to have the doubt or question in Law before the Iudges in Pleading as to have it before them upon a Special Verdict In 2 R. 2. 18. A Retainer was pleaded specially by an Administrator which is no more than Plene Administravit yet no Demurrer but the Book saith that the Court ought to be moved 2. The Plea is good as to the matter of it for the Defendant claims the same Common by his Grant which had been used time immemorial and alledges it to be of all Common used with the Premisses and this was a Common so used In Trespass the Defendant justified that Godfrey was seised in Fee of a House and of 20 Acres of Land and that he and all those c. had Common in the place where c. to the said Messuage belonging and that he made a Feoffment to Bradshaw of the same who made a Lease thereof to the Defendant with all Profits and Commodities thereunto belonging vel occupat vel usitat cum praedicto Mesuagio It was adjudged that though the Common was gone and extinct in the Hands of the Feoffor by the unity of the Possession yet those Words were a good Grant of a New Common for the time granted in the Lease and that it was quasi a Common in the Hands of Godfrey the Feoffor Cro. Eliz. 570. Godfrey versus Eyre And though it hath been objected That this Plea is not formally pleaded because it ought to have been direct in alledging a Grant whereas it was only argumentative and brought in by a side Wind he said That as bad as it was 't was drawn by that Serjeant who argued against him and who did very well know that the Averment of sufficiency of Common was needless Curia The Court were all of Opinion That though the Plea did amount to the general Issue yet for that
de se by Inquisition and then comes an Act of Indempnity that shall not divest the King of his Right But where nothing Vests before the Office found a Pardon before the Inquisition extinguishes all Forfeitures as it was resolved in Tomb's Case So if the Pardon in this Case had come before the Presentation the Party had been restored Statu quo c. The King can do no more the Bishop is to do the rest neither is the Presentation revoked by this Act it might have been revoked by implication in some Cases as where there is a second Presentation but such a general revocation will not do it and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and a Writ of Error brought but the Cause was ended by Agreement Hill versus Pheasant Gaming at several meetings whether within the Statute AN Action of Debt was brought upon the Statute of 16 Car. 2. cap. 7. made against deceitful and disorderly Gaming which Enacts That if any person shall play at any Game other than for ready Mony and shall lose any Sum or other thing played for above the Sum of 100 l. at any one time or meeting upon Tick and shall not then pay the same that all Contracts and Securities made for the payment thereof shall be void and the person winning shall pay treble the Mony lost It happened that the Defendant won 80 l. at one meeting for whcih the Plaintiff gave Security and another meeting was appointed and the Defendant won 70 l. more of the Plaintiff being in all above 100 l. And if this was within the Statute was the Question The like Case was in the Kings-Bench Trin. 25 Car. 2. Rot. 1230. between Edgberry and Roseberry and in Michaelmas Term following this Case was argued and the Court was divided which the Plaintiff perceiving Anonymus Postea desired to discontinue his Action but the better Opinion was that it was not within the Statute though if it had been pleaded That the several meetings were purposely appointed to elude the Statute Sid. 394. in might be otherwise Calthorp versus Heyton Traverse not good viz. Absque hoc quod legitimo modo oneratus IN Replevin The Defendant avowed for that the King being seised in Fee of a Mannor and of a Grange which was parcel of the Mannor granted the Inheritance to a Bishop reserving 33 l. Rent to be yearly issuing out of the whole and alledges a Grant of the Grange from Sir W. W. who claimed under the Bishop to his Ancestors in Fee in which Grant there was this Clause Viz. If the Grantee or his Heirs shall be legally charged by Distress or with any Rent due to the King or his Successors upon account of the said Grange that then it should be lawful for them to enter into Blackacre and distrein till he or they be satisfied And afterwards the Grantee and his Heirs were upon a Bill Exhibited against them in the Exchequer decreed to pay the King 4 l. per Annum as their proportion out of the Grange for which he distreined and so justified the taking The Plaintiff pleads in barr to the Avowry and traverseth that the Defendant was lawfully charged with the said Rent and the Defendant demurred Baldwyn Serjeant maintained the Avowry to be good Ex parte Def. having alledged a legal charge and that the Barr was not good for the Plaintiff traverseth quod Defendens est ligitimo modo oneratus which being part matter of Law and part likewise matter of Fact is not good and therefore if the Decree be not a legal charge the Plaintiff should have demurred But on the other side it was argued by Seys Serjeant Ex parte Quer. That the Avowry is not good because the Defendant hath not set forth a legal charge according to the Grant which must be by Distress or some other lawful way and that must be intended by some execution at Common Law for the coactus fuit to pay is not enough a Suit in Equity is no legal disturbance Moor 559. The same Case is Reported in 1 Brownl 23. Selby versus Chute Besides the Defendant doth not shew any Process taken out or who were Parties to the Decree and a Que estate in the Case of a Bishop is not good for he must pass it by Deed. North and the whole Court A Rent in the Kings Case lies in Render and not in Demand and after the Rent day is past he is oneratus and the Decree is not material in this Case for the charge is not made thereby but by the Reservation for payment whereof the whole Grange is chargeable The King may distrain in any part of the Land he is not bound by the Decree to a particular place that is in favour only to the Purchasor that he should pay no more than his proportion As to the Que estate the Defendant hath admitted that by saying bene verum est that Sir W. W. was seised The Traverse is ill and Iudgment was given for the Avowant Vaughan versus Wood. Trespass justified for taking corrupt Victualls Mod. Rep. 202. TRespass for taking Beef The Defendant pleads a Custom to choose Supervisors of Victuals at a Court Leet That he was there chosen and having viewed the Plaintiffs Goods found the Beef to be corrupt which he took and burned The Plaintiff demurrs for that the Custom is unreasonable and when Meat is corrupt and sold there are proper remedies at Law by Action on the Case or presentment at a Leet 9 H. 6. 53. 11 Ed. 3. 4. 6. Vide Stat. 18 Eliz. cap. 3. But the Court held it a good Custom and Iudgment was given for the Defendant the Chief Iustice being not clear in it Chapter of Southwel versus Bishop of Lincoln Grant of next Avoidance not bind the Successor Mod. Rep. 204. IN a Quare Impedit the Question upon pleading was Whether the Grant of the next Avoidance by the Chapter was good or not to bind the Successor The doubt did arise upon the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 10. which was objected not to be a publick * Yelv. 106. Act because it extends only to those who are Ecclesiastical persons or if it should be adjudged a publick Law yet this is not a good Grant to bind the Successor for though the Grant of an Avoidance is not a thing of which any profit can be made yet it is an * Cro. Eliz. 441. Hereditament within the meaning of that Statute by which among other things 't is Enacted That all Grants c. made by Dean and Chapter c. of any Lands Tythes Tenements or Hereditaments being parcel of the Possessions of the Chapter other than for the Term of 21 Years or 3 Lives from the time of the making the said Grant shall be void But it was agreed by the Court to be a general Law like the Statute of Non Residency which hath been so ruled and that this Presentment or Grant
year before the Sale After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in arrest of Iudgment by Serjeant Barrell because the Information had set forth the right of these Lands purchased to be in J. S. and that the Son of J. N. had conveyed them by general words 2 Anders 57. as descending from his Father which Title of the Son the Defendant bought whereas if in truth the Title was in J. S. then nothing descended from the Father to the Son and so the Defendant bought nothing Sed non allocatur for if such construction should be allowed there could be no buying of a pretended Title within the Statute unless it was a good Title but when 't is said as here that the Defendant entred and claimed colore of that Grant or Conveyance which was void yet 't is within the Statute so the Plaintiff had his Iudgment Wine versus Rider al. TRespass against five Quare clausum fregerunt Traverse immaterial and took Fish out of the Plaintiffs Several and Free-Fishery Four of them pleaded Not Guilty and the fifth justified for that one of the other Defendants is seised in Fee of a Close adjoyning to the Plaintiffs Close and that he and all those c. have had the sole and separate Fishing in the River which runs by the said Closes with liberty to enter into the Plaintiffs Close to beat the Water for the better carrying on of the Fishing and that he as Servant to the other Defendant and by his Command did enter and so justified the taking absque hoc that he is Guilty aliter vel alio modo The Plaintiff replies That he did enter de injuria sua propria absque hoc That the Defendants Master hath the Sole Fishing The Defendant demurs Ex parte Def. and Newdigate Serjeant argued for him That the Iustification is good for when he had made a local justification 2 Cro. 45 372. he must traverse both before and after as he has done in this Case 2. The Plaintiffs Replication is ill for he ought not to have waved the Defendants Traverse and force him to accept of another from him because the first is material to the Plaintiffs Title and he is bound up to it Hob. 104. 3. There was no occasion of a Traverse in the Replication for where a Servant is Defendant de injuria sua propria is good with a Traverse of the Command Ex parte Quer. But on the Plaintiffs side Serjeant Baldwin held the Defendants Traverse to be immaterial for having answered the Declaration fully in alledging a Right to the sole fishing and an Entry into the Plaintiffs Close 2 Cro. 372. 't is insignificant afterwards to traverse that he is guilty aliter vel alio modo Then the matter of the Plea is not good because the Defendant justifies by a Command from one of the other Defendants who have all pleaded Not-guilty and they must be guilty if they did command him for a Command will make a Man a Trespasser Curia The Court were all of Opinion that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff For as to the last thing mentioned which was the Matter of the Plea they held it to be well enough for the * Mires and Solebay Post Servant shall not be ousted of the advantage which the Law gives him by pleading his Masters Command Then as to the Replication 't is good and the Plea is naught with the Traverse for where the Iustification goes to a time and place not alledged by the Plaintiff there must be a Traverse of both In this Case the Defendant ought to have traversed the Plaintiffs free fishing as alledged by him in his Declaration which he having omitted the Plea for that reason also is ill and so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff DE Termino Paschae Anno 28 Car. II. in Communi Banco Lee versus Brown IN a Special Verdict in Ejectment The Case was this Where reputed Lands shall pass under general words viz. There were Lands which re vera were not parcel of a Mannor and yet were reputed as parcel A Grant is made of the Mannor and of all Lands reputed parcel thereof and whether by this Grant and by these general Words those Lands would pass which were not parcel of the Mannor was the Question This Term the Lord Chief Iustice delivered the Opinion of the Court That those Lands would pass Postea Cro. Car. 308. and they grounded their Opinions upon two Authorities in Co. Entr. fol. 330 384. The King versus Imber Wilkins If the Iury had found that the Lands in question had beén reputed parcel of the Mannor it would not have passed had they found no more because the Reputation so found might be intended a Reputation for a small time so reputed by a few or by such as were ignorant and unskilful But in this Case 't is found that not only the Lands were reputed parcel but the reason why they were reputed parcel for the Iury have found that they were formerly parcel of the Mannor and after the division they were again united in the possession of him who had the Mannor which being also Copyhold have since béen demised by Copy of Court Roll togethet with the Mannor and these were all great marks of Reputation and therefore Iudgment was given that the Lands did well pass 2 Roll. Abr. 186. Dyer 350. Wakeman versus Blackwel Common Recoveries how to be pleaded QUare Impedit The Case was The Plaintiff entituled himself to an Advowson by a Recovery suffered by Tenant in Tail in pleading of which Recovery he alledges two to be Tenants to the Praecipe but doth not shew how they came to be so or what Conveyance was made to them by which it may appear that they were Tenants to the Praecipe and after search of Presidents as to the form of pleading of Common Recoveries the Court inclined that it was not well pleaded but delivered no Iudgment Searl versus Bunion Justification where good IN Trespass for taking of his Cattel The Defendant pleads that he was possessed of Blackacre pro termino diversorum annorum adtunc adhuc ventur̄ and being so possessed the Plaintiffs Cattle were doing damage and he distrained them Damage fesant ibidem and so justifies the taking c. The Plaintiff demurrs and assigns specially for cause that the Defendant did not set forth particularly the commencement of the Term of years but only that he was possessed of an Acre for a Term of years to come and regularly where a Man makes a Title to a particular Estate in pleading he must shew the particular time of the Commencement of his Title that the Plaintiff may replie to it Curia The Chief Iustice and the whole Court held that the Plea was good upon this difference where the Plaintiff brings an Action for the Land or doing of a Trespass upon the Land he is supposed to be in possession
of Record the Proceedings may be denied and tryed by Iury. But the Court inclined that it was pleaded well enough and that it was the safest way to prevent mistakes but if the Plaintiff had replied de injuria sua propria absque tali causa that had traversed all the Proceedings Quaere whether such a Replication had been good because the Plaintiff must answer particularly that Authority which the Defendant pretended to have from the Court but no Iudgment was given Sherrard versus Smith TRespass Quare clausum fregit and for taking away his Goods the Defendant justifies the taking by the command of the Lord of the Mannor of which the Plaintiff held by Fealty and Rent and for non-payment thereof the Goods were taken nomine Districtionis The Plaintiff replies that the locus in quo est extra Hors de son Fee when to be pleaded absque hoc quod est infra feodum The Defendant demurrs specially because the Plaintiff pleading hors de son fee should have taken the Tenancy upon him 9 Co. Bucknal's Case 22 H. 6. 2 3. Keilway 73. 14 Ass pl. 13. 1 Inst 1. b. where this is given as a Rule by my Lord Cook Serjeant Pemberton on the other side agreed Ex parte Quer. 13 Assize 28. 28 Assise 41. that in all cases of Assize hors de son fee is no Plea without taking the Tenancy upon him 2 Ass placito 1. And in 5 E. 4. 2. 't is said that in Replevin the Party cannot plead this Plea because he may disclaim but Brook placito 15. tit hors de son fee saith this is not Law and so is 2 H. 6. 1. and many Cases afterwards were against that Book of Ed. 4. and that a Man might plead hors de son fee as if there be a Lord and Tenant holding by Fealty and Rent and he makes a Lease for years and the Lord distrains the Cattel of the Lessee though the Tenant hath paid the Rent and done Fealty there if the Lessee alledge that his Lessor was seised of the Tenancy in his demesn as of fee and held it of the Lord by Services c. of which Services the Lord was seised by the hands of his Lessor as by his true Tenant who hath leased the Lands to the Plaintiff and the Lord to charge him hath unjustly avowed upon him who hath nothing in the Tenancy 't is well enough 9 Co. Case of Avowries and the reason given in 5 Edw. 4. about disclaimer will not hold now for that course is quite altered and is taken away by the Statute of the 21 H. 8. cap. 19. which Enacts That Avowries shall be made by the Lord upon the Land without naming his Tenant But in case of Trespass there was never any such thing objected as here for what Tenancy can the Plaintiff take upon him in this case He cannot say tenen ' liberi tenementi for this is a bare Action of Trespass in which though the pleading is not so formal yet it will do no hourt for if it had been only extra feodum without the Traverse it had been good enough and of that Opinion was the Court in Hillary-Term following when Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff absente Scroggs And the Chief Iustice said That the Rule laid down by my Lord Coke in 1 Inst 1. b. that there is no pleading hors de son fee without taking the tenancy upon him is to be intended in cases of Assize and so are all the Cases he there cites for proof of that Opinion and therefore so he is to be understood but this is an Action of Trespas brought upon the Possession and not upon the Title In the Case of Avowry a Stranger may plead generally hors de son fee and so may Tenant for years and this being in the Case of a Trespass is much stronger and if the Plaintiff destroys the Defendants justification 't is well enough Sir William Hickman versus Thorne alios Prescription against another Prescription not good without a Traverse IN a Replevin The Defendant justifies the taking for that the locus in quo was his Freehold and that he took the Cattel there damage fesant The Plaintiff in bar to the Avowry replies that the locus in quo c. is parcel of such a Common Field and prescribes to have right of Common there as appendant to two Acres which he hath in another place The Defendant rejoyns that there is a Custom that every Free-holder who hath Lands lying together in the said Common Field may enclose against him who hath right of Common there and that he had Lands there and did enclose The Plaintiff demurs and Serjeant Newdigate took Exceptions to the Rejoynder Ex parte Quer. 1. For that he did not averr that the Lands which he enclosed did lye together and therefore had not brought his case within the Custom alledged Sed non allocatur because he could not enclose if the Lands had not laid together 2. He gives no answer to the Plaintiffs right of Common but by argument which he should have confessed with a bene verum est and then should have avoided it by alledging the Custom of Enclosure like the Case of * 2 Leon. 209. Russel and Broker where in Trespass for cutting Oaks the Defendant pleads that he was seised of a Messuage in Fee and prescribes to have rationabile estoverium ad libitum capiend ' in boscis the Plaintiff replies that the locus in quo was within the Forest and that the Defendant and all those c. habere consueverunt rationabile estoverium c. per liberationem Forestarii and upon a Demurrer the Replication was held naught because the Plaintiff ought to have pleaded the Law of the Forest viz. Lex Forestae talis est or to have traversed the Defendants Prescription and not to have set forth another Prescription in his Replication without a Traverse 3. The Defendant should have pleaded the Custom and then have traversed the Prescription of the Right of Common for he cannot plead a Custom against a Custom 9 Co. 58. Aldred's Case where one prescribes to have a Light the other cannot prescribe to stop it up Serjeant Pemberton contra Ex parte Def. He said that which he took to be the only Question in the Case was admitted viz. That such a Custom as this to enclose was good and so it has béen adjudged in Sir Miles Corbet's Case 7 Co. But as to the Objections which have been made the Defendant admits the Prescription for Right of Common but saith he may enclose against the Commoners by reason of a Custom which is a Barr to his very Right of Common and therefore need not confess it with a bene verum est neither could he traverse the Prescription because he hath admitted it 'T is true where one prescribes to have Lights in his House and another prescribes to stop them up this is not good because
one Prescription is directly contrary to the other and for that reason one must be traversed but here the Defendant hath confessed that the Plaintiff hath a Right of Common but t is not an absolute but a qualified Right against which the Defendant may Enclose and here being two Prescriptions pleaded and one of them not being confessed it must from thence necessarily follow that the other is the Issue to be tryed which in this Case is whether the Defendant can enclose or not The Chief Iustice and the whole Court were of Opinion Curia that where there are several Free-holders who have Right of Common in a Common Field that such a Custom as this of enclosing is good because the remedy is reciprocal for as one may enclose so may another But Iustice Atkyns doubted much of the Case at Bar because the Defendant had pleaded this Custom to Enclose in barr to a Freeholder who had no Land in the Common Field where he claimed Right of Common but prescribed to have such Right there as appendant to two Acres of Land he had alibi for which reason he prayed to amend upon payment of Costs Attorny General versus Sir Edward Turner in Scaccario Exposition of the Kings Grant INformation The Case was Viz. The King by Letters Patents granted several Lands in Lincolnshire by express words and then this Clause is added upon which the Question did arise Nec non totum illud fundum solum terras suas contigue adjacen ' to the Premisses quae sunt aqua cooperta vel quae in posterum de aqua possunt recuperari and afterwards a great quantity of Land was gained from the Sea and whether the King or the Patentee was intituled to those Lands was the Question Devise of a possibility good by a common person 2 Cro. 509. pl. 21. 1 Bulst 194. Sawyer for the King argued that he had a good Title because the Grant was void he having only a bare possibility in the thing granted at the time But Levins on the other side insisted that the Grant of those Lands was good because the King may Grant what he hath not in possession but only a possibility to have it But admitting that he could not make such a Grant yet in this Case there is such a certainty as the thing it self is capable to have and in which the King hath an Interest and it is hard to say that he hath an Interest in a thing and yet cannot by any means dispose of it If it should be objected that nothing is to pass but what is contigue adjacen ' to the Premisses granted and therefore an Inch or some such small matter must pass and no more certainly that was not the intention of the King whose Grants are to be construed favourably and very bountifully for his Honour and not to be taken by Inches Postea Company of Ironmongers and Naylor If there are two Marshes adjoyning which are the Kings and he grants one of them by a particular name and description and then he grants the other contigue adjacen ' ex parte australi certainly the whole Marsh will pass and 't is very usual in pleading to say a Man is seised of a House or Close and of another House c. contigue adjacen ' that is to be intended of the whole House In this Case the King intended to pass something when he granted totum fundum c. but if such construction should be made as insisted on then those words would be of no signification 'T is true the word illud is a Relative and restrains the general words and implies that which may be shewn as it were with a Finger and therefore in Doddington's Case 2 Co. 32. a Grant of omnia illa Mesuagia scituate in Wells and the Houses were not in Wells but elsewhere the Grant in that Case was held void because it was restrained to a certain Village and the Pronoun illa hath reference to the Town but in this Case there could be no such certainty because the Land at the time of the Grant made was under Water But if the Patent is not good by the very words of the Grant the non obstante makes it good which in this Case is so particular that it seems to be designed on purpose to answer those Objections of any mistake or incertainty in the value quantity or quality of the thing granted which also supplies the defects for want of right instruction given the King in all cases where he may lawfully make a Grant at the Common Law 4 Co. 34. Moor pl. 571. Bozuns Case And there is another very general Clause in the Patent viz. Damus praemissa adeo plene as they are or could be in the Kings hands by his Prerogative or otherwise * Ante Adeo plene are operative words Whistlers Case 10 Co. And there is also this Clause omnes terras nostras infra fluxum refluxum maris 'T is true Sid. 149. these words praemissis praed ' spectan ' do follow from whence it may be objected that they neither did or could belong to the Premisses and admitting it to be so yet the Law will reject those words rather than avoid the Grant in that part In the Case of the Abbot of * 9 Co. 27. b. Strata Marcella the King granted a Mannor Et bona catalla felonum dicto Manerio spectan ' now though such things could not be appendant to a Mannor yet it was there adjudged that they did pass Such things as these the King hath by his Prerogative and some things the Subject may have by Custom or Prescription as Wrecks c. and in this very Case 't is said that there is a Custom in Lincolnshire that the Lords of Mannors shall have derelict Lands and 't is a reasonable Custom for if the Sea wash away the Lands of the Subject he can have no recompence unless he should be entituled to what he gains from the Sea and for this there are some Authorities as Sir Henry Constable's Case 2 Roll. 168. 5 Co. Land between High-Water and Low-Water Mark may belong to a Mannor But no Iudgment was given Morris versus Philpot in B. R. Release by an Executor before Probate THE Plaintiff as Executor to T. brings an Action of Debt against the Defendant as Administrator to S. for a Debt due from the said intestate to the Plaintiffs Testator The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff released to him all Brewing Vessels c. and all other the Estate of S. lately deceased this Release was before probate of the Will to which Plea the Plaintiff demurred and whether this Release was a good Barr to the Plaintiffs Action was the Question Ex parte Quer. It was said for the Plaintiff that it was not for if a Conusee release to the Cognisor all his right and title to the Lands of the Cognisor and afterwards sues out
Toll c. which were first created by the King 9 Co. Abbot de Strata Marcella's Case So that this Toll is not become in gross by the dissolution whereupon Iudgment was given for the Defendant Sir William Turner's Case Amendment not after issue joyned DEbt qui tam c. for 100 l. against Sir William Turner being a Iustice of Peace in London for denying his Warrant to suppress a seditious Conventicle of one Mr. Turner in New-street This Cause was to be tried by Nisi prius this Term before the Chief Iustice And now the Plaintiff moved to amend one Word in the Declaration wherein he was mistaken for he had laid the Meeting to be at Turner's Mansion House and upon Enquiry he understood the place of Meeting was not at his Mansion House but at a little distance from it and so prayed the word Mansion might be struck out But the Chief Iustice said that after Issue joyned Curia and the Cause set down to be tried and this being a penal Statute no President could be shewn of an Amendment in such case and therefore would not make this the first and so Leave was given to the Plaintiff to discontinue upon payment of Costs Brown versus Johnson IN Accompt The Plaintiff declares against the Defendant Time where 't is made parcel of the issue not good for that upon the first of March 22 Car. 2. abinde to the first of May 27 Car. 2. he was his Bayliff and Receiver of 80 Piggs of Lead The Defendant pleads that from the said first day of March 22 Car. 2. to the first day of May 27 Car. 2. he was not the Plaintiffs Bayliff or Receiver of the said 80 Piggs of Lead hoc paratus est verificare To this the Plaintiff demurred and assigned specially for cause that the times from the first of March to the first of May are made parcel of the Issue which ought not to be because the Plaintiff in his Declaration must alledge a time for Form sake but the Defendant ought not to tye him up to such time alledged for he might have said he was not Bayliff modo forma And for this the Case of Lane and Alexander was cited where the Defendant by Ejectment makes a Title by Copy of Court Roll granted to him 44 Eliz. and the Plaintiff replies his Title by the like Grant 1 Junii 43 Eliz. The Defendant maintains his Barr and traverseth that the Queen 1 Junii 43 year of her Reign granted the said Land by Copy and upon Demurrer it was adjudged that the traversing of the day is matter of substance which being made part of the Issue is naught But on the other side it was objected that time is material and that in Actions of Accompt 't is proper to make it parcel of the Issue for a Man may be Bayliff for two but not for three years and a Release may be pleaded from such a time to such a time Fitz. Accompt 30. Rast Entry f. 8. 19 pl. 1. f. 20. pl. 6. f. 22. pl. 2. 1. Then Exceptions were taken to the Plea first for that the Plaintiff having charged the Defendant as Receiver of 80 Piggs of Lead the Defendant pleads and that he was not Receiver thereof but doth not say of any part thereof for which reason the Court held the Plea ill because he might retain 79 and yet not 80 Piggs but to plead generally ne unques Receptor is well enough though it was urged that if it had been found against him upon such an Issue that he had received any parcel of the Lead he should have accompted 24 H. 4. 21. 2 Roll. 3. 14. 32 H. 6. 33. Fitz. Accompt 16. Cro. Eliz. 850. Fitz. Accompt 14. Rast Entry 18 19 20. 2. The Defendant concludes hoc paratus est verificare whereas it should be de hoc ponit se super patriam but the Court doubted of this because it was not specially assigned Postea 3. The Plaintiff charged the Defendant as his Bayliff upon the first of March and the Defendant pleads that he was not his Bayliff from the first of March so he excludes that day and this the Court held to be incurable and likewise that the time ought not to be made parcel of the Issue 2 Sand. 317 318. and so Iudgment was given quod computer Abraham versus Cunningham Administrator sells a Term afterwards an Executor appears and renounces yet the Sale was adjudged void Jones 72. 1 Vent 303. IN a special Verdict in Ejectment the Case upon the Pleadings was Viz. Sir David Cunningham being possessed of a Term for years made his Will and therein appointed his Son Sir David Cunningham to be his Executor and dyed Sir David the Executor in the year 1663. made his Will also and therein appointed David Cunningham his Son and two others to be his Executors and dyed those two Executors dye and B. a Stranger takes out Administration cum Testamento annexo and continues this Administration from the year 1665. to the year 1671. in which time he made an Assignment of this Term to the Lessor of the Plaintiff for which he had received a thousand Pounds And in the year 1671. the surviving Executor of Sir David the Executor made Oath in the Archbishops Court that he never heard of his Testators Will 'till then nor ever saw it before and that he had not medled with the Estate nor renounced the Executorship 6 Co. Packmans Case Then a Citation goes to shew cause why the Administration should not be repealed and Sentence was given that it should be revoked upon which the Executor enters and the Lessor of the Plaintiff entred upon him This Case was argued by Saunders for the Plaintiff Ex parte Quer. and Levints for the Defendant And first it was said in behalf of the Plaintiff that the Authorities in the Books were strong on his side that the first Administration was well granted 'T is true if a Man make a Will and Administration is granted and that Will is afterwards proved such Administration is void as in Greysbrook and Foxes Case Pl. Com. But in this Case after the death of Sir David Cunningham the Executor his Testator is dead Intestate for to make an Executor there must be first the naming of him then there must be some concurring act of his own to declare his assent that he will take onus executionis upon him for no man can make another Executor against his will so that if after the death of the first Executor those other Executors appointed by him had made such a Declaration as this surviving Executor hath since done their Testator had dyed Intestate 7 E. 4. 12 13. The Executor is made by the Testator and the Ordinary is empowered by the Statute to make the Administrator where the person dies Intestate so that 't is plain there cannot be an Executor and Administrator both together If he who is
Trotter versus Blake In Scaccario THIS was the Case of my Lord Hollis upon a Tryal at the Barr in the Exchequer in an Ejectione firmae Ejectment will not lie for a Forfeiture where the Tenant refused to pay a Fine being doubtful wherein the Case was this viz. The Lord Hollis was seised of the Mannor of Aldenham in the County of Hartford in Fee and the Lands in question were held of the said Lord by Copy of Court Roll and are parcel of the aforesaid Mannor That the Defendant was admitted Tenant and a Fine of 8 l. imposed upon him for such admittance payable at three distinct payments that the 8 l. was personally demanded of him by the Lord's Steward and he refused payment whereupon the Lord enters and seises the Estate for a Forfeiture which he would not have insisted on but that the obstinacy of the Defendant made it necessary for him to assert his Title and Right Mr. Walker the Lord Hollis his Steward being sworn gave Evidence that a Fine of 8 l. was set upon the Defendant when he was admitted and that the Lands to which he was admitted were usually lett for 7 l. per annum so that the Fine was but a little more than a years value That he himself demanded the 8 l. of the Defendant being a Seafaring-man who refused to pay it That he knew the Defendant to be the same person who was admitted to this Copyhold That the Demand was made at the Stewards Chamber in Staple Inn and because it was payable at three several days he then demanded of him only 2 l. 13 s. 4 d. as a third part of the 8 l. and that he did enter upon the 25th day of November last for Non-payment of the said 2 l. 13 s. 4 d. The Council for the Defendant insisted that the Steward ought to produce an Authority in Writing given to him by the Lord to make this Demand and Entry upon refusal Ex parte Def. for the Lords owning it afterwards will not make a Forfeiture But the Court held clearly that there was no need of an express Authority in Writing Curia and that it was not necessary for the Steward to make a Precept for the seizure but that it was necessary that the Demand should be personal The Reason why the Defendant refused to pay this Fine was because he said that by a Decree and Survey made of this Mannor in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth the Fine to be paid for this Copyhold was setled and it was but 3 l. and no more And Sir Francis Winnington Solicitor General said for the Defendant that the Case was very penal on his side but that he would make it clear that there was no colour for the bringing of this Action either as to the Matter or the Form He said that the Mannor of Aldenham had not been long in this noble Lord he came in as Purchaser or a Mortgagee under the Family of the Harvies whose Inheritance it was anciently and there has been some doubt whilst it was in their possession what Fines were customary to be paid upon Descents and Alienations but that is now settled and the Defendant was in the Case of a descent for which the Fine is not to be arbitrary at the Will of the Lord but is reduced to a certainty in Queen Elizabeth's Reign by Consent and Agreement between the Lord and Tenants and that a Survey was then made by vertue of a Commission directed to some Men of Credit and Worth in those days who were impowred to set forth the quantity of Land and the value thereof which was done accordingly and it was then agreed that a year and an halfs value in case of a Descent and two years value in case of an Alienation should be paid as a Fine to the Lord and the proportion of the value was then computed by the Commissioners and decreed by the Court of Chancery to be binding to the Lords and Tenants for ever The Question now is how this years value shall be computed the Lord would have it according to the improved value the Tenant will pay according as it was rated in Queen Elizabeth's time by those Commissioners Now if this Land had decayed in value the Tenant had still been obliged to pay a Fine according to the valuation of that time and if so it would be very unreasonable to make him pay for his Industry and Improvement of the Land now it is raised in value because that was done by his Labour and at his expence so that the doubt being what Fine shall be paid an Ejectione firmae will not lie because the Matter is doubtful and the Law gives the Tenant Liberty to contest it with the Lord and will never let him be under the peril of a Forfeiture because he will not comply with the Lord to give up his Right without Law But the Lord hath another and a more proper remedy for he may bring an Action of Debt for the Fine thus imposed which will try the Right and is not so penal to the Copyholder which Point was lately resolved And that if a Copyholder had a probable cause to induce him to believe that he ought not to pay the Fine demanded let the Right be as it would yet no Ejectment will lie for it must be only in a plain Case that the Lord can enter for a Forfeiture For no Man forfeits his Estate but by a wilful default in himself such a Forfeiture as is done and presumed to be committed upon his own knowledge but want of understanding cannot be made a wilful neglect 'T is true the Decree in Chancery made here cannot vary the Law but it may be Evidence of the Fact for prima facie it shall be intended that such values have been paid time out of mind because the Court have so decreed but then when the Fine was declared to be certain a doubt did arise how the years value shall be reckoned which has been setled also by another Decree and from that time all the respective Lords of this Mannour have taken Fines according to that value which is mentioned in the Survey and this Lord himself hath taken Fines in pursuance of the same so that 't is clear the Fine cannot be Arbitrary but be it so or not 't is not material to this purpose because the Tenant hath a good and colourable ground to insist upon the Decree and Survey and consequently there is no wilful Forfeiture The Lord Chief Baron agreed That if it be a doubt and the Tenant gives a probable Reason to make it appear that no more is due than what he is ready to pay 't is no Forfeiture but the Law in general presumes that the Fine is incertain if the contrary is not shewed now if the Tenants doubt did arise upon the equitableness of the Fine in such case if he refuse to pay 't is a Forfeiture but here it was whether it shall be paid
gave him the Goods at London by force whereof he took them at London absque hoc that he took them at Coventry because by such Gift or Delivery he might justifie the taking any where as well as where the delivery was made 2. That the Declaration was ill for the Agreement was to deliver the Goods at London and the breach was that he left them at London and so but argumentative Aston pl. Red. 62. Herns Pleader 76. Brownl Pleadings 139. But the Court were of Opinion that the Declaration was good and the Plea was naught in substance but if it had been good the Traverse notwithstanding had been ill because the justification was not local 2 Cro. 45 372 though Iustice Scroggs was of a contrary Opinion And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Nota Visne altered Propter necessiatem The Plaintiff had leave given by the Court to alter the Visne from London to Middlesex because all the Sittings in London were on a Saturday and his Witness was a Jew and would not appear that day Mendyke versus Stint PRohibition was prayed to the Sheriffs Court of London Prohibition to the Sheriffs Court after Verdict and Judgment comes too late The Suggestion was That the Plaintiff was sued in that Court in an Action on the Case and sets forth the Proceedings at large that there was a Verdict against him there and averred that the Contract upon which he was sued there revera was made in Middlesex and so the cause of Action did not arise within their Iurisdiction and upon Demurrer to the Prohibition Serjeant Pemberton argued 2 Inst 229 243 601. West 1. c. 35. F. N. B. 45. b. Hob. 106. 1. That a Prohibition doth lie to any Court as well Temporal as Spiritual where such Courts exceed their Bounds for both those Iurisdictions are united to the Imperial Crown it may be granted to the Dutchy Court if they hold Plea of Lands not parcel of the Dutchy 2. Though the Iury have here found that the Defendant assumpsit modo forma yet such finding as to time and place is not material nor is it any Estoppel in a new Action laid in another County to aver that it was for the same thing 'T is true both time and place may be made material by pleading and so it had been in this Case if the Iury had found the place precisely for it would have been an Estoppel The Verdict therefore is nothing and all they have done is coram non Judice The Case of * Antea Squib and Holt. Squib and Hole he cited as an Authority in point where it was adjudged no Escape in the Officer to let a Man at Liberty who was in Execution upon a Bond sued in an Inferior Court the Bond not being made within the Iurisdiction thereof Ex parte Def. But Maynard Dolben Goodfellow and Sympson Serjeants contra They agreed that where it appears by the Plaintiffs Libel that the Court had no Iurisdiction there a Prohibition lies at any time but if what is in the Declaration is laid infra jurisdictionem there the Party must plead extra jurisdictionem and if they refuse to plead to the Plea a Prohibition will lie after Sentence But here is an Action on the Case brought of which the Sheriffs Court can hold Plea and which is laid to be infra jurisdictionem and not denied by the Plaintiff in his Plea and therefore now after Verdict and Iudgment he comes too late for a Prohibition and upon this difference Prohibitions have been usually either granted or denied to the Spiritual Courts Though the Court hath not cognisance of the Cause yet the Proceedings are not coram non Judice for if it be alledged to be within the Iurisdiction and the Defendant takes no exception to it and then Sentence is given against him he hath there by admitted the Iurisdiction So where a Man sued for a Legacy in the Prerogative Court where the Will was proved Stiles 45. by the Opinion of Rolls C. J. 2 Roll. Abr. 318. and Sentence given and an Appeal to the Delegates and Sentence affirmed and then a Prohibition granted but without notice upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. cap. 9. for that the Parties lived in another Diocess but the Plaintiff having allowed the Iurisdiction in all the former proceedings though the Prohibition was granted the Court would not compel the Party to appear and plead but granted a Consultation Cro. Car. 97. Smith versus the Executors of Pondrel In Hillary-Term 1675. in B.R. between Spring and Vernon and in Michaelmas-Term in 22 Car. 2. B. R. Buxton's Case and in Hillary Term the 22 23 Car. 2. in the same Court between Cox and St. Albon Prohibitions were denied after the Iurisdiction adadmitted by Pleading Mod. Rep. 81. The Chief Iustice Wyndham and Atkyns upon the first Argument enclined that a Prohibition ought to be granted because the admittance of the Party cannot give a Iurisdiction where originally there was none but afterwards they were all of Opinion That the Prohibition should not go but said that the Plaintiff in the Inferiour Court ought to have been Non-suited if it appeared upon the Evidence that the Cause of Action did arise extra jurisdictionem In this Case these things were agreed by the Court. 1. Sid. 151. That if any matter appears in the Declaration which sheweth that the Cause of Action did not arise infra jurisdictionem there a Prohibition may be granted at any time 2. If the subject matter in the Declaration be not proper for the Iudgment and determination of such Court there also a Prohibition may be granted at any time 3. If the Defendant who intended to plead to the Iurisdiction is prevented by any Artifice as by giving a short day or by the Attornies refusing to plead it c. or if his Plea be not accepted or is over-ruled in all these Cases a Prohibition likewise will lie at any time And the Chief Iustice and Wyndham Iustices were of Opinion that after the Defendant had admitted the Iurisdiction by pleading to the Action especially if Verdict and Iudgment pass the Court will not examine whether the Cause of Action did arise out of the Iurisdiction or not But Atkyns and Scroggs Iustices said nothing to this last point but that many times an advantage given by the Law was lost by coming too late and instanced that a Visne may be changed in time but not if the Party come too late so if the time of the promise be laid above six years from the time of the Action brought if the Statute of Limitations be not pleaded the Defendant cannot take afterwards advantage of it Whereupon a Prohibition was denied and Iudgment was given for the Defendant Birch versus Wilson Plea tho' it amount to a general Issue if it doth disclose matter of Law besides it shall not be demurred unto IN an Action on the Case the Plaintiff declared
the space of 14 days after complaint made then the Sub-Commissioners of the Excise are to determine the same from whom no Appeal doth lye to the Justices of the Peace at their next Sessions which Commissioners of Excise Justices of the Peace and Sub-Commissioners amongst other things are inabled by the said Act to Issue out Warrants under their Hands c. to levie the Forfeitures and so justified the Entry under a Warrant from the Sub-Commissioners three Iustices having refused to hear and determine this Offence To this Plea the Plaintiffs demurred and had Iudgment in the Court of Kings-Bench and a Writ of Inquiry of Damages was Executed and 750 l. Damages given and it was alledged that the Defendant could not move to set aside the Iudgment in that Term it was given because the Writ of Inquiry was executed the last day of the Term and the Court did immediatly rise and that he could not move the next Term because the Iudgment was given the Term before the Writ of Error was brought The Attorny General therefore said that this was a hard Case and desired a Note of the Exceptions to the Plea which he would endeavour to maintain which Mr. Pollexfen gave him and then he desired time to answer them The Exception to the Plea upon which the Iudgment was given was this Viz. The Act giveth no power to the Sub-Commissioners to hear and determine the Offences and so to issue out Warrants for the Forfeitures but where the Iustices or any two of them refuse And though it was said by the Defendant that three refused yet it was not said that two did refuse for there is a great difference between the allegation of a thing in the Affirmative and in the Negative for if I affirm that A. B. C. did such a thing that affirmation goes to all of them but negatively it will not hold for if I say A. B. C. did not such a thing there I must add nec eorum aliquis So if an Action be brought against several Men and a Nolle prosequi is entred as to one and a Writ of Enquiry awarded against the rest which recites That the Plaintiff did by Bill implead naming those only against whom the Inquiry was awarded and leaves out him who got the Nolle prosequi this is a variance for it should have been brought against them all 'T is true where a Iudgment is recited 't is enough to mention those only against whom it is had but the Declaration must be against all so in a Writ of Error if one is dead he must be named and so the Iustices ought all to be named in this Case viz. that the three next Iustices did not hear and determine this Offence nec eorum aliquis Wells versus Wright In Communi Banco DEBT upon Bond conditioned Bond with an insensible Condition good that if the Obligée shall pay 20 l. in manner and form following that is to say 5 l. upon four several days therein named but if default shall be made in any of the Payments then the said Obligation shall be void or otherwise to stand in full force and vertue The Defendant pleads that tali die c. non solvit 5 l. c. and upon this the Plaintiff demurred Barrel Serjeant The first part of the Condition is good which is to pay the Mony and the other is surplusage void and insensible but if it be not void it may be good by transsposing thus viz. If he do pay then the Obligation shall be void if default shall be made in Payment then it shall be good and for Authority in the Point the Case of Vernon and Alsop was cited Sid. 105. 1 Sand. 66. 2 Sand. 79. Hill 14 Car. 2. Rot. 1786. in B. R. Where the Condition was that if the Obligée pay 2 s. per Week until the Sum of 7 l. 10 s. be paid viz. on every Saturday and if he fail in Payment at any one day that the Bond shall be void and upon the like Plea and Demurrer as here it was adjudged that the Obligation was single and the Condition repugnant The Court were all of Opinion that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff and the Chief Iustice said that he doubted whether the Case of 39 H. 6. 9 10. was Law Brittam versus Charnock Where the the Heir takes by the Will with a Charge he is a Purchaser and the Lands shall not be Assets DEBT upon Bond against the Defendant as Heir Vpon Riens per discent pleaded the Iury found a Special Verdict in which the Case was viz. The Father was seized of a Messuage and thrée Acres of Land in Fee and devised the same to his eldest Son the Defendant and his Heirs within four years after his decease provided the Son pay 20 l. to the Executrix towards the Payment of the Testators Debts and then he deviseth his other Lands to be sold for payment of Debts c. The Father dies the Son pays the 20 l. and if this Messuage c. was Assets in the Hands of the Defendant was the Question Cro. Car. 161. Cro. Eliz. 431. 833. Vaugh. 271. That it was not Assets it was said because the Heir shall not take by descent but by Purchase for the Word Paying is no Condition if it should the Heir is to enter for the breach and that is the Defendant himself and for that reason it shall be a Limitation Southcot and Stowel Antea 'T is true where there is no alteration of the Estate the Heir must take by descent but in this Case there is an alteration of the Estate from what is directed by the Law viz. the manner how he shall come by the Estate for no Fee passeth to him during the four years But this was denyed by Serjeant Pemberton for he said if a Devise be of Land to one and his Heirs within four years it is a present Devise and if such be made to the Heir 't is a descent in the mean time and those Words within four years are void so that the Question will be whether the Word Paying will make the Heir a Purchaser and he held it would not He agreed that it was usual to make that a Word of Limitation and not a Condition when the Devise is to the Heir and therefore in a Devise to the Heir at Law in Fée he shall take by descent Styles Rep. 148. But if this be neither a Condition or Limitation 't is a Charge upon the Land and such a Charge as the Heir cannot avoid in Equity North Chief Iustice and Atkins Where the Heir takes by a Will with a Charge as in this Case he doth not take by Descent but by Purchase and therfore this is no Assets Moor versus Pit SPecial Verdict in Ejectment The Case was this Surrender of a Copyhold to a Disseisor whether good to extinguish the Right viz. A Copyholder for Life the Remainder for Life he in