stand seised to the use of Adams untill he made default of paiment of the said sum and then they should stand seised to the use of the Queen untill she were satisfied and payed and then to the use of Adams and his Heirs And after Adams by deed enrolled sold the Land to a stranger in Fee and after the said stranger failed in paiment of the said yearly sum whereby the Queen seised the Land and so continued untill she was satisfied now the question was who should have the Lands Adams or the Bargainee Anderson Ifyou will take the case according to the words it is short tell me what Estate had Adams by this Limitation Puckering A Fee determinable Anderson How then can the Bargainee have it when the Estate is determined Puckering But the Fee was limited to Adams and his Heirs Possibility cannot be granted nor released Anderson This is but a possibility which cannot be granted over And if I were a Chancellor Adams should not have the Land but upon the words I tell you my mind alii Justie conticuerunt 3. DAniel Bettenham Plaintif against Debora Harlackendon Reversion upon a devise the case was this one Harlack was seised and deviseth it to the Plaintif for years the Remainder to the Defendant being his Wife for life and provided that the Lessee should pay the Wife xx l. a year for Rent at two Feasts and after the Plaintif failed of payment wherby the Wife entred for the Condition broken Anderson Wherefore may not a man make Reservation upon a Devise Peryam A man may reserve to himself or to his 〈◊〉 but this is to a stranger Anderson Every man which takes by a Devise is in in the per by the Devisor quod fuit concessum wherefore then shall not this be as a Reservationto the Devisor and as a grant of the Reversion to the Wife Gandy If it shall be a firm in gross Sum in gross yet I think that she ought to demand it which she hath not done Anderson and Rodes denyed that case clearly and that the contrary hath been adjudged Anderson If I Devise Lands to a man for years rendring Rent to me and mine Heirs Devise of a Reversion after a Term. And after I Devise the Reversion he shall have the Rent as incident to the Reversion Peryam This may be agreed but the cases are not like adjornatur 4. IN debt by Rostock Waging of Law the case was that the Plaintif and another made a Contract with the Defendant and the Plaintif alone brought the Action and Walmisley moved the Court if the Defendant may wage his Law for it is not the same Contract and he cited 20 Hen. 6. account before Auditors where it was but before one Auditor he may wage his Law 35 Hen. 6. is an express case in the point And so was the opinion of the Court Anderson absente 5. A Writ of Entry sur diss Voucher was brought by Sir Thomas Sherly against Grateway who vouched one Brown and he entred into the Warranty saving to himself a Rent issuing out of the same Land and this was allowed by the Court and the Voucher was in a Writ of entry for a Common Recovery to be had 6. EDward Smith brought his Action of the case against Winner Slander for words viz I was robbed of goods to the value of 40. l. they were stollen by Smith and his Houshold ipsum Edwardum ac quosdam Eliz. xuorem ac L. F. servientem ejus muendo and the issue was found for the Plaintif And the Defendant spake in arrest of Judgement because S. alone brought the Action But all the Court said that the Action is well brought for the slander is severall And Peryam that if 〈◊〉 a man say that three have robbed him Vno flatu and name them uno 〈◊〉 every of them may have a severall Action 7. IN an Assise by Thatcher where he was Redisseised Redisseisin the Redisseâ—â— was found in part and thereupon the Court was moved if Redisseisin will lie in as much as it is not but of part and the Writ is if he be Redissesitus de â—odem teneâ—â—nto then Redisseisin lieth but the Court held that Redisseisin lieth of part and that he shall recover damages as they are assessed by the Jury and not by the 〈◊〉 Then it was moved if Redisseisin lieth in Middlesex or 〈…〉 Fleetwood saith that the ancient Expositors have taken it that it doth not lie there because it is not coram lustic itinerant but all the Court held the contrary And Walmisley said that there be Writs in the Register accordingly 8. THe Earl of Kent brought debt upon an Obligation indorced with Condition Time convenient that if the Defendant do permit the Plaintif his Exâ—cutorâ—s and Assignes not onely to thresh the Corn in the Defendants Barn but allso to cary it away from time to time and at all times hereafter convenient with free Egress and Regress or else to pay 8 l. upon request that then c. and in truth the Defendant permited the Corn to be there two years in which time Mice and Rats had devoured much of it and then the Defendant threshed the Residue and the Earl brought his Action and there was a demurrer entred Walmisley the Bond is not forfeit for the Earl hath not taken it out in time convenient for he ought to take it in time convenient and time convenient is that which is not prejudiciall to any person which the Justices privily denyed and here it is a prejudice to the Defendant if the Plaintif will not carry away his Corn and thereupon he cited many cases that things shall be done in time convenient Arbitrement as in 21 Ed. 4. arbitrement ought to be made in time convenient Anderson Your cases are by act in Law but here you have bound your selves and the Condition is at time convenient and if he will come in the night or on the Sabbath day this is no convenient time but allthough that he come in a long time after yet it may be at time convenient and the words are not within time convenient and so was the opinion of the Court. And Windham said that if it had been within time convenient there would have been a difference 9. MIchael Hare and 3 others brought an Action of Trespass quare clausum fregit Trespass and Assigned the place in sixteen Acres of Land called Churchclose Contents of a new assignment and the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Jury found a speciall Verdict that Churchclose conteyneth fixty Acres whereof those sixteen were parcell and that diverse men were seised of divers other parcells of the said close and that Hare only was seised of the said sixteen Acres in which c. exposuit eas to the three other Plaintifs to be sown and that he should find half the seed and they three should find the other
still for in 31 Edw. 3. an advowson descended to three persons and the youngest is in ward to the King and he granted it to Queen Philip his Wife Advoson to 3 parceners and she granted it over to the Earl of Arundell who granted it to the eldest parcener the Church became voyd the King had the presentation for when the King was possessed of the wardship of the youngest he was intitled to present for all and when he granted the ward over this did not devest the title of the two eldest which was vested in him before and 37 Hen. 6. the Grant of the King upon a false suggestion is voyd False suggestion and in Littleton he shall have account against Executors and yet the Law is clear Account that an Action of Account will not lie against Executors so for all those Reasons Judgment shall be given for the Plaintif Several reserâ—ations Fenner to the contrary And first I agree that they are severall reservations and so is the case which hath been remembred in 8 Ed. 3. A Lease was made of eight Acres of land reserving eight shillings of rent viz. for every Acre 12 d. thiâ— is severall and to that which hath been sayd that the condition is a proviso I deny that for a proviso Provisio quid sit as me seemeth either is in the affirmative that a thing shall be done or in the negative that it shall not be done but here it is neither directly affirmative nor negative and therefore they have found it without commission Agreement but I confess that agreement extends to rent 22 Hen. 6. 14 Hen. 8. then the Jury which was of Mtdlesex have found the four usuall Feasts in London viz. St Johns c. and this as it seemeth they cannot doe because it is a thing in another County especially they being but an Inquest of Office Further they have found that 37 s was behind at one Feast and this is impossible for then the entire rent should amount to 7 l. And further the Lessors have purchased the reversion before the return of the Inquisition and Commission and then the Queen cannot be intitled because she hath not the Freehold for it hath been adjudged here that if a man fell his lands and afterwards makes livery thereof and after inrolls the sale this shall not have relation to the date of the deed because it takes effect by the livery which was before the inrolment And 8. Edw. 3. Feoffment puis atteynder A man attainted of Treason makes a feoffment of his land after he is restored yet he shall not have the land yet if he had not made the feoffment he should have been restored to the land with the mean profits Then if the King grants the reversion if he shall have the condition remaining and I think not for the King hath it by express words of the Statute as the Prior had it and if the Prior had granted parcell of the reversion De percell de Reversion the entire condition had been gone and the King shall be in the same case for Cessavit is given by the Statute of Westminster 2. cap. 21. eodem modo as in the Statute of Gloucester cap. 4. This doth not ly of an estate tayl no more than a Cessavit by the Statute of Glouc. 8 Ed. 2. And so I think Judgement shall be given for the Defendant De Term. Trinitat Anno xxviij Eliz. Reg. 1. ROdâ—s Justice Judgement shall be given for the Plaintif First I agree that they are severall rents and yet this question doth not goe to the overthrow of the Action in proof whereof both great reason and authority is copious For if the Lessor had entred into parcel this had not suspended the entire rent or if the reversion of parcel thereof were granted this shall carry no more than that which is granted so it was held by the Justices when it was granted to Cordall Parcel entred into And 2 Hâ—n 6. if I reserve an entire rent and the Lessee will pay but parcell c. 17 Ed. 3. fol. 52. by Sharde 11 Ed. 3. lib. Ass If I make a Lease of two Acres reserving for the one Acre x. s to me and to mine heirs and for the other Acre x. s generally And Dyer fol. 308. b. Lib. Ass pl. 23. If three Coparceners be and rent be reserved for equality of partition but one Scire fac shall be brought for it is brought but upon one record 1. Scire fac and Littleton pl. 316. but one action of debt for Tenants in common but severall Avowries so I hold that they be severall rents in this case and yet but one condition And for that let us see if by grant of parcel the entire condition be gone In the case of a common person it is all gone as it was adjudged here in Hill last where a man makes a Lease for years reserving xx l. for rent Sum in gross and rent reserved upon cond and allso a sum in gross of xxvl was to be paid to the same Lessor upon condition if the rent or sum in gross were behind then a re-entry to be made Afterwards the Lessor took an Estate back again of parcell of the term the sum in gross was not payd and it was adjudged that he shall not take advantage by the condition for when he took an estate back again the rent was suspended and then for the sum in gross he shall not re-enter because the condition was entire Cond entire but all though that the case of a common person be so yet the Princses case differs for she shall have her Prerogative and for the Preheminence which the Queen shall have I referre you to the argument of Iustice Weston in the case of the Lord Barkley Coment And that the Queen shall have her Prerogative in a condition I will remember the case of the Abesse of Sion 38 Hen. 6. 21 Hen. 7. the King may make a feoffment in fee upon condition that the Feoffee shall not alien Feoffment in fee upon cond reservation and 2 Hen. 7. 35 H. 6. he may reserve a rent to a stranger and 21 Eliz. the Queen grants her debt to another and he in reasonable time will not prosecute the Queen may take it again gain Grâ—â—t of a debt and may sue And allso Cranmers case where King Hen. 8. gave lands to the use of him for life and after to the use of his Executors for twenty yeares Rent charge after atteynder after he was attainted the Queen shall have this rent as a rent charge and yet she had the reversion before And in reason it seemeth the Queen may apportion her condition for if this condition by the grant to Cordall shall be avoyded four principles shall be overthrown for it is a principle That the King shall not be deceived in his grant 2.
had warranty to detain Garrâ—nty and they made partition the one could not vouch without the other Vâ—uâ—her and therefore she should pray in ayd and then both to vouch Paramount and so the Statute which giveth pâ—â—tition between Joyntenants saveth their warranty otherwise it were gone And so if two Joyntenants make a lease for years reserving rent upon condition Partition of a 〈◊〉 and after they make partition as they well may having the reversion and the freehold in them I hold the Law clearly that the one nor the other shall enter for the condition broken Then in the case of the King I hold the Law that it shall not be apportioned and yet I agree that the King shall have his Preâ—â—gatives for his present lands and goods Prerogative but he shall never have Prerogative when wrong shall be done to any man Rent charge appâ—rtioned If the King have a Rent chage and after Purchase parcell of the Land charged it shall be apportioned 21 Hen. 7. he may well condition that his Feoffee shall not alien for in those cases there is no prejudice to others but all those cases run upon other grounds And in Bartlets case the King is bound by the Statute of donis conditionalibus for it was a wrong that the Donee at the Common Law should alien the inheritance And this case as me seemeth is not within the concourse of Title Câ—â—â—â—urse of â—itle as my Brother Rodes hath argued neither is the King deceived as hath been said For when the King enters he shall be seised in pristino statu suo Dyer and this is a principall reason in Winters case 16 Eliz. a person makes a Lease reserving Rent upon condition that if it be behind lawfully demanded that then he shall re-enâ—er Deâ—and after the reversion cometh to the King he shall not maâ—â— demand I agree well thereto the reason is because the demand is a thing which goeth to the person of the King Then Sir the Statute is that the King shall have it as the Prior had it which is meant of the estate and not of the person of the King Then Sir it is impossible that the King should have the land as the Prior had it ut in pristino statu suo if he doe not utterly defeat the grant made to Cordall then here the condition is gone The Kings grant against the Law is voyd but not by any grant as it hath been moved but by the operation of the Law And 49 Ed. 3. the King grants that lands shall be devisable it is voyd because it is against the Law and it is against the Law that a condition should be apportioned ergo the King shall not apportion it But admit this question against me then let us see what title the Queen hath by this commission First the commission is to enquire if Cordall his Assigns and Farmers have performed all covenants and provisoes contained in the Indenture Proviso as for that I hold the law clear that they have auâ—hority by those words to enquire of the condicion but for other reasons I think the Commission void For the Commission is to enquire per bonos legales homines de Com. nostre Mâ—dd and it doth not appear here that the Jurors were of Middlesex and therefore the inquisition is not good Further Severall spespecial finding they have found a thing in another County and this they cannot find but I hold that the Jury in one County may find the generall issue in another County Allso I hold that when the party cannot plead that which is the great matter of the Action they may find it in an another County because the party cannot pleade it as in 9 Ed. 2. in debt against Executors c. And for these reasons I hold judgement is to be given for the Defendant 2. RIchard Heydon Misre-cital in Letters Patentt Gentleman demands against Benjamin Ibgrave Gentleman the third part of 40. Acres of Land with the appurtenances in three parts to be divided in Sarrot in the County of Hartford as his right and Inheritance and to hold of our Lady the Queen in Capite and Laies the Esples in the time of Ed. the sixth and that such is his Right he offers himself c. And the aforesaid Benjamin put himself upon the great Assise whether it be his right or no c. And now the Assise made by the four Knights appeared at the Bar Challenge Snagg Serjeant for the Plantif we challenge A. B. for that c. Nelson chief Prothonotary all the Court you cannot challenge because it was made by the four Knights and the Assise is now at the Bar. Snagg well Sir then we will give evidence Anderson for whom are you Snagg for the Plantif Anderson then you shall not give evidence first for the Tenant affirms that he hath more right Evidence and that ought to be first proved Rodes and all the Court So it was here rul'd five years ago in Nowells case and thereupon Puckering gave evidence for the Tenant that it was Parcell of the Mannor of Sarrot which Mannor the Tenant hath and this was granted by the Counsell of the Defendant And in conclusion upon the evidence given the Defendant would have had the Tenant to have Demurred upon his evidence and discharge the Inquest but the Tenant would not in effect this was the doubt K. H. 8. by his Letters Patents gave among other things all the Lands which were in the Tenure of one Whyton and demised to Johnson in the Parish of Watford And it was true that the Lands were in the Tenure of Whyton but not demised to Johnson Misre-citall and allso they were not in the Parish of Watford if this shall be helped by the Statute of Misrecitall and not Recitall is the question and the party did not aver that the intent of the King was to pass this Parcell now in question to the Patentee and the opinion of all the Court was that it is not within the Statute clearly but they said to the Jury that they may find all this matter if they will or otherwise say what they will And thereupon after they were agreed they came again to the Bar and then all the Court told them that yet they might give a speciall Verdict The Jury said we are all agreed that the Tenant hath more right to hold these Lands as he now holdeth then the Demandant as he demands them Anderson then are you discharged and as I think you have done well So they gave their Verdict according to the opinion of the Court for the Statute of Misrecitall and yet Peryam was well content to have them give a speciall Verdict and the Demandant was demanded who appeared and thereupon Judgement finall was given for ever against him 3. ONe Tirrell brought an Action of Debt against a Hundred in Essex Hâ—e and Cry for
Muskets and Callivers delivered into the Tower for which money Walton took a Debenter from the Queen in the name of a stranger and afterwards dyed and made Leveson Executor who procured the stranger to release and surrender the former Debenter to the Queen and took a new Debenter for the same hundred pound to himself this was adjudged no Assets nor devastavâ—t in the hands of the Executor Leveson upon a speciall Verdict but otherwise it should have been if the first Debenter had been taken in VValtons own name for then it had been a devastavit by the Executor 9. BAcon Plaintif against Selling in an Ejectione firme Assets de judgement the originall bare teste 13 Aprilis An. 39. and the Plaintif declared upon a Lease made to him 22 Apr. An. 39. Trin. 39 Eliz. rot 1345. so that it appeared to the Court that the Plaintif brought his Action before he had an interest in the Land and by all the Court a Rule was given for stay of Judgement after a Verdict but afterwards the Plaintif came and shewed that after Improlance he filed a new originall 10. HEnry Earl of Lincoln brought a Scandalum magnatum against one Michelborn for these words Scandalum magnatum viz. The Earl of Lincolns men by his commandement did take the Goodt of one Hoskins by a forged Warrant c. And the Earl recovered great damages by Verdict and now it was spoken in arrest of Judgement that the words were not sufficient to maintain the Action because it was not averred that the Earl knew the Warrant to be forged and of the same mind was the Court at this time 11. WIlloughby brought an Action of Debt against Milward Debt and declared that the Defendant bought Timber of him for ten pound solvend modo forma sequenti viz. five pound ad festum Pasch proxime sequentem and saith nothing when the other five pound should be payed and the Plaintif recovered the whole ten pound by Verdict and now it was spoken in arrest of Judgement for the cause aforesaid but yet by all the Court it was good enough for the Law intendeth the other part of the money to be due presently if no certain day of payment bee alleged 12. KItchin brought an Action of Debt against Dixson Debt Executor of Craven Mich. 36 37 El. rot 1028. or 1021. the Defendant pleaded ne unques Executor and the Jury found a speciall Verdict viz. That Craven in his life time made a Deed of Gift of all his Goods to Dixson and they found likewise that this Deed was to defraud Creditors against the form of the Statute and that the Defendant by colour of this Deed did take the Goods after the death of Craven and if this Deed vvas good then they found for the Defendant if not then they found the Defendant was Executor of his own wrong and so for the Plaintif and by all the Court Judgement was given for the Plaintif 13. IT was sayd by Drew arguendo That if the Grantee of a Rent charge release parcell of the Rent to the Grantor or his heires Rent charge the residue may be apportioned and the Land shall remain chargeable still for that residue but if he release in one Acre parcell of the Land charged then all the Rent is gone 14. IT was said by Glanvile in the argument of the case between Cromwell and Andrews Provisâ— that a Proviso in a conveiance to be performed on the part of the Lessee implies a re-entry allthough there be no speciall words of re-entry but otherwise it is when it ariseth on the part of the Lessor and Vouched bendlowes case where there was a Covenant going between the Habendum and Proviso But where the Proviso standeth substantively as where I grant a Rent charge Proviso that he shall not charge my person Condition this is no Condition but a Qualification Allso where a Feoffment is made upon Condition to grant me a Rent Charge payable at Easter and Christmas if the grant be not made before the first Feast which shall next happen the Condition is broken and he put a difference where the Condition must be performed by none but himself and where it may as well be performed by his Executors as himself And Drew said then that if there be a Feoffment upon Condition to Re-enfeoff the Feoffer there ought the Feoffor to make a request otherwise if it be to enfeoff another 15. SMith against Bonsall Common in effect the case was such In an Action of Trespass the Defendant pleaded his Freehold Hil. 39. Eliz. rot 1753. and the Plaintif replyed that A. was seised of a Yard-land to which he had Common of Pasture for all maner of Beasts Levant and Couchant upon the same Yard-land and of the Moity thereof did enfeoff the Plaintif the question was whether this Common may be apportioned or else it be extinct alltogether In the argument whereof Drew said that Common sans number cannot be granted over because if it should be granted to a rich man he may surcharge the Common then and leave none for the rest of the Commoners so of estovers uncertain for so the Grantee may burn all the Wood quod Walmisley concessit and he vouched 17 Eliz. in Dyer that a Commoner may purchase parcell of the Land out of which his Common is issuing Purchase after that it be improved by the Lord and not extinguish his Common thereby And he said that if parcell of the Common be inclosed Inclosure a Commoner ought to make but one gap to put in Cattell but Anderson said that he may make as many gapes as he will And it was said by Anderson and Beamont Appendant may be apportioned that Common appendant cannot be for all manner of Cattell but onely for such â—attell as compass the Land and that such Common may be apportioned into twenty parts Append. quid as any Common certain may be Walmisley Owen If my Land to which I claim Common belonging can yield me stover to find a hundred Cattell in Winter then shall I have Common in Summer for a hundred Cattell in the Land out of which I claim Common and so for more or fewer proporitionably which they did expound to be the meaning of pertinen Moity of a Mannor levan and cuban Walmisley If I grant away the moity of my Mannor we shall both keep Courts so if I be disseised of a Moity or that the Moity be in Execution by elegit and we shall both have Common and in apportionment of Common respect ought allwaies to be had to the quality of the Land unto wâ—ich it is alloted Copiholder And a Copyholder may prescribe for Common in the Lords Land within the same Mannor by usitatum fuit but if he claim any other Common he must lay the prescription in the Lord. De Term. Hill An Reg. Eliz. xliii 1. WAlter Ascough prisoner
came to the Bar and demanded Judgement for the Plantif The case and rehersed the case in this sort The Prior of St Johns of Jerusalem in England by deed Indented A. 29 H. 8. Devised a Mesuage called the high House 13 Cotages one Stable and 14 Gardens for 59 yeares to one Cordaâ—l rendring 5. l. 6. s 11. d. viz. For the 13 Cotages iij. l. And for the high house xiiij s and for the Stable xx s and for c. And if it happen the Rent to be behind by three months then the Prior to reenter after by an act of Parliament An. 31. Hen. 8. the Priory was given to the King and hee Vested in actuall Possession thereof with all Conditions and Covenants c. as the Lessor had Afterwards the King 29. Sept. An. 36. by Letters Patents gave the Stâ—ble to the same Cordall and one H. Audley in Fee and the Reversion of the other Parcells descended to the Queen which now is whereupon 8 die Maii An. 23. Issued a Commission out of the Exchequer to enquire si praedict Cordall assign sui perimplevissent performassent omnes conventiones promissiones fact reservat super praedict Indent dimissionis praemissis fact c. And the Commission was retourn'd in Michaelmas Term after and it was found that the four usuall Terms in London are the Feasts of St. Michael the Birth of our Lord the Annunciation and the Birth of St. John Baptist for the Rent was to be paid ad quatuor terminos Anni infra Civitatem London usuales Vsuales terminos And further by the same Iury being a Iury of Middlesex it was found that 37. s 5. d. ob Part and Parcell of the said Rent were behind not paid by three Months next after Michaelmas last past before the taking of the said Inquisition Cordall made Burnell his Executor and died Burnell granted all the Term to Brech the Defendant Afterwards the Queen 5 Augusts An. 23. which was before the return of the Inquisition and before any Entry or Seisure made by her or by any other to her use granted the high House to Sir John Fortescue and Thekston in Fee and they entred upon Berch and made the Lease to the Plantif for three yeares c. And first it is to be considered if they be severall Rents in this case or no Severall Rents because he saith viz. For the high house 14. s c. For that I take the Law to be very strong Coâ—cessum per Fenner Rodes that they be severall Rents for allthough that he saith first requiring 5. l. 6. s xj d. which is an entire summe yet when he saith afterwards for the high House so much and for the Stable so much c. This maketh a severance and for that I will remember the case in Dyer fo 308 Feoffment per deux so I hold the Law if a Feoffment be made by two rendring xx l. a year viz. x. l. to the one and x. l. to the other these are severall Reservations but because I hold the Law clear in this point I will speak no more to it Another matter is when the Commission issueth to enquire of all Covenants and Promises conteined in the Indenture to be performed by Cordall Conc. per Rodes Lease sur condicion en un proviso if the finding by the Jury be conteined within these words Covenants and Promises c. And I think they be for if a man make a Lease to one for years and if it happen the said Rent to be behind that then it shall be lawfull to the Lessor to reenter as I think this is a Proviso for the Rent so the case in 22 Hen. 6. A Lease was made for years Rent an agreement rendring Rent the Lessee is bound to perform all covenants and agreements if he do not pay the rent the obligation is forfeit Coâ—cess per Fenner for the payment of the rent is an agreement So in this case the proviso doth extend to the payment of the rent And as for the exception which was taken viz. That the Jury find that 37 s of the rent was behind and doe not say expresly for the house which is now in question I hold that a vain exception for when they have found that more was behind than that which was now in question allthough that it be in generality yet it is good for the particularity and for that matter I could remember many cases but I will not doubt of a matter as I think without doubt But for the condition which is the great matter of the case First the condition is vested in the King by the express words of the Statute and Condition as I think grant of parcell shall not extinguish the whole condition In the case of a common person the condition shall be utterly gone and so are our Books otherwise peradventure I would doubt of that allso but because the Book is so in Dyer 14 Eliz. fol. 309. I will speak no more of it but the case of the King differs from a common person Rent charge to the King rent seck for as he is the Head and supreme Governour of the Commonwealth so he is the superior in Prerogatives and Preheminences 13 Ed. 3. 14 Ed. 3. A rent charge granted to the King he shall distrein for it in all the lands of the Grantor and 8 Hen. 5. if a rent seck cometh to the King he shall distrein for it and yet it is called seck because no distress is incident thereto And there the principall case was of a Fieri facias No demand by the King 2 Hen. 7. the King shall not demand his rent But it hath been sayd that because conditions go to the destruction and determination of estates Cond strictly taken that therefore they shall be tâ—ken strictly to which I agree but not in the case of the King as in Bro. Apportionment 23. 168. and so are the presidents in the Exchequer if a man be bound in a Statute Merchant and after the Conisor enfeoffes the King of parcel of the land Conisor enfeoffes le Roy. and enfeoffes a stranger of another parcell and afterwards the Statute is forfeit to the King by atttainder the King shall have execution against the other feoffee And in many other cases the King is privileged especially in things entire For if there be two Coparceners and one be in ward to the King Entire presentation he shall have the entire presentation of all And in this case I think that before the condition shall be destroyed that the Patent made to Cordall shall be voyd for it is not ex certa scientia merâ— motâ— but it is generall and it was not the intent of the King to take away the intire condition And allthough the King grants the reversion yet the condition which was once vested in the King as I think remains in him
and the one with force and the other not as if I command one to make a Disseisin and he makes a disseisin with force and allso if one enter with force to my use and after I agree he is a Disseisor with force and I am not so and those cases will answer the Books of Assises for in those cases they were present Present but in these not and so I hold that he which is present when force is made is a Disseisor with force Then it was moved if the Statute of 8 Hen. 6. doth extend to fresh forces VVyndam It doth extend to them by express words and Fleetwood cited a case in 44 Edw. 3. 32. that an Attaint lieth of fresh force Then for the other matter of trebling of damages increased the Court made no doubt but that they shall be trebled and they said that so it was lately adjudged here in a case of Staffordshire 19. PUckering shewed how an Attaint was brought upon a false Oath made in a Replevin Challenge where the Defendant made Conusance as Bayley to one Hussey and in the Attaint surmise was made that the Sherif was Cosen to Hussey and thereupon prayed Process to the Coroners and Puckering moved that no Process should issue to the Coroners for Hussey was not party to the Attaint and then this is but matter of favour and he cited 3 Hen. 7. And all the Court accorded with him that it is but matter of favour onely and no surmise to have a Writ to the Coroners but VValmisley would have put a difference between Lessee for years and a Bayley Lessee pur ans for as he pretended in the case of a Bayley it shall be a principall challenge but not in the other case but all the Court was against him and that it is no principall challenge in the one case nor in the other The last day of the Term it was moved again and the Court was of the same mind as before 20. IN a Quare impedit Adverson it was said by Anderson and agreed by all the Court that if a man make a Feoffment in Fee of a Mannor without deed and without saying with the appurtenances yet the Advowson shall pass and cited 15 Hen. 7. where it is adjudged that it is parcell of the Mannor and lieth in Tenure 21. IN an Action of debt Anderson cited a case which was before him at the Assises in Somersetshire Pleading an Action of Battery was brought in London and a Justification made in Somersetshire Absque hoc that he was guilty in London and the Plaintif replyed de injuria sua propriae absque tali causa and Anderson said that a man shall never plead de son tort demeasne where the matter ariseth in a Forein Country 22. AN ejectione firme was brought by Clayton against Lawson Bar. the Defendant pleaded in Bar a Recovery had in the Kings Bench against the Lessor of the Plaintif And Fenner moved that it should be no Bar no more than in Trespass Anderson I think it to be a good Bar. For this Action is as strong to bind the possession as a Writ of right is to bind the right VVyndam I think it is no Bar no more than in Trespass Anderson This is more than an Action of Trespass for in this he shall recover his Term. Rodes This case was moved the last Term and the opinion of the Court then was that it was a good Bar. Fenner True it is if it were between the parties themselves but here the Plaintif is but Lessee to him which was Barred Anderson Allthough that it be so yet he claymeth by the Lease of him which was Barred and during the Lease of the other his Lessor could have no right and what shall he have then Fenner That which is between the parties cannot be an Estoppell to the Plaintif here which is but a stranger Estoppell Anderson I know that he shall not plead it by way of Estoppell but he shall conclude Iudgement si Actio Peryam If in an Assise a Recovery in another Assise be pleaded in Bar Assise he shall not conclude by way of Estoppell but Iudgement si Actio and there he is driven to a higher Action and so here and the Law shall never have end if after a man is Barred in his Action he may bring the same Action again therefore I think it a good Bar and that he is driven to a higher Action VVyndam Lessee for years can have no higher Action Anderson Peryam If one which hath a Lease for years and no more Tenant for years disseisor of tenant in Fee simple enter upon him which hath a good title he is a disseisor of all the Feesimple Wyndam If two claim by Lease from one man and one bringeth an Ejectione Firme and is Barred what Action shall he have then Anderson None for he hath no Right VVyndam That is hard Anderson What Action shall he have which is Barred in Formdone surely none Fenner This is another case Anderson Aliquantulum incensus truly it is a plain case that he shall be Bared whereunto Peryam and Rodes agreed clearly 23. IN a praecipe quod reddat View the Tenant demanded the view and an habere facias visum issued and the Tenant came not to the Sherif to take the view it was said by the whole Court that the Sherif may retâ—urn that none came to take the view and he shall never have the view again Anderson The habere fac visum is the suit of the Tenant and then when he doth not come to take the view this is a default and then good reason to exclude him from the view Gawdy Such a retourn was never seen before and therefore it is to be noted the case was between Hoâ— and Hoo for Lands in Norfolk 24. IOhn VViseman of the Inner Temple Apportionment brought an Action of debt against Thomas VVallenger the case was this A man seised of three acres of Land in Fee makes a lease reserving xxx s of Rent and after devised the Reversion of two acres to a stranger and the third acre descended to the Heir and he brought an Action of debt for xij d. being behind and Puckering moved if they were agreed of their judgement in the case Rent extinct by the grant of part of the Reversion Anderson If a man let two Acres of Land rendring Rent and grant the Reversion of one of them all the Rent is gone as it is in Dyer and at the Common Law before the Statute of W. 3. there was no apportionment and the Statute speaketh of no such apportionment as this is Rodes Surely no Book in all the Law will warrant this apportionment Fenner Yes Sir 5 Ed. 3. If a man have a Rent of xx s and grants parcell thereof and the Tenant Attourns this is good Rodes This is another case But shew us the case which was in the Kings Bench
he did not plead a sufficient Plea this shall be trued by the Record and how can that be when it is not entred of Record But the Court sayd further that it was hard that he should have the forfeiture and sayd that there was great negligence and oversight in the matter Peryam You may plead all this matter specially and how by his assent the Plea was waved and peradventure his assent if any thing will help you 12. PArtition was brought between Coparceners Estrepment and hanging the Writ the Tenant made Wast and Gawdy moved the Court for a Writ of Estrepment Peryam Where you are to disprove the interest of the Tenant Estrepment will lye but here you confess an equall interest in him how then can you have it Whereunto VVindham agreed and after it was shewen how they were Tenants in common whereby his motion was at an end 13. NOte that in the Starchamber this Perjury Term it was over-â—uled by the Lords that if in an Action at the Common Law a man wage his Law allthough that he make a false Oath yet he shall not therefore be impeached by Bill in the Starchamber and the reason was because it is as strong as a Tryall And the Lord Chancellor demanded of the Judges if he were discharged of the debt by waging of his Law and they answered yea But 〈…〉 said that it was the folly of the Plaintif because that he may 〈◊〉 his Action into an Action of the case upon an Assumpsit whâ—â— in 〈◊〉 Defendant cannot wage his Law 14. AT another day in the Starchamber between Hurlestom and Glaseour Conspiracy it was over-ruled by the Lords that if a Jury at the Common Law give their verdict Perjury allthough that they make a false Oath yet they shall not therefore be impeached by Bill in the Star-chamber But if any collaterall corruption be alleged in them as that they took Money or Bribes a Bill shall lye thereof well enough And allso in the same case it was ruled that where Glaseour had brought a Bill of Conspirary against Harlestone and others and divers of the Jury for that they had indicted him of Perjury that before the Indictment be traversed or otherwise avoyded by Error he cannot have a Bill of Conspiracy because this shall quash the tryal at the Common Law and shall prevent it And allso before a man be acquitted a Writ of Conspiracy doth not lye for him by the Law De Term. Trinitat Anno xxix Eliz. Reg. 1. THe Quare impedit brought by Specot and his Wife was moved again by Gawdy Quare imp and it seemed to him that because the Bishop did not shew in what thing he was a Schismatick the Plea was therefore uncertain and so insufficient and he cited 33 Edw. 3. 2. 9 Eliz. Dyer 254 b. Anderson If he had certainly shewed in what thing he was Schismaticus inveteratus ut ea occasione inidoneus sit inhabilis c. This had been a good Plea without doubt but as it is here sure it is no Plea for it is even as if he had sayd that he was criminosus whereunto all the other Judges agreed Anderson All that I doubt is whether this be helped by the Statute of Demurrers 27 Eliz. For otherwise the Plea is insufficient without doubt Gawdy The Statute helpeth onely matters of form and this is the substance of his Plea that he is a Schismatick Anderson Allthough it be the substance of his Plea yet it is but form to plead it certainly And if one demur generally to a double Plea Double plea. it is not good at this day and so here And so was the opinion of Peryam and the other Justices by their silence seemed to agree thereunto yet they gave day to the Serjeants to argue this matter And Peryam sayd that he would help the Plaintif in the best sort that the Law would suffer him for the Bishops are grown so presumptuous at this day that they will make question of all the patronages in the Realm and if it be against their pleasure none shall have his Presentation And allso now Anderson was agreed that the Action was well brought in the name of the Husband and Wife allthough he had once moved to the contrary Allso in this case it was moved Demurrer is a confession but of things sufficiently alleged that by the Demurrer it shall be confessed that the Plaintif Clerk was a Schismatick Whereunto Anderson said that if a thing be sufficiently alleged it is confessed by the Demurrer but otherwise not 2. A Replevin was brought by Brode against Hendy Replevin of his own wrong the Defendant made Conusance as Baylif to the Queen for Rent behind wherunto the Plaintif sayd De son tort demeasne sans tiel cause and the Court was moved whether this be a good Plea and by the opinion of three Judges it is no Plea in a Replevin Anderson absente but in Trespass it is good notwithstanding that it was objected at the Bar that there is a diversity in our books taken that when the Action is brought against the Baylif there it shall be a good Plea but not against the Master But the Court over-ruled it for in a Replevin he ought to make a title 3. THe Queen brought a Quare impedit against the Bishop and Themas Leigh Incumbent Discontinuance and they both pleaded severally speciall Pleaâ— and so it depended whereupon Fenner shewed the Court that the Queen did not prosecute the Suit but let it depend still and therefore he prayed that she might be called Nonsuit But all the Court The Queen cannot be Nonsuit and the Pregnotaries said that the Queen cannot be Nonsuit Fenner Shall we then which are Defendants always be delayd Peryam After a year passed you may have it discontinued but she shall not be Nonsuit And in the case of a common person the Plaintif may discontinue it within a year but the Defendant cannot discontinue it untill after a year 4. WAlmisley moved for Judgement in the case of Kimpton Common extinct by purchase Rodes We have given Judgement allready Walmisley No Sir I have not heard of it Peryam What is the case Rodes The case is this a man was seised of a 140 acres of land and had Common appurtenant to them in 46 acres of land and the 46 acres of land were in the occupation of severall men viz. two in the occupation of A. and the rest in the occupation of B. and he which had Common purchased the sayd two acres now if this entire Common be extinct or no so that they which were Tenants of the residue of the 46. acres shall take advantage thereby was the question And all the Justices sayd that they were agreed of this case long agoe For allthough that the acres be severall and in severall occupations yet the Common concerning that is intire and so by purchase of parcell it is extinct
and did not say praedict Edward Seymour And all the Justices agreed that this was amendable And so the first judgement was affirmed 18. ANother Writ of Error was there brought upon a judgement which Rawlyns had to recover lands in the Kings bench Rent suspenpended and the Case was such A man makes a lease of ten acres for ten yeares rendring rent upon a Condition the Lessee grants 5. acres thereof to a stranger for five years and after grants the residue of the years in the five acres to the Lessor And after the Lessee broke the Condition whereby the Lessor re-entred and if he may do so or if the Condition was suspended or no was the question because he accepted a future interest in parcell Future interest Tenant wayves for it was adjudged in the Kings bench that the Condition was not suspended and now this was assigned for error And all the Justices except Anderson and Peryam held that it is not suspended before he had entred by force of his lease Anderson If I make a lease as here upon Condition and waive the possession this may be suspended before his entrie Cook This is another case Peryam But the reason thereof commeth well to this case And afterwards because the said two Justices dis-assented from the rest it was adjourned over 19. ANother Writ of Error was there brought upon a judgment given in the Kings bench Trover And Cook the famous Utter-Barrester of the Inner-tem moved this question to the Justices If a man lose his goods which come to the hands of another he converteth them to his own use and after the owner dye Day and place of conversion whether his Executors shall have an action of the Case for this Trover and whether he ought to shew the place and the day of the Conversion or no And the Counsellours at the bar said that he ought to shew both for so it was adjudged where an Alderman of London brought an action upon the Case against oue Staynsham upon Trover of an Obligation and it was found that he had broken the seales c. and because he did not shew the time and place of the Conversion he could never get Judgement And now the Justices were of the same opinion but yet Anderson seemed to doubt Peryam Executors at the Common Law shall not have Trespass for a Trespass done in the life of their Testator and the doubt is if they shall have an Action upon the Case Manwood if a man hath another in Execution for debt and the Gaoler suffer him to escape and after the Recoverer dyes shall his Executors have an action against the Gaoler Cook No. Peryam So it seemeth But Anderson Manwood and VVindam clearly to the contrary and that they shall have debt upon this Escape Cook But not an Action upon the Case at the Common Law and here by his own shewing he might have Trespass vi armis and therefore not this action De Term. Trinitat An. Reg. Eliz. xxx 1. RAlph Heidon brought a Writ of Right against Smethwick and his Wife Droit of two parts of forty Acres of Land in Surret and they pleaded that one Ibgrave was seised and devised it to his Wife now one of the Tenants for term of her life the remainder to Benjamin Ibgrave in fee Praying ayd in an Assise which was his heir and dyed and they prayed in ayd of B. I. who came and joyned to them and thereupon they came and pleaded to the grand Assise and the first day of this term the Assise appeared and sixteen were sworn whereof four were Knights and the residue were Squires and Gentlemen and the title was all one as before in T. 28 Eliz. for this same Ibgrave was Tenant in that other Action for the third part And the opinion of all the Court clearly that it is not ayded by the Statute for there is not any certainty in the Grant Name certain but if he had given it a certain name as green Acre then allthough he had mistaken the Parish yet it had been good enough Peryam The Assise may goe their way and they did so and after they being agreed came again to the Bar and the Demandant was called and did not appear whereby the Tenant prayed the Court to record the Nonsuit and it was done Curia All is one as if he had appeared Non-suits for this Non-suit is peremptory for ever the issue being joyned upon the meer droit aliter if the issue had been joyned upon any collaterall poynt 2. IN Trespass by Blunt and Lister against Delabere they were at Issue ' and now the Inquest appeared ready to pass Challenge VValmisley This Inquest you ought not to take for it is favourably made by the Sherif which is within the distress of one of the Plaintifs and shewed how the Sherif held certain lands of a Mannor now in question whereof Lister hath possession and allso hath certain lands for term of years of him and the Plaintifs moved that he ought to take one cause onely 1 Cause Curia He may allege both for the challenge is that he is within the distress and the allegations are but evidence to prove it and then the Plaintif sayd not within his distress whereupon the Court appointed Tryers and the Defendant sayd that all the Jury are favourable Tryors refused and prayed Tryers de circumstantibus Gawdy That cannot be but onely in an Assise and cited 9 Edw. 4. Curia We cannot appoint other Tryers in this case but only of the Jurors wherefore let the fourth and seventh be Tryers but you may refuse them and take others if you will and thereupon the Defendant refused the fourth whereby the third was appointed and they found the Array favourably made and therefore it was quashed 3. A Recovery was had by Arthur Mills against Sir Owen Hopton of divers lands twelve years passed Amendment and by the negligence of the Attorney Warranty of Attorney no Warrant of Attorney was entred for him and now suit was made to the Justices that it might be entered and they all consented thereunto and so it was entered incontinently but first the party made a corporall Oath that he had retained an Attorney and that this was the negligence of his Attorney 4. IN the Exchequer chamber Cook shewed that a Writ of Error was brought between Bedell and Moor Arbitrement and sayd that there was an Error in the Record Error not assigned which was not assigned and prayed that it might be examined allthough that it was not assigned because that it appeared in the Record which was agreed to by the Court. And then he shewed the case that two had submitted themselves for all quarrels ultimo die Novembris An. 24. to stand to the Arbitrement of two others and they Arbitrated that the Plaintif in this Writ of Error should release to the now Defendant all Actions which he might
have against him untill the 24 of June then next following which was half a year after and because he had not performed this an action upon an Assumpsit was brought and Judgement given for the Plaintif and all the Justices agreed that this was Error because that this thing arbitrated was out of the submission and so voyd for they have no authority to arbitrate that which is not submitted unto them Submission and the submission is onely of things passed and not to come but because that the Defendant had not heard of this Error before therefore they gave him day Afterwards the case was moved again and Anderson sayd that damages recovered doe not lye in arbitrement Damages recovered Peryam Amongst other things they will lye well enough quod Anderson non negavit But they all sayd that they may well assume upon consideration and an Action will be maintainable for it 5. THomas Mounson Esquire Term extinguished sonne and heir apparent to Sir Iohn Mounson Knight brought an Action of Trespass against VVest who pleaded not guilty and upon Evidence it appeared that Sir Iohn Mounson had an estate for years the Remainder in tayl to the Plaintif with divers Remainders over and the Lessee made a Feoffment to divers and a Letter of Attorney to others with commission to enter into the lands and to seal the Feoffment and deliver it in his name to the use of the sayd Thomas and his heirs and another by commandement or Letter of Attorney of the sayd Thomas entred in his name And the Court held this a good Feoffment notwithstanding that both the Lessee and the Attorney were disseisors Disseisors for it is good between the Feoffor and the Feoffee for they sayd that by the Feoffment to the use of him in the remainder and his heirs if he in remainder enter he is remitted and the estate for years is gone implicatively Freehold joyned to the term Morgage for Peryam sayd that in all cases where the Freehold cometh to the term there the term is extinguished And therefore if a man morgage his reversion to the Lessee for years and after perform the condition yet the Lease for years is utterly extinguished And the Evidence on both parts was very long and the chief matter was whether a Deed were forged by Rob. Mounson lately one of the Justices of the Common-pleas by which Devise lands were conveighed to him by William Mounson his Father whose heir at the Common Law Sir John Mounson is viz. the Sonne of Roberts eldest brother and the Deed was shewed by VVest and it was perished with Mice all the Seal and part of every side but yet by the last Will of the sayd VVilliam Mounson and by divers other proofs it was evident that the Deed was good and but little in effect was shewed to prove the Deed forged Misdemenour yet the Jury went together and tarryed there all night and in the mean time some of them had victualls with them for one had Cheese and another had Pruens another had Pippins and another had an Orange but he which had the Orange swore that he brought it onely for the smell and therefore he was excused and he which had Pruens had given half a Pruen to one of his companions which eat it and he which had Cheese had eat thereof therefore all those which had victuals Fine and imprisonment were fined at 40 s and they which had eaten at 5 l. every of them and all committed to the Fleet but because they were agreed therefore the Verdict was taken and the Verdict was given for the Plaintif viz. that the Deed was forged by Justice Mounson and the Verdict taken de bene esse and all this matter commanded to be entred for the Justices doubted whether it were a good Verdict This matter was moved divers Terms afterwards and at the last adjudged a good Verdict 6. IN an Ejectione firme by Ashby against Laver for Lands in Westminster Countermand it was sayd by all the Justices to the Jury that if a man hath a Lease and disposeth of it by his will and after surrenders it and takes a new Lease and after dyeth that the Devisee shall not have this last Lease because this was a plain countermand of his Will 7. IN Trespass by Johnson against Astley it was said by the Justices to the Jury that if there were a Chauntery in reputation allthough it be none in right as if it be gone by disseisin yet the Queen shall have the Lands 8. AT Serjeants-Inne in Fleet-street Rent suspended the Justices of the Common Pleas and Barons of the Exchequer were assembled for divers Errors in the Kings-bench and the case of Rawlins was moved again and Anderson and Peryam retained their former opinions and Peryam sayd that he would differ from all the cases of collaterall conditions Feoffment upon condition which may be put for he sayd that if a man make a Feoffment in fee of 20 Acres of land upon condition that if he pay to the Feoffee xx l. at Easter that then it shall be lawfull for him to re-enter allthough that he be re-enfeoffed of 10 Acres yet he ought to perform the condition because it is collaterall But Cook the famous Utter-barrister sayd Truly it hath been adjudged to the contrary and I was privy to it for when he took as high an estate again as he had before by that the condition is confounded and the case of the Corody in 20 Ed. 4. will prove this case Rodes I see no diversity Peryam It is collaterall there but so it is not here but afterwards those two Judges changed their opinions and so the first Judgement was affirmed 9. BRown recovered against Garbrey in an Assumpsit Consideration and thereupon Garbrey brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error that there was no Consideration for the Declaration was that whereas there was a communication between Brown and a woman for Mariage between them that the Father of Brown had promised to the Wife that if she would marry his Son he would make a Feoffment of his land to the use of himself for life and after to the use of them two in tayl the remainder c. and that Garbrey assured to the Wife in consideratione praemissorum that if the Father did not doe so then he would give the Wife a hundred pound ac licet the Father did not give to them in tayl secund agreament praedict yet Garbrey refused c. And Cook moved that this should be no Consideration for the communication of Mariage was not by him but between strangers to him but if the Father had assumed in consideration of Mariage then that should have been good against the Father but against Garbrey it is â—o otherwise than as if one promise to you to Enteoff you and I say that if he doe not so then I will give you a hundred pound this is
But if a man be indebted to me and after I am Outlawed and then the King releaseth this debt Release of the King of the debt of one outlawed and then I bring a Writ of Error and reverse this Outlary I shall be restored to my action again And here he hath shewen to us a peece of cunning for when he pleads the Outlary in us he hath pleaded the Record specially for otherwise we would have sayd Speciall pleading nul tiel record and then it being reversed it should have been certified for us as there is a case in Dyer Then here allthough that be in by a new presentation yet all the words of our Writ are true in this Scire facias but I grant that Executors shall have a Qnare impedit for a disturbance done to their Testator Executors shal have a Quare impedit Anderson The case in Dyer is thus reported That I when I was the Queens Serjeant and Gerrard now Master of the Rolls then being Attorney of the Queen were of opinion that the Clerk of another shall not be removed and concerning that matter I held then as I doe still that in some cases the Clerk shall not be removed and in some cases he shall for if he come in under the title of the Plaintif Title peramont and since the same then he shall be removed but if he come in by title Paramont he shall not be removed and here for that this is done hanging the Writ it seemeth that he shall be removed For if a man bring a Praecipe and hanging the Writ the Tenant alien yet the recovery is good against him Tenant in a Praecipe aliens and shall allso bind every one under him Peryam That point is clear enough but the question is if by the Outlary the Plaintif hath forfeited his presentation to the Queen For if it be so then this is a new title for the Queen Anderson What reason is there in that when it was an apparent practise of the Defendant to resign for otherwise she could not have presented Plenarty the Church being full before Peryam The practise is not good without doubt but what is the Law Anderson The Law is that the Defendant by his resignation shall never extort the Plaintif from his execution Peryam The point is if by the Outlary the Queen have a new title by reason of the Plaintif and I doubt much thereof if by the judgement she shall have the presentation Anderson I am resolved that there is not any colour in the case but what say you Rodes Truly I hold that the Plaintif shall remove the Clerk Windham And in my opinion it is clear enough that by the reversall of the Outlary the Plaintif shall have his presentation Reversal Anderson Then let Judgement be entred for the Plaintif Peryam In the name of God if you be agreed against me 10. A Writ of Partition was brought by Henry Tannworth Partition and Christian Tannworth against John Tannworth their elder brother for lands in Hawlesteed alias Elsted in Leicester-shire because that Halsteed is parcel of the Soak of Rothelay wherein there is such a custom Members of a Mannâ—r that the lands shall equally descend to all the heirs males and in giving of evidence Walmisley sayd that the members of a Mannor are other Towns in which the Mannor extends and Puckering sayd Soak quid that at this day the Queen may make a Soak For it is nothing else but a Precinct to which divers Mannors come to doe suit and as a great Leet containing divers other Courts and the Evidence was strong for the Tenant for he shewed by plain proof that this was never parcell of the Soak allthough that it was within the ancient Demeasne of Rothelay Domesday as it was proved by the Book of Domesday which was there shewen and a Clerk of the Exchequer read it for other Clerks could not and he sayd and so sayd the Serjeants and the Tenant delivered to Anderson and Peryam an ancient Book of the time of Ed. 2. for their remembrance wherein in 4 Ed. 2. in a nuper obiit it is sayd that if the Lands which have been departible and departed come into the Lords hands by Escheat they shall not be departible in his hands Partible lands Escheat vel in manibus alicujus alius perquisitoris non possunt partiri And he sayd that such was the opinion of Sir Thomas Bromley the last Lord Chancellor upon hearing of the matter there whereby when the Jury came to give their Verdict the Plaintif was Non-suit 11. SHuttelworth shewed how Robert Hughson brought an Action of Debt against B. Office of the Court. as Administrator of F. and declared upon a simple contract made by the Intestate Pasch 30 El. rot 421. and the Defendant pleaded plene administravit and it was found by Verdict against him And now in arrest of Judgement the Defendant alleged that the Action is not maintainable against him upon a simple contract And Shuttelworth thought that now he is past that advantage because he did not shew it in pelading and cited the opinion of Cottesmore in 13 H. 6. And whether the Court ex officio ought to bar the Plaintif or no was the question Rodes It appeareth to us judicially that no action will lie upon a simple contract against Executors or Administrators wherefore then ought the Plaintif to have Judgement Shuttelworth Because by his Plea he took upon him notice of the contract and by 46 Ed. 3. where the Administrator was privy to the retainer of a servant he was charged by a simple contract Rodes Here he did not take notice and in 15 Edw. 4. The Court ex officio abated the Writ Shuttelworth This is by Littleton onely Rodes The case is ruled and Littleton gave Judgement so is the case in 11 Hen. 4. where an Action upon the case is brought against an Inne-keeper A common Ianholder if he be not named Hospitator allthough he plead in bar yet we ex officio ought to abate the VVrit Peryam If he be no Hosteler the Action lyeth not against him And if an Action of Debt be brought and doe not shew the place of the Obligation if the other plead a release this is good enough Shuttelworth So is 18 Edw. 4. A Deâ—d not shewed in Court 6 Hen. 7. Rodes If a man bring an Action and the Defendant plead in bar by Deed and do not shew the Deed and the other pleads in bar and doth not except thereunto but they were at Issue this is Error for we ex officio ought to have adjudged it evill and so is the Book in 22 Hen. 6. or 28 Hen. 6. and I can shew the case Then Shuttelworth sayd privily to his Client I doubt we shall doe no good by our Action Anderson being then in the Star-chamber After at another day Anderson rehearsed the case and sayd
say no more now this is no Condition And here all the sense comes in after the words of Covenant and these words are the words of Sir M. B. And for that it seemeth no Condition for if the words had been And it is provided by Sir M. B. there it is clear no Condition But if in a Lease for yeares be words and the Lessee do provide that if the Rent be behind that then the Lessor shall re-enter there I agree that this makes a Conditon And in the case put by my Brother Williams a Lease made provisum est quod non licebit to the Lessor to grant over upon pain of forfeiture there is a good Condition But otherwise it shall be if sub poena forisfacturae were omitted Fenner I think it is a a Condition for all the words put together explain the meaning of the parties as if he had said upon Condition And the Lessee doth Covenant and grant and none will deny but that this is a Conditidition Clinch seemed that it is no Conditon for the words may not be used as a Covenant and allso as a Condition As where a grant is by Deed by words of Dedi concessi confirmavi the Deed may be used as a Grant or confirmation at the Election of the party But it cannot be used in both sorts Popham I think that the Proviso as it is here placed will make a Condition and yet I will agree that a Proviso shall be sometimes taken for a Condition and sometimes for Explanation and sometimes for a Covenant and sometimes for an Exception and sometimes for a Reservation and it is taken for a Condition As if a man Lease Land provided that the Lessee shall not Alien without the Assent of the Lessor sub poena forisfactura here it is a Condition and if I have two Mannors both of them named Dale and I Lease to you my Mannor of Dale Provided that you shall have my Mannor of Dale in the Occupation of I. S. here this Proviso is an Explanation what Mannor you shall have and if a man Lease a house and the Lessee Covenanteth that he will that maintain Provided allwaies that the Lessor is contented to find great Timber here this is a Covenant and if I Lease to you my Messuage in Dale provided that I will have a Chamber my self here this is an Exception of the Chamber and if I make a Lease rendring Rent at such a Feast as I. S. shall name Provided that the Feast of St. Michael shall be one here this Proviso is taken for a Reservation and in our case if the words had been provided allwaies that the Donees shall cut down no Trees and the Lessee doth Covenant he will not fell any here every one will agree that it is a Condition and allso a Covenant And in this case in my opinion this tant amounts Serjeant Williams and Cook Attorney for the Plaintif Atkinson and Tanfield for the Defendant 28. LAssels the Father Sâ—ander brought an Action upon the case against Lassels the Son for words viz. he quendam Thomam Lassels fratrem ejusdem Def. innuend stole a Mare and you innuend querent knowing the same conveyed her into the Fenns to my Brother B. his house Clinch and Gawdy seemed the Action maintainable Fenner econtra 29. A Man was indicted for stealing of a hat and a band and other such things Indictment And the Prisoner said that he was before that time indicted for goods stolen the same day and time and acquitted Gawdy said he may not be severally indicted for goods stolen at one time As if a man steal a dozen of silver spones he may not be indicted for two in one Indictment and for other two in another sic de singulis Clinch accord Fenner Yes truly for it was the case of Thomas Cobham the which was indicted for goods taken in two shipps and acquitted and after condemned for other goods taken at the same time 30. PEarce brought an Action upon the case against Barker Prescription by a Copy-holder and delared how within the Mannor of Dale time out of mind there had been divers Copyholders and during the same time there hath been a usage within the said Mannor That every Copyholder for every Acre of Land shall have Common in such a Wast of the Lords for two Beasts And shewed how the Plaintif is possessed of twenty Acres and by reason of those ought to have Common for forty Beastâ— And there hath the Defendant being Lessee for years of the same Mannor one Conigray within the same Wast by which the Conies have so digged the ground that his Beasts cannot have Common as they were wont to have Fenner A Copyholder may not prescribe but in right of his Lord but now the Lord pro tempore is party to the action and whether this will alter the case or not I doubt Glanvile Albeit the Copyholder may not prescribe but in right of his Lord yet by way of usage as this case is it hath been adjudged that he may make his title 31. A Ruudell was heretofore arraigned upon an Indictment of willfull Murder for the death of one Parker Indictment and was found not guilty of Murder but guilty of Manslaughter for which he pleaded the generall pardon de 35 El. And the Queens Attorney alleged That in the sayd generall pardon there is an exception of all persons being in prison by the commandement of one of the Privy-counsell and said that the sayd Arundell was committed by the Lord Chamberlain for suspition of the sayd Felony and for the same in prison at the time of the Parliament Commitment and so a person exempted To which it was sayd by the Defendant that long time before the sayd Parliament and after the sayd commitment by the Lord Chamberlain there went out of this Court a Corpus eum causa by force of which he was sent into this Court with the cause of his commitment and was for the sayd offence committed by this Court to the Marshalsey and there was remaining at the time of the Parliament by force of the commitment of this Court and it seemed by the better opinion of the Court if a man be committed by a Privy-counsellor and removed by Habeas corpus and committed by this Court he shall be now sayd imprisoned by commitment of this Court and not of the Privy-counsellor 32. STaugnton brings a Writ of Error against Newcomb upon a Judgement given in Debt in the Common-place Error and the first Error assigned was for that the originall Writ was xx l. and all the mean Process were so likewise but when the Defendant appeared to the Exigent the entry was quod defendens obtulit se in placitâ— debitâ— decem librarum where it ought to be xxl. Dodderidge I think it shall be amended for it is the misprision of the Clerk and to prove that he cited 37 Hen. 6. 44. Ed. 3. 18. But upon
if this deniall was a Conversion they prayed the discretion of the Court. Fenner I think that the deniall is a Conversion Denial is a Conversion for when I lose my goods and they come to your hands by finding and you deny to deliver them to me I shall have an Action of Trespass against you as 33. Hen. 6. is Keeping is an Administration And the very keeping of goods by an Executor shall be counted as an Administration and by the same reason the deniall here shall be counted a Conversion Gawdy I am of the same opinion for by 2 of Hen. 7. If I deliver to you Cloth to keep and you keep it negligently I shall have detinue or an Action upon the case at my pleasure and by 20 Hen. 7. if a Baker contract for Corn and the party do not deliver it at the day the party may have Debt or an Action of the case Tanfield There was a case in this Court 30 Eliz. for the finding and Conversion of a horse But here was no request made by the Plaintif to deliver the horse For which Judgement was given against the Plaintif Curia This is not like our case for the request and deniall makes all the wrong in this case Adjornatur 80. WIseman brought a Writ of Error against Baldwin Limitation upon a Judgement given in Trespass in the Common place upon a speciall Verdict which was that Baldwin was seised of 24 Acres of Land and made his Will and by the same devised his said Land to Henry his youngest Sonne when he should accomplish the age of 24 years upon Condition that he should pay 20. l. to the Daughter of the Devisor And if he shall happen to dye before his age of 24 years then he willed that Richard his eldest Sonne shall have the same Land upon Condition that he should pay to the said Daughter 20. l. And he willed further by the said Will that if both his Sonnes failed of payment of the said 20. l. to his Daughter that the said Land should remain to his Daughter And after this Devisor died and Henry his younger Son entred after the age of 24 years and did not pay the said 20. l. to the Daughter and Richard the eldest Son did enter upon him and whether his entry were lawfull or not was the question Cook Attorney said it was a meer Limitation and no Condition and by consequence the entry of the eldest Sonne is not lawfull and to prove that he cited a Case which he said was in Justice Dallisont reports 9 Eliz. where a man devised Land to his youngest Son upon Condition of payment of a certain sum of money to his Daughter as our case is The Remainder over to another of his youngest Sonns and the first Devisee entred and did not pay the money and he in Remainder took advantage of that and so in our case by the Devise Richard is to have nothing if Henry the youngest Son did not die before 24 yeares and the intent of the Devisor appears that his Daughter shall have the Land for non payment of the money And therefore if the Heir enter for the Condition broken he destroies the whole intent of the Devisor And therefore the entry of the eldest Son is not lawfull Godfery I think it is a meer Condition for so are the words And then when the word subsequent limit a Remainder to the Daughter for default of payment that is not good and he denyed the case cited out of Justice Dallison for he said he was dead long before An. 9 Eliz. Gawdy I take the case of 29 Hen. 8. 33. to be a Limitation and no Condition for there a man devised to the Prior and Covent of St. Bartholomewes Ita quod reddant decano capitulo sancti Pauli 16. l. per An. And if they failed of paiment that their estate should cease and that the Land should Remain to the said Dean and Chapter and their Successors And it seemeth there that the Dean and Chapter for non payment shall not enter But I think the contrary and I think in this case it is a Limitation and no Condition A remainder and a recovery may be created by one deed Fenner If I make a Lease for life upon Condition with Remainder over may my Heir enter for the Condition broken Godfry Yes Sir Fenner Nay truly for then he shall defeat the Remainder which is well limited by me before the which I may not do and this is the reason if I make a Lease for life upon Condition and after grant the Reversion over that before the estate the Condition was gone for that if I re-enter I shall defeat my own grant Gawdy Per 29. Ass If a man devise to one upon Condition that if he shall be a Chaplin to remain over to a Corporation and the Tenant was made Chaplin by which the Heir entred and an Assise was adjudged maintainable against him for his entry was not lawfull Clinch The intent of the Devisor appears that for default of payment the Daughter shall have the Land and therefore the Sonne shall not enter And Wilcocks case in this Court was that a man seised of a Copyhold in the nature of Burrough English surrendred that to the use of his Will and by his Will devised the Land to his eldest Sonne upon Condition that he should pay to the youngest Sonne x. l. And after for non payment the youngest Sonne entred and his entry was adjudged lawfull Gawdy Wee three are agreed that it is a Limitation and no Condition by which the first Judgement was reversed 81. PYne of Lincolns Inne brought an Assumpsit against Widow Hide as Executrix of her Husband Assumpsit of the testator and declared that the Testator in Consideration that the Plaintif had leased to him certain Copyhold-land he assumed to pay to him 100. l. And the Defendant demurred in Law for that the Action is not maintainable against any Executor upon an Assumption of the Testator Popham For the Contrariety of opinion in this Case between the Judges of the Common-place and us we will make it an Exchequer-Chamber case and so try the Law 82. ONe Jackson prayed a Prohibition Prohibition for a Parsons lease and shewed for his Cause thâ— the Parson sued him in the spirituall Court for tithes And ho wt the Statute of 13 El. cap. 20. c. That if any Parson make a Lease for years of his Parsonage and absent himself by the space of 80 daies that the Lease shall be void And the Parson shall forfeit the profits of his benefice for a year and the Statute of 14 Eliz. cap. 11. c. That all bonds and Covenants for suffering or permiting any Parson to enjoy any Benefice or to take any Benefice or to take the profits and fruits thereof shall be adjudged of such force and Validity as Leases made by the same persons of benefices and not otherwise and after the
date of the sayd Obligation whereof the Action is brought if the said W. A. do save and keep harmless the sayd T. A. of and from the said Obligation that then c. The Defendant pleaded payment secundum formam effectum condition is praedictae and upon this Plea the Plaintif demurred in Law and Judgement given for the Plaintif for the Defendant ought to plead non damnificatus 91. HUntley brought a Writ of Accompt against Griffith Account Baron Feme and the case was that one devised a certain sum of money to a Feme covert And the Husband and Wife made a Letter of Attorney to the Defendant to receive the same money of the Executor who did receive it accordingly to the use of the woman And the Husband and Wife both dye and the Administrator of the Womans Husband brings this Action Tanfeild argued that the Action is not maintainable for when the Legacy was devised to the woman the Husband and Wife ought to joyn in the Action and if the Wife dye the Husband hath no remedy And when the Husband and the Wife make a Letter of Attorney to receive the money this principally is to be sayd the act of the woman and the Husband joyneth with her but for conformity and for that it appears in 19 Eliz. 354. if Baron and Feme levy a Fine of the Wives land and the Wife onely declares the use of the Fine it is good and by 16 Ed. 4. 8. If a man be a Receiver to a woman sole which afterwards takes a Husband and he and his Wife assign Auditors to the Receiver they both shall joyn in an Action of Debt for the Arrerages Altam è contra and sayd that the concourse of all our Books are that when money is delivered to deliver over to another Letter of Attorney by the Husband only Debt due to a Feme sole that other shall have an Action of Accompt allbeit that before that time he had not any property And 6 Ed. â— 1. that proveth Gawdy It seems to me the Action is well brought for the matter whereupon you stand is the Letter of Attorney and I say if the Husband sole had made the Letter of Attorney For by the entermartage the duty became the husbands if he could attain it in the life of the wife which he did by the receipt of his Bayly it had been well enough and when the money is received to the use of the Husband and the Wife now by that the Husband hath interest Popham I am of the same opinion for if Debt be due to a woman sole upon an Obligation and after she take an Husband and the Husband sole makes a Letter of Attorney to J. S. to receive that and J. S. receives the same now the Husband sole shall have an accompt against J. S. Fenner accord so Judgement was given for the Plaintif 92. THe Lady Gresham brought a Scire facias upon a Recognisance against William Man as terr Verdict in a Scire fac upon Recognisance Tenant The Defendant pleaded in abatement of the Writ that one Bedingfield was seised in Fee of three Acres of land not named Judgement si execut c. And the issue was if the aforesaid three Acres of land were the land of the aforesaid Bedingfeild or not and the Jury found that B. and J. S. were Jointenants of the said three Acres and whether this Verdict hath found for the Plaintif or Defendant was the question Whether Joyntenancy shal be sayd a Seisin Gawdy I think it may never be said the Land of Bedngfield onely And to prove that he vouched 28 Hen. 8. Dyer 32. in debt for Rent the Plaintif declared of a demise of 26 Acres rendring the said Rent The Defendant pleaded that the Plaintif demised to him 26 Acres and 4 Acres more without that that he demised the twenty Acres onely And the Jury found that he Leased but 22 Acres and there that was good for the Defendant hath confessed a demise of 26 Acres and then the Verdict should have been that the 4 Acres ultra were not demised and allso he said when two men made a Feoffment the Feoffee shall be in by both the which is a strong proof that the one sole is not seised Fenner According to the matter in question I think it is found for the Plaintif for the pretence of the Defendant is to have a companion against whom the Scire facias shall be as well brought as against himself And in 46. Edw. 3. That in casu proviso if issue be taken upon an Alienation in Fee Forfeiture by alienation and the Jury find an Alienation pro Termino vitae this is a Verdict good enough and the Plaintif shall recover for the Alienation to the Defendants Inheritance is the question And whether it be in Fee or for life it is but form and so in this case Popham by pleading of the truth the Defendant might have been holpen but not as he hath pleaded here as if one plead his Freehold and another say his Freehold absque hoc that it is the Freehold of the Plaintif and upon that they are at issue And the Verdict finds that the Plaintif and Defendant are Tenants in Common Now this Verdict is found for the Plaintif for he that makes the first lie shall be triced and this was the Defendant Fenner In this case one Tenant may not have an Action against an other Iointenants make a statute and it was agreed in this case if there are two Jointenants and the one make a Statute and after joines with his companion in a Feoffment of that Land now the moity of the Land may be extended upon this Statute Godfry When it appears unto the Court that there is another against whom the extent shall be then the Plaintif his Writ shall abate Gawdy No truly for by 44 Edw. 3. if a Writ of Dower be brought against the issue in tail which is remited and the Defendant plead ne unques seisi que Dower and the Verdict find the remitter yet the Plaintif shall have the Judgement for the Tenant if he will have advantage of that ought to plead it 93. THe Parson of Ramesey â—ued in the spirituall Court for Tithes of Asp Prohibition for Asp and a Prohibition was awarded And Fenner said that it was adjudged before that time that Asp should not pay Tithes and also it was agreed if a man cut trees for Housboot No Tithes for housboots c. or other usuall bootes Hedgboot Ploughboot Cartboot and Fireboot Tithes shall not be paid of them 94. NOta per Fenner Justice Account that an Action of accompt shall be maintainable against a servant but not against an Apprentice 95. HOme was indicted for that he had spoken against the book of Common prayer Depravation upon endictment Yelverton The Indictment as it appears is taken before the Lord Anderson and Baron Gent Justices of
the Statute 134. NOta per Cook Attorney Generall Distinct grants that the Lord Keep 〈◊〉 that is was of Counsell in a case inter Harlakenden and A. where it was adjudged that if a man make a Lesse for years of Land excepting the Wood and after the Leasor grants the Trees to the Lessee and the Lessee assigned over the Land to another not making any mention of the Trees now the Trees shall not pass to the Assignee as annexed to the Land for the trees and Land are not conjoined for the Lessee had severall interests in them by severall Grants 135. THomas against King Ejectment and the Title of the Land was between Sir Hugh Portman and Morgan And the Ejectment was supposed to be of 100. Acres of Land in Dale Sale and the Jury found the Defendant guilty of 10 Acres but did not shew in what Town they lay whereupon Haris Serjeant moved in arrest of Judgement for that it doth not appear where the Sherif may put the Plaintif in Possession Et non allocatur for the party at his perill ought to shew unto the Plaintiff the right land for which Judgement was given for the Plaintif 136. O Land against Bardwick and the case was this that a woman being possessed of Coppihold land for her Widowes estate sowed the land Forfeiture of a particular tenant and after took the Plaintif to Husband and the Defendant being Lord of the Mannor entred and took the Corn and the Husband brought an action of Trespass Clinch I think the Woman shall not have the corn Lease by Tenant for life but if the Wife had Leased the Land and the Lessee had sown it and after the Wife had maried and the Lord had entred yet the Lessee shall have the Corn. But in the case at bar the Woman her self is the cause of the Determination of her estate for she committeth the Act and therefore shall not have the Corn no more Forfeiture than if Lessee for life sow the Land and after commit forfeiture and the Lessor enter in this case the Lessor shall have the Corn. Fenner At the first the State of the Woman was certain viz. for her life but yet determinable by Limitation if she mary And if a man which hath an Estate determinable by Limitation sow the ground and before severance the Limitation endeth the state yet the party shall have the Corn which he hath sown And in the case at the bar there is no Forfeiture committed which gives course of Entry nor no dishinheritance or wrong made to the Lord as in the case where Tenant for life after his sowing commits forfeiture and if a man enter for breach of a Condition Entry for condition broken he shall have the Corn and not he that sowed the same for that his entry over-reacheth the state of the other but in this case the entry of the Lord doth not overâ—ach the Title of the Woman for he shall take that from the time that the Limitation endeth the Estate and not by any relation before For the Act of the Woman is Lawfull and therefore no reason he shall lose the Corn Popham Chief Justice It is cleare Forfeiture if Tenant for life sow and after commit a Forfeiture And the Lessor enter he shall have the Corne 〈◊〉 the like is it if the Lessee after the sowing surrender his Term the Lessor Surrender or he to whom the Surrender was made shall have the corn but if Tenant for life make a lease for yeares Lease by Tenant for life and after commit a Forfeiture and the Lessor enter now the Lessee shall have the Corn and in the case at bar if the woman had Leased for yeares and the Lessee had sowed the land and after she had taken Husband now the Lessee and not the Lord shall have the corn for the act of the Woman shall not prejudice a third person but when she her self is the party Knowledge and hath knowledge at the time of the sowing what acts will determineâ—er estate then is it reason if she by her own act will determine her estate that she shall lose the Corn For if Lessee for life sow the land Lessee praies in aid and after pray in aid of a Stranger now if the Lessor enter he shall have the Corn And so if Tenant at Will sow the Land Tenant at will determines his own Will and after determine his own Will the Lessor shall have the Corn but otherwise it is if the state be determined by the act of law or of a third person so that no folly was in him that sowed Fenner If the Husband and Wife were Lessees during the coverture Determination by the act of the Law of a third persoâ— and after the Husband sowes the land and then the Husband and Wife are divorced yet the Husband shall have the Corn for that the Husband at the time of the sowing had no knowledge of the Act which determined his interest Divorce So in this case the Woman at the time of the sowing did not know of the future Act which determined her interest and therefore no rason she should lose the Corn for the Corn is a Chattell in her Grant for if she had either granted them or been outlawed after the sowing and then had taken a Husband Now the Queen in the case of the outlary or the Grantee in the other case and not the Lessor Outlary shall have the Corn. Popham I will agree the case of the divorce to be good Law For that is not meerly the Act of the party but allso of the Court but in the case at bar the taking of the Husband is the Voluntary Act of the Woman per que And after Judgement was given against the Husband which was the Plaintif 137. A Scough brought a Writ of Error against Hollingworth upon a Judgement given in the Common place in a Writ of Debt brought upon a Statute Merchant Statute Merchant And the case was that Ascough came before the Maior of Lincoln and put his seal to the same Statute and the Kings seal was also put thereunto but one part did not remain with the Maior according to the Statute of Acton Burnell And it was adiudged a good Obligation against the Partie albeit it is no Statute Godfrey I think the Judgement ought to be affirmed and he cited 20. E. 3. accompt 79. And it is clear that a thing may be void to one intent and good to another by 10. Eliz. but Popham and Fenner were of opinion that it was hard to make it an Obligation for in every contract the intent of the parties is to be respected Intent in every contract And here the intent of the parties war to make it a Statute for the Kings seal is put to it and a Statute needs no deliverie butan Obligation ought to be delivered otherwise it is not good
half whereby the Land was sown accordingly and that the Bore of Okely came and destroyed the Corn. Sed utrum c. And the doubt rested upon two points 1. because the Verdict saith that it conteineth sixty Acres and so shall be intended not the same place and the Court varied in opinion thereof insomuch that the sixteen Acres are found to be within the close conteining sixty Acres but for the 2 which was that they all four joyned in quare clausum fregit and it appeareth that three have nothing there Verdict shall abate the Writ but that Hare is sole seised And for that the Court held opinion that the Verdict shall abate the Writ for the Defendant cannot break their close where three of them have nothing but Hare onely Rodes A Case hath been adjudged a where Cheâ—ey brought Partition against Bury Partition who pleaded that they did not hold in Common and the Jury found that he and his Wife held in Common and yet the Verdict abated the Writ Windham You will all grant that the other three have no interest in the Land quod Walmisley concessit how then can they have quare 〈◊〉 fregit Fenner Executors shall have quare clausum fregit Executors and yet they have no interest in the Land Rodes There they have an interest for the time Anderson Here is but a bargain and no interest and then the three have no colour to bring Trespass quare elaâ—sum fregit 10. THe Quare impedit brought by the Queen against the Bishop of Lincoln was demurred in Law Avoydance and now the Record was read and day given over to hear the Arguments but 〈◊〉 said that it is all one case with that which hath been adjudged here viz. that the Queen hath title of Lapse and doth not present but the Patron presents and after the Church becomes voyd by the death of the Incumbent that now the Queen shall not present but the Court answered Difference between Death and Privation that there the avoydance came by death but here it cometh by privation and whether this will make a diversity was the question 11. HArper brought Trespass against Spiller and Drew Estate upon not guilty pleaded a speciall Verdict was found and the case in effect was this F. gave Lands to a woman to have and to hold to her to the heirs of F. of the body of the woman ingendred what estate the woman had was the question and now the Record was read and day given over to argue it 12. SHuttleworth moved the Court Amendment and shewed that one Brokes by had brought a Quare impedit against the Bishop of Lincoln and others and the Writ was suam spectat donationem and this word 〈◊〉 was omitted and he prayed the Court that it might be amended and he cited 11 Hen. 6. 2. where it was imaginavit and it should have been imaginat fuit and 13 Hen. 7. where the teste was omitted and the Court took time of advisement and at length by the opinion of all the Justice it was amendable and then a Clerk of the Chancery came into the Court of the Common-pleas and amended it 13. IN an Avowry for an Amercement in a Leet By-law a Prescription was made for making of By-lawes and Peryam sayd that every By-law ought to be made for the common benefit of the inhabitants and not for the private commodity of any particular man as J. S. onely or the Lord onely As if a By-law be made that none shall put in his beasts into the common-field before such a day this is good but if a By-law be made that they shall not carry hay upon the lands of the Lord or break the hedges of J. S. this is not good because it doth not respect the common benefit of all And Windhaâ—â— sayd that some Books are that they shall bind no more than such as agree to them 14. HAre brought Debt against Curson for a great sum Capias utlâ—gatum and Process continued untill Capias â—tlog And the Plaintif moved the Court that the Sherif might be commanded to execute the Writ because they doubted thereof and the Writ was delivered to the Sherif in Court and he sayd that he would doe his endeavour but Curson hath long kept his house so that he cannot come at him Peryam You may take the power of the Country with you and break his house and take him out for so it hath been adjudged here which the Court granted 15. PUckering shewed how an Action of Debt was brought against an Administrator Assetâ— who pleaded plens administraâ—it and thereupon the Jury found a speciall Verdict that certain Obligations made by the Testator to the value of a hundred pound were forfeit and the Administrator took in the said Bonds and gave his own Bond for the Debt and retained the money in his own hands besides which c. he had nothing c. and if that hundred pound shall be liable to this Action of the Plaintif they prayed the advice of the Court and by the opinion of Windham and Peryam it shall not be Assets because the property is changed in giving his own Bond for the same Payment with Proper râ—â—ds and it is as if he had payd the Debts with his own goods but if he had compounded for less Surplusage then the surplusage should have been Assets But Rodes was of a contrary opinion in the principall case forasmuch as he had payd no money but onely given his Bond for in and Anderson was absent at this day And after at another day the case was moved again by Shuttelworth and then he shewed that for part thereof the Administrator had given his Bond and for another part his promise Promise and he sayd that this is no payment but a composition and therefore no change of property Anderson For so much as he hath given his promise I think it not good because that by this promise this first debt being due by Bond is not discharged but for so much as he hath given his Bond for I hold it good enough because the first Debt is discharged thereby allthough that the Obligation be made to a stranger Estranger by the appointment of the Debtee and allso before the Debt due for by this the first Debt is gone And Windham and Peryam were of the same opinion that the Debt was discharged and that it should not be Assets in his hands but Rodes doubted thereof and it was adjorned 16. JOhn Cleyton brought an Ejectione firme against Lawsell and Lawsell Defendants Abatement and after a Verdict found for the Plaintif and before Judgement one of the Defendants died and the Writ was adjudged to stand good against the other 17. IN Debt by Saunderson Wager of Law the Defendant pleaded nil debet per legem and in truth the money was due to the Plaintif but the Plaintif was allso