the Remainder to the Heirs of the Body of the Husband the Husband makes a Feoffment in Fee with Warranty and takes back an Estate to him and his Wife for their Lives the Remainder over to make a Remitter to the Wife there ought to be an Entry To make a Remitter there must be a new Entry Prout lex pestulat and no new Entry is found by the Special Verdict to be by the Husband but only prout lex postulat The Court advised a new Tryal and to amend the Special Verdict and to find the Entry of the Baron and Feme The time of the Entry of the Plaintiff is sometimes material as in Fort and Berkley's Case The time of the Entry of the Plaintiffs Lessor Per Cur. In that Case which way soever the Law had been taken Judgment could not have been given for the Defendant There was a Lease made to Godolphin in Reversion under whom the Plaintiff claims Chersey the Lessor of the Plaintiff did Enter upon the Possession of Berkley the Defendant but when he did Enter does not appear then the Case is Berkley was in Possession If the Lessor of the Plaintiff enter'd before the Term began he was a Disseisor as it was Dier 89. Clifford's Case But it s said he was possest prout lex postulat Prout lex postulat as so he was of the Reversion too it does not appear but that he was a Disseisor and so continued Carters Rep. 159 160. If the Title appear to be in a Stranger they must find an Ouster made to him who had the Right Where actual Ouster must be â—ound And therefore in Ejectione Firme If the Jury find a Special Verdict being matter in Law upon a Lease for years reserving Rent upon Condition c. but no Title is found for the Plaintiff nor Defendant but it is only found that the Lessor of the Plaintiff being a Stranger Enters into the Land and Leaseth this to the Plaintiff by which the Plaintiff was possest prout lex postulat until the Defendant entred and ejected him this is not a good Verdict the Title appearing to be a in Stranger without any actual Ouster made to him who had the Right 2 Rolls Abr. 699. Bland and Inman In an Ejectione Firme the Jury find a Special Verdict and find Special Matter in Law whether J. S. had right to the Land upon which the Court adjudged That he has right to the Land But they find farther Ouster Dissesin That J. D Entered into the Land upon J. S. and was thereof seized prout lex postulat and made the Lease to the Plaintiff and the Lessee was by force of this possessed and it is not found that J. D. disseised J. S. and for that upon this Verdict shall not be intended that J. D. oustred J. S. and disseised him and then the Entry of J. D. and his Lease is void and so an Action does not lie against a Stranger who had nothing in the Land as was Hitchin and Glover's Case In Ejectione Firme by the Lessee of a Colledge if the Jury find a Special Verdict in this manner viz. That the Colledge let this to A. upon Condition and found a Special Matter in Law whether the Condition be broken and that the Colledge supposing the Condition broken by their Bayliff entred Entry by a Colledge how to be found and let this to the Plaintiff this is not a good Special Verdict without finding of a command given by the Colledge to the Bayliff to Enter to be by Deed for otherwise it is not good 2 Rolls Abr. p. 700. Dumper and Simms A. was seised and demised to his Executors the Lands in Question for the performance of his Will till the Executors levy 100 Marks or until his Heirs pay to them 200 Marks and that the Executors after his Death entred and were possest prout lex postulat Prout lex postulat how far extend and being so possest granted to the Plaintiff who entred and was possest till the Ejectment This is uncertain because it is not found that the Heir had paid the Money Super totam materiam for they say super totam materiam and to say prout lex postulat is not an affirmation of any certain Possession Palmer 192. Langly and Paine Of the Juries finding by Parcels It is a Rule Verdict that finds part of Issue and no-nothing for the residue is insufficient A Verdict that finds part of the Issue and nothing for the residue is insufficient As in Pemble and Sterne's Case Raym. 165. The Demise is laid of a Park Messuage 300 Acres of Land and the Verdict finds only as to parcel and nothing of the residue for the Plaintiff or the Defendant the Verdict is void so is the Rule 1 Inst p. 227. A Verdict that finds part of the Issue and finding nothing of the residue it is insufficient for the whole because they have not tried the whole Issue wherewith they are charged Car. Jac. 113. Ejectione Firme of a Lease of Messuages 3000 Acres of Land 3000 Acres of Pasture in D. per nomina of Monkhal and 5 Closes per nomina On Not guilty the Jury gave a Special Verdict viz quoad 4 Closes of Pasture containing by Estimation 2000 Acres of Pasture that the Defendant was Not guilty Quoad resid quoad resid they find the matter in Law this Verdict is imperfect in all for when the Jury find that the Defendant was Not guilty of 4 Closes of Pasture containing by Estimation 2000 Acres of Pasture it is not certain and it doth not appear of how much they acquit him and then when they find quoad residuum for the Special matter it is uncertain what that residue is a Venire fac ' de novo was awarded A Verdict of more than declared for Woolmer and Caston's Case But if the Verdict be of more than declared for it shall be void for the residue As Ejectment for him who pleaded all of 14 Acres and the Jury find Guilty of 20 Acres 14 Acres The Plaintiff shall have Judgment for the and the Verdict shall be void for the residue 2 Rolls Abr. 707. 719. Seabright's Case In Ejectment of a Manor and so many Acres as includes the Manor the Jury find for the Plaintiff as to the Manor praeter the Services and as to the Services Not guilty And Judgment pro Quer. Here are 2 manifest Errors 1. When the Court is of a Manor the Jury cannot find for the Plaintiff for that which is not a Manor and there is none that brings Ejectment of a Manor Ejectment of a Manor how to be brought but they also add the Acres that contain it to the end that if they prove it not a Manor they may recover according to the Acres but they must enter it so but not as here generally of both 2. The Verdict being as much as the Count the Judgment against the Plaintiff cannot be
that Exception seemed not valid Cr. El. 642. Hemsley and Price So in 3 Rep. Sir George Brown's Case Anthony is found Son but not Heir and yet without his being Heir the Plaintiff had no Title And yet in Cymbal and Sand's Case Cro. Car. 391. Gimlet and Sands the Court seemed to be of Opinion That tho' the Jury found that Humfrey had Issue by Hebell his Wife John unicum filium suum that not finding that he was Heir it was in case of his being Heir to a Warranty collateral was not good for he might have elder Sons by another Venter or there might be an Attainder or the Warranty might be discharged or released io his Life-time 2 Rolls Abr. 701. mesme Case The Jury found a Special Verdict on a Will in which they found A. had Issue two Sons B. and C. and do not find which of them was the elder and which the younger which is material in the Case This Verdict is not good for tho' B. is first named yet it doth not appear by this that he is the eldest Son M. 20 Jac. B. R. Peryn and Pearse Uncertainty as to part of a House The Defendant pleads Not guilty Part of an House the Jury find him not guilty for part and guilty de tanto unius Messuagij in occupatione c. quantum stat super Ripam Per Cur ' the Verdict is insufficient for the Uncertainty for tho' the Certainty may appear to the Jury yet that is not enough the Court ought to give Judgment oportet quod res deducatur in judicium The Court must be informed of the Certainty and it ought to appear to them Had they found him guilty of a Room it had been good So if he had been found guilty of a third part for of them the Law takes notice And an Ejectione Firme was brought for the Gate-house at Westminster and the Jury found the Defendant guilty for so much as is between such a Room and such a Room and it was adjudged good Guilty of a Room is good Marsh Rep. 47. Juxon and Andrews As to Certainty of Acres Ejectione Firme was brought of 400 Acres of Land As to Acres and the Jury find the Defendant quoad all besides three Acres parcel tenementorum praedictorum Not guilty Quoad c. and quoad the three Acres they find special matter and that G. A. the Lessor let the aforesaid three Acres to the Plaintiff and that he was possessed and that the Defendant ejected him out of the three Acres Parcel parcel ' tenementorum praedictorum and they did not find the Ejectment of the aforesaid three Acres c. and it may be the Ejectment was of other three Acres and for this Cause per totam Curiam held ill Cr. El. 642. Hemsley and Price Ejectment of 5 Acres if the Jury find the Defendant guilty in 8 Perches de terre parcel ' tenementorum praedictorum it 's a void Verdict because uncertain and no Execution can be made of Pieces 2 Rolls Abr. 694. Pawlet and Dr. Redman And this is the Difference between Trespass and Ejectment The Plaintiff declares of Trespass in one Acre in D. and abutts it East West North and South Upon Not guilty the Jury finds the Defendant guilty in dimidio Acrae infra script ' the Plaintiff shall have Judgment and so if they had found but one Foot of the Acre And it sufficeth to be found in one Moiety of the Acre bounded in this Action where Damages are only to be recovered But if it were in Ejectment the Verdict had been ill It must be certain in what part the Plaintiff must have his Hab. fac possess aliter in Trespass for it is not certain in what part the Plaintiff shall have his Habere fac ' possessionem Yelv. p. 114. Winckworth and Man In Ejectione Firme the Plaintiff declares of a Messuage 3000 Acres of Land 3000 Acres of Pasture in D. per nomina of the Manor of Monkall and 5 Closes per nomina c. The Jury give a Special Verdict quoad four Closes of Pasture containing by Estimation 2000 Acres of Pasture that the Defendant was not guilty quoad residuum they find the Matter in Law This Verdict is imperfect in all for when the Jury found the Defendant was not guilty of four Closes of Pasture containing by Estimation 2000 Acres of Pasture Quoad residuum must be certain it is uncertain and doth not appear of how much they acquit him and then when they find quoad residuum for the special Matter it is uncertain what that Residue is so there cannot be any Judgment given And a Venire fac ' de novo was awarded Cro. Jac ' 114. Woolmer and Caston In Ejectione Firme de septem Messuagiit sive tenementis De Messuagiis sive Tenementis is ill and the Verdict helps it not and Verdict pro Quer ' it's ill for the Uncertainty and the Verdict doth not help it And Hales refused to let the Jury find for the Plaintiff for the Messuages and Non culp ' for the Tenements But per Twisden had it been de uno Messuagio sive Tenemento vocat ' The Black Swan it had been good because the last part makes it certain Sid. 195. 2 Keb. 80. Cro. El. 186. On Special Verdict in Ejectment the Case was As to Acres and Parishes the Declaration was of several Messuages in the several Parishes of St. Michael St. James St. Peter and St. Paul and that part of the Premisses lie in the Parish of St. Peter and St. Paul and that there is no Parish called the Parish of St. Peter nor none called the Parish of St. Paul Per Cur ' the Copulative Et shall be referred to that which is real and hath existence ut res magis valeat not to make St. Peter's one Parish and St. Paul another but to make them both one Parish and the Words several Parishes are supplied by the Parishes before mentioned as 6 Ed. 3. Praecipe of 10 Acres in A. B. and C. there the Lands must lie in every one of the Vills but if the Praecipe were de Manerio de decem Acris in A. B. and C. there it would be well enough tho' the Manor lay elsewhere provided that ten Acres lay within the Vills aforesaid for then the last words are satisfied by the ten Acres Hardr. 1. 330. Ingleton and Wakeman Yet in Thomas and Kenn's Case P. 38 El. B. R. it 's said in Dyer ult Edit in margine 34. b. Ejectione Firme upon Title of Land of Sir Hugh Portman the Count was of an hundred Acres in D. and S. and Non culp ' pleaded the Jury found the Defendant ejected him of ten Acres only and shews not them in Certain and adjudged a good Verdict and the Plaintiff had Judgment It 's a Rule laid down Where ever but one Acre 〈◊〉 found certain â—ne may release â—ll the rest 1 Rolls 784. Rhethorick
to bring Ejectment de unâ Capellâ De Capella but it ought to be by the Name of a Messuage or House 11 Rep. 25. b. Ejectment de septem Messuagiis sive Tenementis De septem Messuagiis sive Tenementis it 's ill after a Verdict for the uncertainty Cro. El. 146. Ejectment de uno Messuagio sive tenemento vocat ' De uno Messuagio sive Tenemento vocat ' the Black Swan is good per Twisden for the last words ascertain it Had the Verdict been general for the Plaintiff for the Messuages and Non Culp ' for the Tenements it had been good And in this case the Plaintiff cannot aid himself by releasing of part as it might be had there been Lands in the Declaration De Messuagio sive Tenemento is ill after a Verdict but if the Judge will allow the Jury to find for the Plaintiff for the Messuage and for the residue for the Defendant it had been good but the Plaintiff may not aid himself by Release Siderf 295. Burbury and Yeoman Ejectione Firme lies not de Coquina De Coquina but it lies by Bill in B. R. tho' Coke said it lies by Writ too and the Law is all one 1 Roll. Rep. 55. It was adjudged in Stiles Rep. 215. That Ejectment doth lie of a Cottage De Cotagio because the Description of a thing by that Name is sufficient and certain enough to shew the Sheriff of what to deliver the Possession but a Recovery lies not of a Cottage Stiles p. 258. Hammond and Ireland Cro. El. 818. Hill and Gibs Ejectione Firme lies de Pomario De Pomario and de Domo for they are certain enough to give Possession tho' a Precipe lies not of it and many things are recovered in Ejectment which are not named in the Register as Hopyard c. Cro. Jac. 654. Royston and Eccleston Palmer 337. mesme Case Cro. El. p. 854. Wright and Wheatly Ejectione Firme de quatuor molendinis De molendinis without expressing whether they are Windmills or Water-mills yet good Mod. Rep. 9. Fitz Gerard's Case In Palmer and Humphrey's Case it was adjudged De pcciaterrae That Ejectment lies de pecia terrae but it was after reversed in the Exchequer-Chamber Cro. El. 422. Palmer and Humphrys And a Declaration de una pecia terrae continen ' ducentas unam Acram sive plus sive minus jacent ' inter terras c. this was adjudged ill after a Verdict and Nil cap ' per Billam entred So continen ' dimidiam acram terrae vocat ' It was said in Hancock and Pryn ' s Case Ejectment of a Close of Land or de pecia terrae containing so many Acres had been good W. Jones p. 400. Savil 176. Hardr. 57. Ejectione Firme cannot be of a Manor De Manerio for that there cannot be an Ejectment of the Services but if they express further a Quantity of Acres it is sufficient and it lies of a Manor or the Moiety of a Manor if the Attornment of Tenants can be proved and there is none that brings Ejectment of a Manor but they also add the Acres that contain it to the end that if they prove it not a Manor they may recover according to the Acres Vide infra Hetley 80. Norris and Isham And p. 146. Warden's Case It was doubted by Rolls and the Court De Crofto if an Ejectment lies de Crofto therefore the Plaintiff moved for a special Judgment for the rest of the Land contained in the Declaration and released the Damages as to the Croft and had it but afterwards in Meeres and French's Case it was agreed That Ejectione Firme lies of a Croft and Dower and Assise will lie of a Croft because it is put in View of the Recognitors tho' a Formedon nor Praecipe will lie of it but 2 Car. p. Rot. 301. Holmes and Wingreve de Crofto is ill in Ejectment tho' good in Assise Rolls Rep. p. 30. Ejectment de uno Clauso De uno Clauso without saying how many Acres is ill A Man makes a Lease of a Garden containing Three Roods of Land De tribus Roods of Land Lessee is ousted and brings Ejectment the Justices differed in Opinion whether it were good or not but all agreed the best order of Pleading to be to declare That he was ejected of a Garden containing Three Roods of Land Godb. p. 6. Parcella terrae does not comprehend a Garden in Ejectione Firme Parcella tarrae Moor 702. Palm 45. Ejectment de uno Clauso continen ' tres Acras per estimationem ill but Indictment quare vi armis in Clausum continen ' tres Acras per Estimationem fregit is good Debt or Demise of Seven Acres per estimat ' is ill Dormer's Case Brownl p. 142. Tho' in Co. 11 Rep. 55. Savill's Case That an Ejectione Firme lies not of a Close yet the contrary had been since adjudged between Hykes and Sparrow Tr. 15 Jac. Rot. 774. Cr. Car. 555. Siderf 229. Declarat ' is Quod cum dimisit to him unum Messuagium unum Clausum vocat ' Dovecoat-Close continen ' tres Acras eidem mâ—ssuagio spectan ' per Cur ' it does not lie of a Cloâ—e tho' coupled with other Words because the Quality of the Soil is not alledged as to say Land Meadow Marsh c. And by Coke if he had bound the Land without shewing the Quality it had not been good tho' it was objected that by all the Words put together here is sufficient certainty to put the Party in Possession and yet some Reports are to the contrary Ejectione Firme of a Close called White-Close was said to be held good in Ellis and Floyd's Case cited in Madonell's Case But in Ireland Ejectment was of a Close called the Upper Kibwell and of another called the Lower Kibwell containing Three Acres of Land was held good Regula And it is a sure Rule That the certainty of the Land ought to be described and the Quality c. And therefore the Case of Jones and Hoell seems not to be Law which was Ejectione Firme of Seven Closes one called Green Mead and so gave to the others several Names and the Verdict was for the Plaintiff and by the Court there it 's well enough For said they when a Name is given to every Close tho' the Contents of Acres are not mentioned viz. so many of Land so many of Pasture i'ts sufficient and aided by the Statute of Jeofayls 11 Rep. 55. Savill's Case 1 Roll. Rep. 55. mesme Case Cro. Jac. 435. Wilks and Sparrow 2 Roll. Rep. 1. 608 189. Macdonel's Case Cro. El. 235. Jones and Hoell In Martin and Nichol's Case Error was assigned It 's not distinguished how much of Pasture and how much of Meadow ergo ill because the Declaration was of a Messuage and Forty Acres of Land Meadow and Pasture thereunto appertaining and it was not distinguished how
Leon. p. 145. Upon the Habere fac ' Possessionem the Shereiff returned that in the Execution of the said Writ he took the Plaintiff with him Where the first Writ is not fully executed the Court will grant a new 〈◊〉 and came to the House recovered and removed thereou◠a Woman and two Children which were all the persons which upon diligent search he could find in the said House and delivered to the Plaintiff peaceable Possession to his thinking and afterwards departed-and immediately after three other persons who were secretly lodged in the said House expulsed the Plaintiff again Upon notice of which he returned again to the said House to put the Plaintiff in free Possession but the others did resist him so as without peril of his Life and of them that were with him in Company he could not do it And upon this return the Court awarded a new Writ of Execution for that the same was no Execution of the first Writ and also awarded an Attachment against the Parties 1 Leon. 145. If the Sheriff delivers more Acres than are in the Writ If the Sheriff delivers more Acres than are in the Writ this makes not the Writ Erroneous but Action on the Case lies against the Sheriff for doing it but if the Writ of Hab. fac possessionem contains more Acres of Land than were in the Declaration the Writ is Erroneous Upon Ejectione Firme Where Habere fac possession shall be after the year without Scire fac and Judgment Hab. fac possessionem shall be after the year without a Scire fac as to the Damages yet it s not absolutely requisite that there should be any Scire fac as to the Land for if the party take Possession of other Land than he ought Trespas lies 1 Sid. 351. Okey and Vicars Scire fac ' is given in personal Action per Stat. W. 2. where the remedy was after the year to commence a new Action on the same Judgment which cannot be in this Case as to Land tho' it may be as to Damages on Judgment for Damages Costs or Debt there must be a Scire fac ' for here is a person certain charged not so in Hab. fac possessionem 2 Keb. 307. Mesme Case but the Hab. fac Possessionem shall not be granted an year after the Judgment without a motion in Court Not to be granted after the year without a motion in Court And if it be once executed tho' the parties are turned out presently by a trick yet they may not have new Hab. fac possessionem without motion of the Court Siderf pag. 224. Note It was a Question in one Hills's Case upon the Statute of Maintenance A Man was out of Possession and recovered in Ejectione Firme and was put in Possession by Habere fac possessionem Whether he might sell presently and adjudged he might God b. 450. Upon the Hab. fac possessionem the Sheriff may break open the House to deliver Possession 5 Rep. 91. Return de Hab ' fac ' Possessionem cum Fieri fac Virtute istius brevis mihi direct ' 24 die Maij anno infra scripto Habere feci infra nominat ' H. H. Possessionem Termini sui infra scripti de Tenementis infra script ' cum pertin ac etiam Fieri feci de Terris Catallis infra nominat ' W. W. 20 s. parcel damnor infra script denarios illos haber coram Justiciarijs infra script ad diem Locum infra content ad reddend ' prefac H. prout interius mihi precipitur Of Misdemeanors in Possession In Ejectment Declarations were delivered and on Verdict Evidence was found for the Plaintiff against some and Judgment against the Casual Ejector for others in the whole 47 Houses Upon colour of Hab. fac possessionem the Sheriff turns out of Possession these 47 Tenants and 80 other Tenants also without any Process or Plea against them for the Execution of which Writ the Sheriff took of the Plaintiff 200 l. for Fees 1. The Court would not grant any Writ to supersede this Execution against the 80 for if so then it ought to be Quia erronicè and there was not any Error in the proceedings against them because there was no proceedings against them but they may bring Trespass against the Sheriff Sheriffs Fee and the Sheriff shall be indicted for Extortion for they cannot take such Fees in case of real Estate as personal 2 Sid. 155. There is a remarkable Case in Siderf 254. the King against Farr Farr being a Sollicitor had obtained a Judgment against the Casual Ejector upon which he Sues Hab. fac possessionem and the Sheriffs Bay liffs enter the House with him and break the Door where the Goods were and take the Woman to whom the House and Goods belonged and required of her Special Bayl and for want of it brought her to Newgate then Farr took the Goods which were of great value And upon Tryal at the Old-Bayly it appeared That Farr did this with intent to take away the Goods and had no colour of Title to the House for his Client He was found Guilty of Felony and was hanged not being able to Read tho' he were a Sollicitor The Court was moved for an Attachment against J. upon an Affidavit that he had ejected one out of Possion that was put in by Hab. fac possessionem and that in a very Riotous manner and had imprisoned the Party so put out of Possession The Council on the other side answered That the party came into the Land by vertue of an Eigne Judgment and an Extent upon it Rolls here is Title against Title therefore take your Course in Law for we make no Rule in it Stiles p. 318. Fortune and Johnson's Case Verdict for the Plaintiff was found in Ejectment But upon Agreement made between the Plaintiff and Defendant The Defendant was to hold the Land recovered for the remainder of his Term to come and according to this Agreement he held it for two years but afterwards before his Term expired the Plaintiff takes out an Hab. fac possessionem and executes it It was moved That the Defendant might have a Rule for Restitution Per Cur. it cannot be Take your Action on the Case against the Plaintiff for not performing his Agreement Stiles Rep. 408. Wood and Markham CHAP. XV. Of Action for the mean Profit 's In whose Name What Evidence shall be given in this Action or not THe Action for the mean Profits on the Judgment in the Ejectment In whose name shall be in the name of the Lessee during his Term. And note What Evidence shall be given in this Action In this Action no Evidence shall be given as to the Right which must be if the Action should be in the Lessors name and therefore he can have no such remedy 1 Keb. 731. Sadler and Taylor A Tryal at Bar was prayed in Action for mean Profits But the Court denied it
new Certificate to have the true Original certified Original taken out before the Cause of Action is Error Per Cur ' Take it for it is in Affirmance of a Judgment which ought to be favoured But in John's and Steyner's Case the Original bore Date 24 Junij 6 Car. and the Ejectment is supposed 31 Januarij Per Cur ' it's Error because the Original upon Diminution alledged was certified as an Original in this Action which is between the same Parties and of the same Land and of the same Term and being taken out before the Cause of Action it 's a vicious Original not aided by any Statute Stiles Rep. 352. Jennings and Downes Cro. Car. 272 281. Johns and Steyner It 's a Rule in the Register That in the Writ of Ejectione Firme there may not be Bona Catalla because that for Goods taken away a Man shall have an Exigend ' and in this Writ Distress infinite Plo. 228. b. So was Johnson and Davies's Case The Suit was by Original Writ which is of one Messuage Sixty Acres of Land Three hundred Acres of Pasture but per Curiam this shall not be intended the Original upon which the Plaintiff declared but that there was another Original which warranted the Declaration which is now imbesilled and this want is aided by the Statute of Jeofayls especially as this Case is because the Writ is Teste 18 Apr. Ret ' 15 Pasch c. This Declaration is in Trinity Term and here is no Continuance upon this Writ Cro. Car. 327. Johnson and Davis In Ejectione Firme the Paper-Book was right Where Amendment shall be by the Papre-Book or not scil Acram Terrae and the Bill upon the File was ill scilicet Clausum Terrae and the Bill was amended by the Paper-Book and the Difference is where there is a Paper-Book in the Office of the Clerk this being right all shall be amended by it but if there were not any Paper-Book and the Bill upon the File is ill there can be no Amendment and in this Case the Amendment was according to the Paper-Book which was in the Hands of the Plaintiff's Attorney Palmer 404 405. Todman and Ward It was an Exception in Haines and Strowder's Case because the Suit was by Original Writ and the Clause ostensurus was not in the Writ Palmer 413. Haines and Strowder Godb. 408. Case Crouch and Haines Case 488. The Original was Teste the same Day that the Ejectment was made Original Teste the same day of Ejectment and adjudged good per totam Curiam 2 Roll. Rep. 352 129. Beaumont and Coke As for the Amendment of Originals in Ejectione Firme Of Amendments of Originals in this Action there are many Cases in our Books I shall name one or two which may be as a Guide in others Ex divisione for ex dimissione was amended so Barnabiam for Barnabam and so what appears to be the Default of the Cursitor 1 Brownl 130. 1 Rolls Abr. 198. In Ejectione Firme If the Paper-Book be perfect tho' the Bill upon the File be not perfect yet it 's amendable after Verdict if the Bill be not perfect but Spaces left for Quantity of Land and Meadow and after the Paper-Book given to the Party is made perfect and the Plea-Roll and Nisi-prius Roll but the Bill upon the File was never perfected and after a Verdict is given for the Plaintiff this Imperfection of the Bill shall be amended because the Party is not deceived by this forasmuch as the Paper-Book which he had was perfect and it was the Neglect of the Clerk not to amend the Bill when the Party had given him Information of the Quantity 1 Rolls Abr. 207. Leeson and West Original in Ejectment was amended after Writ of Error brought as divisit for dimisit 2 Ventr 173. By the Stat. 13 Car. 2. c. 11. In all personal Actions and in Ejectione Firme for Lands c. depending by Original Writ after any Issue therein joyned and also after any Judgment therein had and obtained there shall not need to be Fifteen Days between the Teste-day and the Day of Retorn of any Writ of Ven ' fac ' Hab ' corpora jurat ' Distringas jurat ' Fieri facias or Capias ad Satisfaciend ' and the want of Fifteen Days between the Teste-day and the Day of Retorn of any such Writ shall not be assigned for Error If an Original in B. R. be ill Error upon it lies not but in Parliament Sid. p. 42. Action of Ejectment and also Battery in one Writ and it was moved in Arrest of Judgment because Battery was joyned in Ejectment the Damages were found severally and the Plaintiff released the Damages for the Battery and prayed Judgment for the Ejectment and had it 1 Brownl 235. Bide and Snelling Of Appearance If the Tenant in Possession do not appear in due time after the Declaration left with him Judgment against the casual Ejector for want of Appearance and enter into the Rule for confessing Lease-Entry and Ouster then upon Affidavit made of the Service thereof and Notice given him to appear upon Motion the Court will order Judgment to be entred up against the casual Ejector In Ejectment or any other personal Action if the Defendant do appear upon the first Retorn in Hillary or Trinity Term there can be no Imparlance without Consent or special Rule of Court In Actions real and mixt against an Infant he ought to appear by Guardian Infant how to appear and not by Attorney and Judgment in Ejectione Firme in Banco against the Infant Defendant upon a Verdict had against him was reversed for this Cause 1 Rolls Abr. 287. Lewis and Johns Ejectione Firme was brought against Thomas the Father and J. the Son the Father appeared by T. C. Attornat ' suum and the said J. per eundem T. C. proximum amicum suum who was admitted per Cur ' ad prosequend ' this is Error A Guardian and Prochein Amy are distinct Infant how to sue or defend and a Guardian or Prochein Amy may be admitted for the Plaintiff and a Prochein Amy is appointed by W. 1. c. 47. W. 2. c. 15. in case of Necessity where an Infant is to sue his Guardian or that the Guardian will not sue for him The Difference between Guardian and Prochein Amy. Want of and therefore he is admitted to sue per Guardian or Prochein Amy where he is to demand or gain but when he is to defend a Suit in Actions Real or Personal it always ought to be per Gardianum and the Guardian ought to be admitted per Cur ' Therefore the Defendant ought always to appear by Guardian and not by Prochein Amy and also to admit the Defendant ad prosequend ' is ill and preposterous Cro. Jac. 640. Maby and Shepard Pledges Error of a Judgment in C. B. in Ejectione Firme assigned in 1 Cro. Pledges not assigned for Error because Diminution was not
pray'd 91 594. in not certifying Pledges on Diminution alledged in a Writ of Error for that Cause per Cur ' Omission of Pledges or of one is Error tho' after a Verdict and the Defendant after in nullo est erratum pleaded may pray Diminution which cannot be granted but on Motion and then only to affirm the Judgment yet when the Record is come in it may be made use of to avoid the Judgment and because Diminution was not prayed the Court conceived it cannot be assigned for Error 1 Keb. 278 281. Hodges's Case Bail In Ejectment against Two one does not put in Bail it is Error 2 Rolls Abr. 46. Dennis Case In Ejectment on Non Culp pleaded by the Attorney for the Defendant Common Bail entred after the Attorney was dead Verdict was for the Plaintiff who had Judgment and Error was brought to reverse it because no Bail was put in for the Defendant yet the Attorney being once retained by Warrant to put in Bail and took his Fee and being but common Bail tho' the Attorney was dead yet the Bail was then entred as of the same Term it ought to have been done 3 Bulstr 181. Denham and Comber Trespass is within the Act of 21 Jac. which names Trespass generally Stat. 13 Car. c. 2. but Ejectment is not within that Act. Stat. 13 Car. 2. c. 2. orders Bail on Error in Trespass 1 Keb. 295. Power 's Case Note Error without Bail is a Supersedeas in Ejectment notwithstanding the new Act 13 Car. 2. c. 2. it being not within the general Word Trespass Id. p. 308. Lufton and Johnson Tr. When common Bail to be filed 14 Car. 2. B. R. ordered that Common Bail shall be filed for the Defendant before any Declaration by Bill in such Action shall be delivered to the Tenant in Possession of the Lands in such Declaration contained and that if the Attorney for the Plaintiff in B. R. shall fail thereof then no Judgment for the Plaintiff shall be entred against the casual Ejector nor shall the Tenant in Possession confess Lease-entry and Ouster at the Trial. Attorney was made Lessee in Ejectment Imparlance and he would not grant an Imparlance to the Defendant as the Course is because he is Attorney of this Court B. R. and so claims Priviledge that the Defendant may answer him this Term or else he will enter up Judgment against him for want of a Plea Quaere Stiles Rep. 367. CHAP. IV. Against whom Ejectione Firme lies or not and of the casual Ejector Of the old way of Sealing Leases of Ejectment by Corporations by Baron and Feme in what Cases now to be used EJectione Firme against one Simul cum had been ruled to be good and so used in the Common Pleas tho' heretofore it was adjudged to the contrary Stiles Rep. 15. It lies against Baron and Feme Lib. Intr. 253. 9. Rep. 77. e. Peytoe's Case Plo. 187. It lies against the Ejector or wrong Doer be who he will When the Course was to seal an Ejectment to try a Title of Land Who was accounted an Ejector formerly the Ejector in Law was any Person that comes upon any part of the Land c. in the Ejectment-Lease tho' it be by chance and with no intent to disturb the Lessee of Possession next after the Sealing and Delivery of the Ejectment-Lease and such an Ejector was a good Ejector against whom an Action of Ejectione Firme may be brought to try the Title of the Land in Question But he that was to try a Title of Land in Ejectment ought not to have made an Ejector of his own against whom he might bring his Action or to consent or agree with one to come upon the Land let in the Ejectment-Lease with an Intent to make him an Ector and to bring his Action against him for by that means the Tenant in Possession of the Land was after put out of Possession by a Writ of Habere fac ' possessionem without any Notice given to him or his Lessor of the Suit but now the Law is otherwise and altered by the new way of Practice The new course in Ejectments For now it is not usual to seal any Lease of Ejectment at all in this Action but the Plaintiff that intends to try the Title feigns a Lease of Ejectment in his Declaration and an Ejector and draws a Declaration against his own Ejector who sends or delivers a Copy thereof to the Tenant in Possession giving him Notice to appear and defend his Title or else the Ejector will confess or suffer Judgment by Default But if the Tenant or the Lessor will defend the Title then it is usual for them to move the Court that they may be made Ejector to defend the Title that is the Tenant appears and consents to a Rule with the Plaintiff's Attorney to make himself Defendant in the room of the casual Ejector and this the Court will grant if he will confess Lease Entry and Ouster and at the Trial stand meerly upon the Title but if they do not at the Trial confess Lease Entry and Ouster then the Judgment shall be entred against the casual viz. the Plaintiff's own Ejector Note The Court said in Addison's Case Mod. Rep. 252. That they take no Notice judicially that the Lessor of the Plaintiff is the Party interested therefore they punish the Plaintiff if he release the Damages but in point of Costs they take notice of him But before I proceed further The old way of Sealing Leases of Ejectment I hope it will not be tedious a little to shew how the Law and Practice was taken when Ejectment-Leases were sealed and Entries to be duly made and Warrants of Attorney made to deliver the Lease upon the Land by a Corporation Baron and Feme c. especially considering that in Inferiour Courts the old way of actual sealing Leases is continued Winch 50. 1 Brow nl 129. Godb. 72. Earl of Kent's Case And first The way to execute a Lease to try a Title the Land being in many Men's Hands was to enter into one of the Parcels and leave one in that place and then he must go into another and leave one there and so of the rest and then after he had made the last Entry there he sealeth and delivereth the Lease and then those Men that were left there must come out of the Land But when a Title was to be tryed by Ejectment and a Lease to be executed by a Letter of Attorney the Course was That the Lessor do seal the Lease only and deliver it as an Escrow and the Letter of Attorney and deliver the Letter of Attorney but not the Lease for the Attorney must deliver that upon the Land And upon Ejectment brought of Land in Two Villages as of an House and Forty Acres of Land in A. and B. and a special Entry in the Land adjoyning to the House viz. the putting in of an Horse which was drove out
much there was in Land and how much in Pasture and the Judgment was reversed Cro. Car. 573. Martin and Nichols Observe Acres according to Statute-measure In Ejectione Firme or a Praecipe of 100 Acres this is according to Statute-measure but if one bargain and sell 100 Acres of Land to another that shall not be according to the Statute-measure but after the usual Account in the Country in Andrews Case cited in Ewer and Heydon's Case The Declaration was De duabus acris fundi Anglice Hop-ground That he was ejected è duabus Acris fundi Anglicè Hop-ground Per Rolls it is good in a Grant but not in Declarations and the Anglice here does not help it for the Anglicè is not to interpret a Latin Name by which it is called Stiles Rep. 202 203. Meers and French Ejectment lies de decem Acris Pisarum for in common Acceptance Ten Acres of Pease De decem acris Pisarum and Ten Acres of Land sowed with Pease is all one 1 Brownl 150. Ejectment of Three hundred Acres of Waste De 300 Acres of Waste inter alia c. per Cur ' Waste is uncertain and may comprehend Land of any Quality and the Sheriff will be at a Loss what Land to deliver and after the Plaintiff released the Waste and Damages and took Judgment of the Residue Hardr. 57. Hancock and Prynn Ejectment lies de prima Tonsura of the first Crop De prima Tensura Cro. Car. 362. Ward Ejectment lies of a Cole-mine De Cole-mine for it is a Profit well known Ejectment of Land and a Colepit in the same Land ruled to be good because it is in a personal Action aliter in a Real Action because it is his petitum 1 Rolls Rep. 55. Cro. Jac. 21. Harbotle and Placock It lies of a Boillary of Salt-water De un Boillary of Salt Siderf 161. Ejectment lies not de rivulo seu aquae cursu De Râ—vulo aquae cursu therefore Godbolt p. 157. n. 213. is not Law nor a Precipe lies of it and Livery and Seisin cannot be made of it for non moratur non est firma but is always fluctuant and Execution by habere fac ' possessionem cannot be made of it but the Action ought to be of so many Acres of Land aqua coopert but if the Land under the River or Place appertains not to the Plaintiff but the River only then upon Disturbance his Remedy is only by Action on the case upon any Diversion of it and not aliter Yelv. 143. Challoner and Thomas M. 6 Jac. Challoner and Moor. Cro. Car. 492. Herbert and Llanghlyn's Case Ejectione firme lies not de Profit apprender De Profit apprender and so not of a Common or Rent nor of a Pischary it must be terra aqua cooperta in such a River tho' the Court seemed doubtful of it in Mâ—llineux's Case which was Ejectment of an House and Lands in T. nec non de Libera Pischaria infra Rivulum de Trent in which Action Damages were entirely given De Libera Pischaria but to avoid the Question the Plaintiff released his Damages totally and his Action quoad the Pischary and had Judgment for the Residue Cro. Jac. 146. Molineux Ejectment was brought in Ireland of forty Messuages De 100 Acres of Bogg Five hundred Acres of Land an Hundred Acres of Bogg in the Villages and Territories of D. S. and V. Bogg is an usual Word and well known there and if it were not the Plaintiff may release his Demand as to that and have Judgment for the Residue Another Exception was because it was in Villis Territoriis In villis territeriis but per Cur ' it 's well enough and of the same Sense and if not it is but Surplusage as to the Territories De 50 Acres of Mountain in Ireland but Ejectment of 500 Acres of Mountain in Ireland is ill for it is not of one Nature but several as Turfs Pasture but a Precipe is good de Saliceto de Stagno de Dominio by the general Notice the Country hath of them where the Lands lie and of their Quality On Ejectment in Ireland Error was brought in B. R. here because he brought Ejectment of 40 Acres of Wood De 40 Acris bosci 40 Acris subbosci and 20 Acres of Under-wood and so one thing twice demanded because Underwood is a Species of Wood sed non allocatur because this does not appear to the Court and this shall not be alledged for Error but ought to be taken in Abatement of the Writ Cro. Car. 512. Mulcarry and Eyres 2 Roll. Rep. 166 189. Macdonnel's Case 2 Rolls Rep. 487 482. Warren and Wakeley Ejectione Firme be omnibus Decimis is not good De omnibus Decimis De quadam portione D. 〈◊〉 it lies not de quadam portione Decimarum generally but de quadam portione granorum foeni is good the Nature ought to to be shewed though not the Certainty and the Ejectment was supposed in May when there is not any Tythes and so not good It may be that all the Tything consists in Modo decimandi for Payment of an yearly Sum in Satisfaction of Tythes whereof no Ejectione Firme lies It was a Question in Preist and Wood's Case Cr. Car. 301. Whether an Ejectione Firme lay of Tythes only it may be of a Rectory or such a Chapel and of the Tythes thereunto belonging whereof an Habere fac ' possessionem may be but it was adjudged pro Querente The Ejectment was supposed in taking so many Loads of Wheat and Barley being severed from the Nine Parts 1 Roll. Rep. 68. cited in Worral and Harper's Case 11 Rep. 25. Harper's Case Cro. Car. 301. Preist and Wood. Ejectment of so many Acres Jampnorum Bruerue De 20 Acris Jampnorum Bruere and does not express how many of each yet good Mod. Rep. 9. Fitzgerard's Case Ejectione Firme de una virgata terrae lies not De una Virgata terrae and so it was adjudged in the Exchequer-Chamber Error was brought of a Judgment in C. B. in Ejectment de Virgata terre on general Verdict which is ill being uncertain in every County but the Plaintiff below might have Released Damages as to that but now it is too late Cro. Eliz. 339. Jordan's Case 3 Keb. 450. Hall and Johnson Ejectione Firme lies not de Pannagio De Pannagio Q. de Parco Sid. 417. It lies de Herbagio De Herbagio 2 Rolls Rep. 481 482. Ejectione Firme was brought for Entry into a Messuage sive Tenementum and four Acres of Land to the same belonging Per Cur ' the Declaration is uncertain but it was said as to the four Acres it was certain enough and the Words to the same belonging are meerly void and the Plaintiff released Damages and had Judgment 3 Cro. 228. Wood and Pain Cr. El. 186. mesme Case
Ejectment lies not of a Free Warren De libera Warrenna 1 Keb. 500. Count of the Moiety of two Acres of Land De Moiety of 20 Acres of Land is well enough and Trespass lies against the Sheriff if he does not execute on the right places 1 Keb. 278. Lufton's Case Per Cur ' Ejectment lies de uno Stabulo De uno stabulo or where-ever the thing is so certain that the Sheriff may do Execution 1 Keb. 236. Whitacre's Case Separalis Pischaria usque ad filum aquae cannot be counted upon Separalis Pischaria usque ad C. but per Windham such Evidence might be given of such Pischary by Metes and Bounds 1 Keb. 290. Sir Chr. Griese and Adams Ejectment lies de Capella De Capella per Windham 1 Keb. 438. Ejectment was laid on Demise at T. Of an House and Land in quodam campo juxta le Castle-hill of an House and Land in quodam campo juxta le Castle-hill which per Cur ' is ill on motion in Arrest of Judgment for no Execution can ever be directed to any Sheriff and it must appear where the Land demised lieth 1 Keb. 777. Took and Atho Ejectment of Ten Hides of Land is good a Hide of Land is the same as Carucat ' De 10 Hides of Land Carucat terrae what which is as much as a Plow which is usually intended to have six Horses may manure in a year and being 100 or 120 Acres in Northampton-shire 1 Keb. 877. Wright and Sherrard Ejectment de 7 Messuagiis sive Tenementis is ill after a general Verdict De Messuag Tenement and it 's on Demurrer this might have been helped by taking Verdict of either So it is when the Ejectment is de Messuagio Tenement ' it's ill after General Verdict 2 Keb. 80 82. Burbury and Yeomans Ejectment does not lie of a Light house Lighthouse but Action on the Case 2 Keb. 114. Ejectment of the Pannage of a Park is ill 2 Keb. 460. Ejectment of a Close of Meadow doubted in Steel and Stanly's Case De Close of Meadow M. 22 Car. 2. B. C. Ejectment of 600 Acres of Fen-Marsh 600 Acres of Fen-Marsh Meadow arable Lâ—â—d Meadow arable Lands Twisden asked the Plaintiff whereof they would take their Verdict if they would have it of Marsh and as such give Execution of the Fens in Question 2 Keb. 23. Downham and Walden Ejectment de 20 Villis Terris in Ireland De 20 villis terris in Ireland the Court conceived it wellenough on 1 Cro. 512. the Original Judgment being in C. B. and affirmed in B. R. there 2 Keb. 745. Ejectment of Two Mills not saying what good 2 Keb. 875. Ejectment of a Messuage includes a Garden De messuagio includes a Garden 3 Keb. 44. Ejectment de virgat ' terrae ill on General Verdict De virgata terrae being uncertain in every County but the Plaintiff below might have Released Damages as to that but now it is too late This was in 〈◊〉 of a Judgment in B. R. 3 Keb. 450. Hall and Johnson Ejectment of Moor or Meadow Moor or Meadow is ill 3 Keb. 529. Ejectment lies not of Common or Pischary alone De Common and Pisdhary yet being after Verdict it should be intended appurtenant and so well enough This was in Ejectment of a House and 40 Acres of Pasture Keb. 738. Barton's Case Now as to Declarations in this Action I shall lay down some General Rules 1. The Plaintiff must declare on one Title only and therefore in the Case of the Lord Chandois and Pitts the Count was of three several Leases of the whole to the Defendant the Council prayed that one B. may be made Defendant and that the Plaintiff might elect to proceed on one only Title which the Court granted and said Altho ' the Party may declare on several Leases one at and another from such a Day yet cannot declare on several Lessors And the Court ordered the Plaintiff to elect one Title only Trin. 22 Car. 2. B. R. 2. In Ejectione Firme of a Close the Quantity of them and their Nature ought to be expressed viz. Land Meadow or Pasture It s a sure Rule the Certainty of the Land ought to be described and the Quality 11 Rep. 55. Savill's Case 3. In Ejectione firme Surplsage in the Count is not vitious Dyer 304 305. 4. If the Entry and Ejectment be supposed in the Declaration to be before the Commencement of the Lease the Declaration is void Vide Postea 5. It must be alledged in what Vill the Tenements are Vide infra 6. The Plaintiff must make his Title truly Vide infra p. 72. b. The Entry to deliver Declarations in Ejectment is not sufficient to avoid a Fine without express Authority to enter to avoid the Fine so was the Case reported 2 Saunders 319. Tenant for Life levies a Fine sur Conisance de droit come ceo with Proclamation and he in Reversion for Life within five Years after the Death of Tenant for Life directs one to deliver a Declaration in Ejectment to the Tenant in Possession this shall not amount to an Entry to avoid the Fine tho' this was the Declaration which contained the Lease upon which the Ejectment was brought Keb. 555. Clerk and Pymell M. 21 Car. 2. B. R. DECLARATION In Ejectment in B. C. the Plaintiff there declares in the first Declaration Variance between the Imparlance-Roll and Issue Roll as to the Commencement of the Lease which is called the Imparlance-Roll of a Lease made the 20th of September for five years then next ensuing and after Imparlance upon the Issue-Roll for there the Plaintiff useth to declare again after Imparlance the Plaintiff declares of a Lease made the 30th of January the same year Habend ' for five years from the 20th of December before and upon Issue found pro Quer ' per Cur ' it's erroneous for he declared upon one Lease and went to Issue upon another for when a Lease is made the 30th of January Habend from the 20th of December before this is but a Lease in Interest till the 30th of January and not before and only in Computation from the 20th of December The Imparlance-Roll is the material Declaration and by the Prothonotaries the Imparlance-Roll is the material Declaration and if Variance be from it in matter of Substance this is not good nor amendable tho' it was urged That the last Declaration shall be taken as a new Declaration without any Reference to the other and then it shall be good 1 Roll. Rep. 448. Millward and Watts 3 Bulstr 229. Millward and Watts Cr. Jac. 415. mesme Case But in Merril and Smith's Case Cro. Jac. 311. the first Declaration was That T. S. 25th of March 6. Jan. let to the Plaintiff the Land c. for seven years by Vertue whereof the Plaintiff entred and was possessed until the Defendeant postea scil
and that is not supplied by the words virtute cujus but no Judgment was given because two against two yet in Dyer 89. in margine it 's said because he did not aver in facto that he entred after the day of the date for the Lease doth not commence till the next day that Judgment was arrested absente Popham And another case is there cited M. 44. or 42. El. B. R. in Ejectione Firme upon a Lease made to commence at Michaelmas and the Plaintiff declares That he virtute dimissionis c. And it was moved in Arrest of Judgment because he saith not he entred after Michaelmas And Dyer 89. was cited and Gaudy and Fenner held it ill but per Popham it is aided by the Statute of Jeofayis because it is Form only and the Demise is the Substance and per Popham after Michaelmas he is Termor by the Continuance of the Possession quod Fenner and Gaudy negaverunt But in Wakely and Warner's Case Ejectment was brough in Ireland and Judgment pro Querente Virtute cujus praetextu cujus he entred It was assigned for Error that the Plaintiff shews a Lease made to him to commence at a day to come virtute cujus he entred and was possest until ejected by the Defendant and shews not when he entred either after or before the day at which the Lease commenced sed non allocatur because he said virtute cujus c. But by Lea Chief Justice if he had said praetextu cujus it had been otherwise Moor 466. Ejectment of a Lease made the 12 of Dec. Commencement Habend ' à primo die On Not guilty the Jury find a Lease made in haec verba which was dated primo Decemb. Hab. from henceforth but delivered the 12th of Decemb. and the Question was Whether this be according to the Declaration It was objected That from the day of the Date and from henceforth are several Commencements for the one begins the day it was sealed the other the day after but per Cur ' they are all one being a Computation of time from the time past Habend à die datus expounded and both shall be pleaded to begin from the day of the Date when the Lease is afterward sealed another day But if he declares of a Lease the first of December Hab ' à die datus the Ejectment cannot be alledged the same day but if the Lease be made the first of Decemb. Hab. henceforth the Ejectment may be alledged the same day So was the Case of Osborn and Ryder Ejectment on a Lease made 1 Jan. 3 Jac. Hab. à die datus and the Ejectment was the same day and ruled to be good tho' the Hab. is as much as to say from the day of the Date but per Cur ' the Date is the time of the Delivery and it differs from the day of the Date wherefore the Ejectment alledged postea the same day is good enough Cro. Jac. p. 258. Lluellyn and Williams And p. 135. Osborn and Ryder Ejectione Firme of a Lease dated the 6th of December 17 Jac. Hab. à die datus upon Evidence the Lease was shewed and was dated the 6th of Decemb. 19 Jac. Hab. à die confectionis the Plaintiff was Nonsuited Cr. Jac. Scavage's Case The Plaintiff declares upon a Lease made the 10th day of October Hab. from the 20th day of Novemb. for five years the Question was upon a special Verdict Whether this was a good Lease or not Judgment was arrested It shall not begin from the time of the Delivery Uncertain Limitation of the Commencement of the Lease but it 's an uncertain Limitation and cannot be known what November he meant last past or next ensuing But the Law will reject an impossible Limitation as from the 31st of Septemb. because it cannot be any part of the Parties Agreement The Declaration was Quod cum J. H. by his Indenture bearing date the 20th of May 32 Eliz. No day of the Delivery shewed had let to him an House and shews not when the Lease was made for he doth not shew any day of the Delivery per Cur ' it's good For it shall be intended to be delivered at the day of the Date Mod. Rep. p. 180. 3 Leon. p. 266. Kniver and Cope In Ejectment of the Manor of D. Variance containing 250 Acres be it more or less with Letters of Attorney reciting Whereas J. the Lessor had made a Lease of a Manor containing 250 Acres and Authority to make Livery according to the recited Lease per Cur ' the Variance is fatal and the Plaintiff was nonsuited 3 Keb. 691. Smith and Talbot M. 18 Car. 2. Plaintiff declares In what Vill. That P. C. by Indenture apud S. let unto him an House and 20 Acres of Land by the Name of all the Tenements in S. After Verdict Judgment was Arrested because it was not alledged in what Vill the Tenements are Per nomen and the naming of the Vill in the Pernomen is not material Cr. El. 822. Gray and Chapman 50 Hobert 89. Rich and Shere Declaration was That at E. in Com' praedict ' he did demise one Messuage four Gardens Two hundred Acres of Land Eighty Acres of Pasture called East-Dizard in the said County On Not guilty the Plaintiff had Judgment it was Error because the Plaintiff in his Declaration did not shew in what Town Parish Hamlet or Place the said Tenement called East-Dizard lay and Judgment was reversed in the E◠chequer-Chamber Declaration was of a Lease of Serjeant Hele That he the 16th of January 44 El. by Indenture dated the 2d of January demised c. it was moved That the Declaration was not good because it is that he demised the 16th of Jan. by Indenture dated the 2d of Jan. When the Lease shall be intended to be delivered on the day of the Demise and not of the Date and he does not say primo delibat ' the 16th of Jan. for otherwise it shall be intended to be delivered the day it bears date But per Cur ' it's good for tho' a Deed shall be intended to be delivered the day it bears date unless the contrary be shewed yet when it 's said he demised such a day by Indenture dated such a day before it must be necessarily intended it was not delivered the same day it bears date but upon the day of the Demise as it is alledged Cro. El. 890. House and Laxton Cro. El. p. 773. Hall and Denby And the Verdict often aids and intends that it was delivered the same day it bears date as in Heaton and Hurleston's Case The Declaration was Whereas J. S. by Indenture the 9th of June 19 Jac. dimisisset c. Habend ' terminum praedict ' à die datus sigillationis Indenturae praedictae for three years virtute cujus the Plaintiff the 10th of June 19 Jac. entred and was possessed until c. and Verdict pro Quer ' on Not guilty
is more cause to stay Judgment as to Damages and Costs because the Issue hath been fairly tried and the Defendants have confessed that the Plaintiff was in Possession and that the Defendants did eject him now if his Term was not commenced but his Possession tortious yet he is not to be turned out by a Stranger that hath no Title as the Defendants were the Jury having found against them and the Damages are for the entring upon our Possession and ejecting us But the Court said It could not be amended and Mr. Levet brought a new Trial and recovered Declarations when amendable or not In Ejectment where the Title is material Declaration amended after Plea without paying Costs the Plaintiff amended his Declaration after Plea but while all was in Paper in the date of his Action without Costs paying 1 Keb. 14. After Verdict and Judgment the Declaration cannot be amended After Verdict and Judgment no Amendment of a Declaration for that might attaint the Jury As in Ejectment of the Rectory of H. and other Tenants virtute cujus intravit in tenementa praedicta Verdict and Judgment de Rectoria Tenementis praedict ' Aliter in Judgment and Acts of the Court. it cannot be amended but on such Omission in Judgment or Acts of the Court it were amendable but not of the Declaration But in this case the Court conceived it well enough Tenements include a Rectory and that the word Tenements includes Rectory whether there be Glebe or not but not so of a Mannor Hill 25 and 26 Car. 2. Bale's Case If the Plaintiff in Ejectment declare of an House lying in two Parishes Declaration of an House lying in two Parishes and the House lies in one it 's good if the House do lie in either of the Parishes and do not lie in both of them yet the Declaration is good for there is certainty enough in it Pract. Reg. 110. It must be alledged in what Vill the Tenements are It must be alledged in what Vill the Tenements are the Plaintiff declares that P. C. by Indenture apud F. let unto him one House and twenty Acres of Land by the Name of all her Tenements in S. per Cur ' the Declaration is not good because it is not alledged in what Vill the Tenements are for the naming of the Vill in the Pernomen was not material and so Cr. El. 822. Gray and Chapman The Plaintiff declares of a Lease of one Messuage ten Acres of Land Where the Pernomen is not good twenty Acres of Meadow twenty of Pasture by the name of one Messuage ten Acres Prat. be it more or less after Verdict a Nil cap. per Billam was entred For upon the matter by the Plaintiff disclosed in his own Declaration he cannot have Execution of the Quantity found by the Jury for in the Lease there is not but ten Acres demised and these words in Judgment of Law cannot be extended to thirty or forty Acres and the rather because the Land demanded by the Declaration is of another nature than that mentioned in the Pernomen for this goes only to the Meadow and the Declaration is to the arable and Pasture Yelv. p. 166. In this Action it was moved in Arrest of Judgment That the Plaintiff had declared of two Demises viz. that J. S. demised ten Acres of Land to him and that J. N. had demised ten other Acres of Land to him Habend for the Term of five Years c. and that he entred into the Premisses demised to him by J. S. and J. N. in forma praedicta After Verdict upon Not guilty for the Plaintiff it was objected That in one of the Demises there is no certain Term or Estate for the Habend ' can only be referred to the Demise of J. S. for that begins a new Sentence but per Cur ' the Habend ' shall be a good Limitation of both Demises for five Years and when it is shewed that the Plaintiff entred into the Premisses demised to him in forma praedicta Forma praedict ' how construed that is an Averment that all was demised to him for that it is forma praedicta 2 Ventr 2. W. and M. In Ejectment the Plaintiff need not count of the demise of more Acres than the Acres out of which he was ejected Declaration need not be of more Acres than he was ejected and a demise may be pleaded of any Parcel without mentioning the entire as if one demise to me two Acres for Term of Years and I am ejected out of one Acre by a Stranger Now I shall have Ejectione Firme and count that one Acre was demised to me without any mention of the other Acre 1 Saunders p. 208. Where one declares on a fictitious Lease to A. One fictitious Lease to A. and another to B. the same term the last is not good for three years and within the same Term declares of another fictitious Lease to B. of the same Lands the last is not good for Trespass for the mean Profits must be brought in the first Lessee's Name ut dicitur As to the Form Ejectment was against two Declaration against two expulit and the Declaration was intraverat expulit and it was amended Yelv. 223. Vi armis are left out in the Declaration The Omission of vi armis in the Declaration Cro. El. 340. Griffith and Williams's Case saith it is but matter of Form and it is helped after a Verdict but in Cro. Jac. 36. and Yelv. 223. in Odington and Darby's Case where vi armis was left out and Error was brought in the Exchequer-Chamber it was not suffered to be amended but Judgment was reversed So Godb. 286. and so in Sykes and Coke's Case the Want of vi armis is not helped by a Verdict but in Error in B. R. if upon diminution it be well certified the Court will amend it Godb. 286. 2 Bulstr. 35. Cr. Jac. 306. Yelv. 223. Odington and Darby 1 Keb. 164. In B. R. the Transcript of Trespass and Ejectment was de Placito Transgressionis Ejectionis omitting Firme it was amended And in B. R. it would be amended in the Record it self before Removal 1 Keb. 106. Exception was taken in Godb. The Omission of Extratenet in the Declaration 60 71. because the Plaintiff did not say in his Declaration Extratenet but per tot ' Cur ' those Words were not material for if the Defendant do put out the Plaintiff it is sufficient to maintain the Action So if it be à possessione sua ejecit instead of à firma sua ejecit it 's good for ejecit à possessione inde inde hath relation to the Farm Godb. 60 71. In Ejectione Firme the Writ and Declaration were of two parts of certain Lands in H. and saith not in two parts in three parts to be divided and yet it was good as well in the Declaration as the Writ and this
the new Practice upon Not guilty pleaded the Title is only to be insisted on at the Trial yet in some Cases special Pleas may and ought to be pleaded in Ejectione Firme especially in inferiour Courts which I shall first treat of and then give a little touch as to the special Pleading formerly in use in this Action that so the Reader may not be totally ignorant thereof But first What shall be a good Plea in Abatement Per Cur ' That the Plaintiff had another Ejectment depending It is a good Plea in Abatement of Ejectione Firme in B. R. that the Plaintiff had another Ejectment for the same depending in the Common Bench Moor p. 539. Digby and Vernon In Ejectione Firme Action commenced and the Term expires pendant the Suit if the Term be expired before the Action brought the Writ shall abate because he ought to recover the Term and Damages but if he commence the Action before the Term expire and it expires pendent the Writ there it shall not abate but he shall recover Damages Dyer 226. Entry of the Plaintiff hanging the Writ Entry of the Plaintiff hanging the Writ shall abate the Writ In Williams and Ashet's Case the Defendant would have pleaded Entry after the Verdict in Abatement of the Writ Entry after the Verdict and before the day in Bank is not Error but it was hold clearly he had not day to plead it but it is put to his Audita Querela But in Parkes and Johnson's Case in Ejectione Firme the Error assigned was That the Plaintiff after Verdict and between the day of Nisi prius and the day in Banco had entred whereby his Bill was abated and demurred thereupon Per Cur ' this cannot be assigned for Error for it proves the Bill is abateable but is not abated in fait neither is it material to assign it for Error for upon such Surmise which goes only in Abatement the Judgment shall be examined Cro. El. 181. Ashet's Case Cro. El. 767. Parks and Johnson The Plaintiff declares of one Messuage and forty Acres of Land in Stone Abate because he shews not in which of the Vills the Lands lie The Defendant imparles till another Term and then pleads That within the Parish of Stone are three Vills A. B. and C. and because the Plaintiff does not shew in which of the Vills the Lands lie he demands Judgment of the Bill quod ob causam praedict ' Billa praedicta cassetur The Plaintiff demurs and adjudged for him After Imparlance no Pleading in Abatement and why For 1. after Imparlance the Defendant may not plead in Abatement of the Bill for he had accepted it to be good by his Entry into defence and by his Imparlance 2. Reg. Where a Man pleads in Abatement he ought to give to the Plaintiff a better Writ The matter of the Plea is not good because the Defendant does not shew in which of the Vills the Messuage and forty Acres lie And where a Man pleads in Abatement he ought to give the Plaintiff a better Writ and upon Demurrer there shall be a Respondeas Ouster Yelv. 112. Tomson and Collier After Verdict for the Plaintiff the Question being brought against Baron and Feme that the Husband was dead since the Nisi Ejectment against Baron and Feme Baron died since the Nisi prius and before the day in Bank the Action continued against the Wife prius and before the day in Bank and whether the Bill should abate in all or should stand against the Feme was the Question and because it is in Nature of an Action of Trespass and the Feme is charged for her own Fact it was adjudged that the Action continued against the Feme and that Judgment should be entred against her sole because the Baron was dead Cro. Jac. 356. Rigley and Lee. Ejectione Firme by J. S. against N. and O. N. Where the Plaintiff by his demand confesseth the Writ abateable appears and pleads the General Issue and Process continues against the other until he appears and then he appears and pleads an Entry into the Land puis darrein Continuance Judgment de Brev ' The Plaintiff upon this Plea demurs in Law Curia advisare and in the interim the first Issue was found pro Quer ' versus N. and the Plaintiff prays his Judgment He shall not have it because the Plaintiff by Demurrer in Law had confessed the Writ abateable and the Writ by the Entry of the Plaintiff was abated in as much as the Term is to be recovered Dyer 226. Nevill's Case To the same purpose is the late Case of Boys and Norcliff In Ejectione Firme the Question was if the Entry into the Land after the day of Nisi prius and before the day in Bank may be pleaded in Abatement and if such Entry puis darrein Continuance be a Plea in Abatement Note this was in Error out of the Common Bench and held by the Court of the King's Bench that it is not Error yet entry will not revive the Term because it's only in Abatement Entry before the Nisi prius to be pleaded at the Assises and there is a Diversity between this and Death 1 Bulstr 5. And it 's usual if the Entry be before the Nisi prius to plead such a Plea at the Assises and if it be omitted the Advantage is lost but not so in case of Death By Death the Writ is actually abated Difference between Entry after Verdict and Death there being no time to plead it in Court but Entry must be pleaded puis darrein Continuance in Abatement only Sid. p. 238. Boys and Norcliff 1 Keb. 841 850. mesme Case Shall not abate by the Death of the Lessee Not abate by the Death of the Lessee Vid. 3 Keb. 772. Of pleading to the Jurisdiction Conisance of Plea how to be demanded and allowed and how pleaded This Plea was formerly allowed of and so is still in some Cases Now every Plea which goes to the Jurisdiction of the Court Regula for a Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court. ought to be taken most strong against him that pleads it and to this purpose there is a pretty Case In Ejectment the Plaintiff declares of a Lease made at Haylsham Al' Jurisdict ' the Defendant pleads That Haylsham praedict â—ubi tenementa jacent is within the Cinque-Ports where the King 's Writ runs not Cinque-Ports and so he pleaded to the Jurisdiction of the Court The Plaintiff reply'd That the Town of Haylsham was within the County of Sussex absque hoc that it was within the Cinque-Ports The Defendant demurs Travorse because he ought to have traversed absque hoc quod Villa de Haylsham ubi tenementa jacent is within the Cinque-Port for the truth was it was part in the Cinque-Ports and part in the County of Sussex and the Land lies in the part which is in the Cinque-Ports but per Cur ' the
Firme and it was not amended for tho' Ejectione Firme is but a Plea of Trespass in its nature yet the Actions are several and therefore the Venire fac ' ought to be accordingly Cro. El. 622. Clerk's Case Ejectione Firme of a Lease at Mockas in Lower Mockas The Defendant pleads Not guilty and found against him and it was moved to be a Mis-tryal for the Venire fac ' was awarded from Mockas where it ought to have been from Lower Mockas the Issue being Not guilty but if the Lease had been traversed it had been otherwise Williams and Whitin In Ejectione Firme the Plaintiff declares of a Lease of Land in B. Pernomen of c. in B. C. c. The Venue from B. is good 2 Rolls Rep. 479. Taylor and Lenn The Appearance and Issue were in Hill Venire fac ' amended 1 Jac. and the Bail was Crastino Pur ' and thereupon was the Declaration and Issue and Venire fac ' awarded bearing date the 23th of January 1 Jacobi and upon this a Distringas the 12th of February moved in Arrest That the Venire fac ' was awarded before the Appearance and Declaration to try the Issue in the same Action and cannot be good Per Cur ' it was amendable for the Roll is the Warrant of the Venire fac ' which being variant from it the Teste thereof shall be amended to be subsequent to the Issue joyned And whereas the Teste was the 23th of January which was Sunday it shall be amended it being but the Fault of the Clerk and misawarding of Process which is aided per Stat. 32 H. 8. and 18 Eliz. Cro. Jac. 64. Dolphin and Clark William Brown of Bradfeild was returned upon the Venire fac ' and Hab. Another Person sworn on the Jury who was not returned it 's no Error because Estopple Corpora and William Brown of Metfeld who was another Person and not returned was sworn yet this cannot be assigned for Error for it is against the Record which is That William Brown of B. was returned and sworn and he is estopt to say the contrary for then every Record may be brought in Question upon such Surmise Cro. Jac. 244. Bowss and Cannington A Vill and Parish are intended all one unless the contrary be shewed Vide Cro. Jac. 150. Batch and Gilbert The Court was moved to change the Venue in Ejectment laid in London because the Lands in Question did concern the Poor in London and therefore it was supposed they could not have an indifferent Trial. Per Rolls the Action is local and cannot be removed except you draw it from thence by your Plea Stiles Rep. 395. Hunslop and Johnson In Ejectione Firme upon a Lease made at D. Where it shall not come de Corpore Comitatus in Comitat ' E. of Land called S. If Not guilty be pleaded and a Venire fac ' awarded de Corpore Comitatus E. there not being any Vill named wherein the Land lies it is erroneous because this lies in some Vill out of which the Visne ought to have come to have tried it and in such case it ought not to come de Corpore Comitatus for this is larger Hob. p. 89. Rich and Sheere Venire fac ' awarded to the Coroners ita quod B. one of the Coroners se non intromittat because he was Servant of the High-Sheriff who was Lessor of the Plaintiff it was said the same was no Cause of Challenge but the Court conceived it was being confessed Moor 623. Higgins and Spicer In Ejectione Firme against four who plead Not guilty Where the Sheriff is of Affinity to the Defendant if the Plaintiff suggest that the Sheriff is of Affinity to one of the Defendants shewing how and upon this prays a Venire fac ' to the Coroners and the Defendant does not deny it and upon this the Venire fac ' is awarded to the Coroners it is well awarded For altho' none of the Defendants may challenge the Array because the Sheriff is of Affinity to one of the Defendants yet the Plaintiff ought at the Trial either to challenge the Array and so delay himself or he ought not to try this during the time that he his Sheriff which would be a great delay 2 Rolls Abr. 668. Fox and Shepheard in Exchequer-Chamber Vide Raymund 572. Consent may make a Trial had in a foreign County good In Ejectione Firme of three Acres of Land in Forresta de K. Visne de Forresta in Com. c. If the Defendant plead Non culp ' the Venue may be de Vicineto Forrestae for this is Lieu conus and by Intendment forasmuch as the Defendant had not pleaded this in Abatemenc this is out of any Parish or Vill 2 Rolls Abr. 621. Phillips and Evans In Ejectione Firme against Baron and Feme The Wife found Not guilty and a Special Verdict as to the Baron which was insufficient a Venire fac ' de nove awarded for both and why on Not guilty pleaded and a Venire fac ' granted the Jury find the Wife Not guilty and find a special Verdict as to the Husband which Special Verdict is afterwards adjudged insufficient a Venire fac ' de novo shall be awarded for both as well the Wife as the Husband And upon this new Writ the Wife may be found guilty because the Record and Issue is intire and for this their Verdict is insufficient in all and void Vid. infra Tit. Special Verdict CHAP. X. Of joyning Issue and Trial and Bill of Exception In what Cases there shall be Amendment THE Record of the Nisi prius was amended by the Plea-Roll 1 Brownl 133. Gaff and Randal Issue was joyned the Defendant pleads Not guilty and it was entred and the aforesaid Lessor likewise where it should have been praedict ' Querens similiter and it was amended So praedict ' Thomas similiter where it should be praedict ' Johannes similiter and it was amended 2 Brownl 102. Weeby's Case 2 Rolls Abr. 199. The Issue was Not guilty and a Venire awarded retornable 3 Trin. and the Essoyn adjourned by the Plaintiff till Michaelmass-Term and at the next Assises the Plaintiff notwithstanding the Essoyn and the adjourning it procured a Nisi prius by which it was found for the Plaintiff And per Curiam no Nisi prius ought to issue out in this Case because the Plaintiff himself by the adjourning the Essoyn cast by the Defendant until Michaelmass-Term had barred himself of all Proceedings in the mean time And the words in the Stat. W. 2. c. 27. Stat. W. 2. c. 27. are Postquam aliquis posuerit se in aliquam inquisitionem ad prox ' diem allocet ' ei Esson ' import That the Essoyn shall not be taken at the Retorn of the Process against the Jury altho' the Jury be ready at the Bar. But then it was surmised that the Defendant was not Essoyned for the Name of the Defendant is E.
it was ruled to be Error in the Exchequer-Chamber in the Bishop of Landaff's Case A Tryal by Consent in other County than where the Land lies is good in Ejectment But in Sir Thomas Jones's Rep. Devoren and Walcot's Case it is held That a Tryal by Consent upon the Roll in other County than where the Land lies is good in Ejectment 1 Rolls Abr. 787. 2 Keb. 260. Sir Thomas Jones 199. Devoren and Walcott In an Ejectione Firme in London upon a Lease made of Lands in Middlesex Tryal in London of Lands in Middlesex if the Defendant plead Not guilty this may be tried in London because the Counties may not joyn altho' the Jury ought to enquire of the Ejectment which was in Middlesex 2 Rolls Abr. 603. Herbert and Middleton But in Flower and Standing's Case in Ejectment Moved in Arrest of Judgment that the Lease was made at B. of Lands in another County and the Plaintiff was not in Possession it was moved in Arrest of Judgment That the Lease is made at B. of Lands in another County which was moved to be ill it appearing that the Plaintiff was not in Possession sed non allocatur for this is matter of Evidence and it shall be intended it was after Verdict and so is the common Course M. 20 Car. 2. B. R. In Ejectment one may not have Priviledge of Tryal of Lands in Wales in the English County next adjoyning In the King's Case 〈◊〉 shall be in the Exchequer tho' the â—and lie in Wales for they are to be tried in the County where the Land lâ—es otherwise it is if the King be Party it 〈◊〉 be tried in the Exchequer This Action was brought by one of the Ushers of the Exchequer by Priviledge Savile 10 12. Ejectment is brought against one in Custodia in B. Tryal by Mittimus in the County Palatine R. of Lands in the County Palatine and the Action was laid in B. R. and the Record was sent down by Mittimus from B. R. and a special Indorsement of the Postea and thereof one prayed Judgment against his own Ejector in an Action of Lands in the County Palatine of Chester which the Court granted because when the Defendant hath pleaded to Issue they may try it by Mittimus in the County Palatine Redvish and Smith's Case M. 15. 2 Car. B. R. Holloway and Chamberlen Action on the Case on feigned Issue out of Chancery Per Twisden Justice the Lands being in the Isle of Wight and the Jury of Surrey this Tryal is not allowable to try Conveyata or not this being a Windlace to try Ejectments in another County But in 1 Ventr 66. a Title of Land was tried out the proper County upon a feigned Wager whether well conveyed or not this is the usual Course of Issues directed out of Chancery 2 Keb. 634. Meres Case 1 Ventris 66. Who shall be good Witnesses in this Action or not It is agreed That a Trustee cannot be a Witness concerning the Title of the same Land Trustee the Interest in the Law being lodged in him But by Hales a Trustee may be a Witness against his Trust 2 Sid. 109. In Ejectment the Plaintiff challenged B. a Witness to a Devise because he was Trustee in a Will and had an Annuity but he having released both before the Suit the Court held him to be a good Witness or if he hath received it and tho' it be after the Action brought Sid. 315. Interest in Equity disables a Man to be a Witness Interest in Equity but one who hath an equitable collateral Title may be a Witness Parishioners may be a Witness to a Devise by which the Parish claims Lands to the Relief of the Poor Parishioners Exception was taken against a Witness produced to prove the Lease of Ejectment Witness had the Inheritance because he had the Inheritance in the Lands let but it was urged by the other side That the Defendant did claim under the same Person that the Plaintiff did and so the Witness was admitted to be sworn Stiles Rep. 482. Fox and Swann One Coparcener cannot be Evidence for another in Ejectment Coparceners because she claims by the same Title tho' she is not Party to the Suit but the Daughter of her Sister may be sworn for altho' she be Heir yet her Mother may give the Lands to whom she will being Fee-simple P. 13 Car. 2. B. R. Truel and Castel In Ejectment of Tythes the Plaintiff excepted against a Copyholder in Reversion after an Estate Tail Copyholder in Reversion after an Estate Tail for a Witness to prove the Boundary of a Parish and he was set aside for the possibility which makes him partial M. 20 Car. 2. B. R. Hitchcok's Case In Ejectment of the Manor of S. Trespass on Issue out of Chancery to try the Number of Acres the Defendant excepted to a Witness that had been a Trespassor as Servant to my Lord Lee in the Lands in Question an Action being depending The Court set him aside and thereupon the Plaintiff was Non-suited M. 20 Car. 2. B. R. Tuck and Sibley Exception was taken against a Witness to prove the Execution of a Deed by Livery and Seisin Estate at Will because he had an Estate at Will made to him of part of the Land but it was dissallowed vide Mod. Rep. 21 73 74 107. Hob. 92. In Ejectment at Tryal at Bar Executor of the grant of a Rent the Title of the Lessor of the Plaintiff was upon the Grant of a Rent with power to enter for Non-payment the Executor of the Grantor was produced as a Witness for the Defendant It was objected against him That in the Grant of the Rent the Grantor covenanted for himself and his Heirs to pay it and so the Executor being obliged he was no competent Witness 1 Vent 347. Cook and Fountain On on a Trial at Bar per Cur. If one of the Witnesses had part of the Lands in Question The Witness Sells part of the Lnd before Tryal and he sells or disposeth of it after his coming to London or at any time after he had notice of Trial he shall not be received to give Evidence tho' he sell bona fide and upon a valuable Consideration and althô he himself be not Occupier of the Land nor had been after the Writ purchased but another by his Commandment the Court will not suffer him to be a Witness because if Verdict pass against him he who acted by his Commandment may charge him in Action on the Case Witness claimed Estate by Title Paramount both there Titles but upon Examination it appering That the Witness claimed an Estate for Life by Title Paramount both their Titles viz. Plaintiff and Defendant he was Sworn Siderf p. 51. Wicks and Smallbrok's Case Exception was taken against a Witness to prove Execution of a Deed of Feofment by Livery and Seisin Two Witnesses were subscribed
per Cur. the Verdict may be taken according to the Title and so it was Qu. how the habere fac ' Possession in such case shall be executed Sid. p. 229. Ablett and Skinner The Plaintiff Declares of a Lease made the 14 of January Variance as to time 30 El. Hab. from the Feast of Christmass then last past for three years and upon the Evidence the Plaintiff shewed a Lease bearing date the 13 of January eodem ann And it was found by Witnesses that the Lease was Sealed and Delivered upon the Land the 13th day Per Cur. Notwithstanding this variance the Evidence is good enough to maintain this Declaration for if a Lease was Sealed and Delivered the 13 day it was then a Lease of the 14 4 Leon. p. 14. Force and Foster The Plaintiff declared in Ejectment of 100 Acres of Land Evidence of fewer Acres then delcared and shewed his Lease in Evidence of 40 Acres And it was urged That he failed of his Lease for there was no such Lease as that whereof he did Count. But per Cur. it is good for so much as was contained in his Lease and for the Residue the Jury may find the Defendant Not guilty Cr. Eliz. p. 13. Guy and Rand and yet it is held 2 Rolls Abr. 72. Brown and Ells. If the Plaintiff Declare in Ejectment upon a Lease for years of three Acres and in Evidence he shews but a Lease of a Moiety this is a material variance for it is not the same Lease Ejectment of Meadow and Pasture and the Evidence is de Herbegio and Pannagio Ejectione Firme of so many Acres of Meadow and so many Acres of Pasture Upon Not guilty the Jury find a Demise de Herbagio and Pannagio of so many Acres the Question was in Wheeler and Toulson's Case Hard. 330. If this Evidence shall maintain the Issue The Court inclined it did not Ejectment doth lie of a Lease of Herbage and then by the same Reason the Plaintiff ought to Declare accordingly and Herbage doth not include all the profit of the Soil but part of it The Declaration was of a Joynt Lease made by two Joynt Lease by Tenants in Common and on Evidence it appears they were Tenants in Common By three Justices against one it is good Cr. Jac. 166. Mantle's Case 83. Ejectment was of Lands in Oxenhope and the Witnesses upon examination did swear there were two Oxenhopes upper and nither without Addition and upon this the Plaintiff Nonsuited at York Assizes If a Man Declare of a Lease made by Baron and Feme and gives in Evidence a Lease made by the Baron only this is a material variance Note The day of the Filing of the Declaration in the Ejectment may be given in Evidence where the Demise is laid the same Term Vid. Siderf p. 432. Perdyer's Case Of Demurrer to the Evidence It was held by all the Court upon Evidence to a Jury Demurrer on Evidence That if the Plaintiff in Ejectione Firme or other Action gives in Evidence any matter in Writing or Record or a Sentence in the Spiritual Court as it was in this Case and the Defendant offers to Demur there upon The Plaintiff ought to joyn in Demurrer or wave the Evidence because the Defendant shall not be compelled to put a matter of difficulty to the Lay-gents and because there cannot be any variance of a matter in Writing but if either Party offer to Demur upon any Evidence given by Witness the other unless he pleaseth shall not be compelled to joyn because the Credit of the Testimony is to be examined by a Jury and the Evidence is uncertain and may be enforced more or less but both Parties may agree to joyn in Demurrer upon such Evidence and if the Plaintiff produce Testimonies to prove any matter in fact upon which a Question ariseth if the Defendant admit their Testimones to be true he may Demur but in the Case of the King the other Party may not Demur upon Evidence shewn in Writing or Record for the King unless the King's Council will thereunto assent In the King's Case But the Court in such Case shall charge the Jury to find such special matter but this is by Prerogative who may waive the Demurrer or take Issue at his Pleasure Cro. Eliz. 751. Midlet and Baker 5 Rept 104. Baker's Case And in 1 Inst. p. 72. If the Plaintiff in Evidence shew any matter of Record or Deeds or Writings or any Sentence in the Ecclesiastical Court or other matter of Evidence by Testimonies of Witnesses or otherwise whereupon doubt in Law ariseth and the Defendant offer to Demur in Law thereupon the Plaintiff cannot refuse to joyn in Demurrer no more than in Demurrer on a Count Replicat c. and so è Converso may the Plaintiff Demur in Law on the Evidence of the Defendant but the King's Council shall not be inforced to joyn in Demurrer A Demurrer to Evidence never denies the truth of the fact but confeseth the fact and denies the Law to be with the Party that shews the fact Plowd Newis and Scholastica's Case If a Demurrer be upon the Evidence the Evidence ought to entred verbatim Keb. 77. Exemplification of a Verdict A Verdict against one whom either the Plaintiff or Defendant claims may be given in Evidence against the Party so claiming Contra if neither claim under it Mich. 1656. B. R. Duke and Ventres If a Verdict pass for two Defendants altho ' by default of ones not putting in Bail They may not have Judgment yet they may exemplifie their Verdict to give this in Evidence to another Jury 2 Rolls Rep. 46. Dennis and Bremblecot In Ejectment brought by a Reversioner or Debt upon the Statute of Tithes Ed◠6. brought by a Proprietor of Tithes after a Verdict at Law the Lessee or the present Proprietor the Reversioner of the Lands or Tithes shall hive advantage of the Verdict and gave it in Evidence And the Reasons are because they cannot be immediate Parties to the Action or Suit for that must be prosecuted by the Lessee or present Tenant and they may give in Evidence as well as the Plaintiff himself Hard. 2. Rep. 472. CHAP. XII Rules for Learning of Special Verdicts Of Estoppels found by the Jury and how they shall bind What is a material variance between the Declaration and Verdict Of priority of Possession Where the Special Conclusion of the Verdict shall aid the Imperfections of it Where and in what Cases the Verdicts makes the Declaration good Verdict Special taken according to intent Difference where the Verdict concludes specially on one Point and where it concludes in general or between the Special Conclusion of the Jury and their Reference to the Court. Circumstances in a Special Verdict need not be precisely found Where the Judges are not bound by the Conclusion of the Jury Of certainty and uncertainty in a Special Verdict Of the finding quo ad residuum certainty
in Misericordia if it be supposed good The Court held them to be manifest Errors and assignable by the Defendant Hob. 108. Latch 61. Cr. Jac. 113. 1 Keb. 110. Hammond and Conisby But I conceive that is not Law for in Hammond and Conisby's Case Ejectione Firme was of a Manor upon Not guilty there was a Verdict pro Quer. for the Manor and quoad the Services Not guilty Error was assigned because the Verdict is not for the Plaintiff for the Manor because as to the Services it is for the Defendant Surpluse in a Verdict But per Cur. The last part of the Verdict shall be taken general for the Plaintiff Sid. 232. Ejectione Firme of a Messuage On Not guilty the Jury find the Defendant guilty of 2 parts of the House It was alledged in Arrest of Judgment That the Verdict has not found the Defendant Guilty according to the Count which is of a Messuage an entire thing Manwood contra Omne majus continet in se minus but if the Declaration had been of 2 parts of a Messuage and on Not guilty the Jury had found him Guilty of the entire House The Plaintiff shall not have Judgment Savill 27. In Ejectione Firme of a Messuage if it be found that a little part of the House is Built by incroachment upon the Land of the Plaintiff and not the Residue yet the Plaintiff shall recover for this parcel by the name of an House It 's laid down positive in Ablett and Skinner's Case in Sid. The Verdict may be of fewer parts than the Declaration p. 229. that the Verdict may be of fewer parts than in the Declaration As on Tryal at Bar in Ejectment the Declaration was of a fourth part of a fifth part in five parts to be divided and the Title of the Plaintiff upon the Evidence was but of a third part of a fourth part of a fifth part in five parts to be divided which is but a third part of what is demanded in the Declaration It was said the Plaintiff cannot have a Verdict because the Verdict in such Case ought to agree with the Declaration but per Cur ' the Verdict may be taken according to Title and so it was But Qu. how the Habere fac ' shall be executed If the Verdict in Ejectment contain more than the Declaration If the Verdict contain more than the Declaration the Plaintiff may release his Damages the Plaintiff may release the Damages Q. if he may release part of the Land Sid. p. 412. Ejectione Firme of the Manor of Dale on Non Culp ' pleaded the Jury find quoad unum Messuagium parcel ' As to a Manor Manerij praedict ' guilty quoad resid Not guilty It is moved he cannot have Judgment the Action is brought of the Manor and the Jury find him guilty of one House only so he cannot have his Judgment according to his demand So Delabar and Hudlestone's Case Ejectment of a Rectory and upon Non culp ' pleaded the Defendant was found guilty of Tythes without the Glebe and he could not have Judgment the Glebe being the Principal So Ejectione Firme of a Manor and proves only the Rents he shall not have Judgment Ejectment was of an House the Special Verdict was That the Plaintiff was seised in Fee and if there be several things laid in Ejectione Firme If several things are laid in Ejectione Firme and the Jury find the Defendant guilty in one the Plaintiff shall have Judgment of that as House Garden c. and the Jury find guilty of one only the Plaintiff shall have Judgment of this In Delabar's Case it was not found that the Tythes were parcel of the Rectory and so it differs from this Case In Ejectione Firme of a Manor and ten Acres it is no Plea that the ten Acres are parcel of the Manor aliter in Entry in the nature of an Assise Adjornatur The Jury find the Defendant guilty of one Moiety and for the other Moiety a Special Verdict this is no Error for the Jury may conclude upon the Moiety Where the Jury may conclude upon a Moiety or not for it may be he entred into one Moiety and not into the other but if he declares upon the whole they cannot find him guilty of a Moiety 3 Bulstr. 229. Milward and Watts But if one declares in Ejectione Firme upon a Fence made in certain Lands and he has Title but for a Moiety the Jury are not to conclude upon the Moiety for they are not to judge upon this but the Court. Where a dying seised or possest must be found A Man by his last Will and Testament devised all his Fee-simple Lands whatsoever to his Brother on Condition he suffer his Wife to enjoy all his Free Lands in H. duâ—ing her Life and the Jury found the Testator had only a Portion of Tythes in H. but they did not find the Testator died seised of the Tythes which without doubt had been ill upon the Demurrer And Rolls said He would see the Notes by which the Special Verdict was drawn up if that could help it For they all agree the Verdict ought to have found the Dying seised Stiles Rep. 279. Saunders and Rich. In Ejectione Firme if the Jury find a Special Verdict That J. S. was seised of the Manor of D. in his Demesne as of Fee of which Manor of Copyholder in the place where c. does waste by the cutting down an Oak and that after J. S. dies and the Lessor of the Plaintiff being his Cousin and Heir enters into the Manor and into the Place where c. for the said Forfeiture and was of this seised in his Demesne as of Fee and concludes si super totam materiam c. this is not a good Verdict because it is not found that J. S. died seised of the Manor and that this discended to the Lessor as his Cousin and Heir for it may be J. S. aliened the Land and that the Father of the Lessor or the Lessor himself might repurchase it and that he was also Cousin and Heir to J. S. for although it be in a Verdict yet it shall not be intended that the Fee continued in J. S. at his death and that he died seised thereof without finding of it P. 1 Car. 1. Cornwallis and Hammond Of Uncertainty in Special Verdicts As to Persons As to Acres and Parcels As to the Place or Vill. As to time As to Persons One deviseth all his Lands to E. his Wife for Life the Remainder to F. his Daughter in Tail the Remainder to the eldest Son of William his Brother in Tail Remainder over E. enters F. dies without Issue they find Gertrude Cousin and Heir to F. who levied a Fine but they find not Gertrude was Heir to the Devisor Do not find Heir and it may be althô F. was the Daughter the Devisor might have a Son or that she was Heir to him by a second Wife yet
and Chappel's Case where-ever an Acre is but found certain a man may release all the rest that is uncertain and nothing is more usual Of uncertainty in a Special Verdict in reference to the Place or Vill. Ejectione Firme of 30 Acres of Land in D. and S. The Defendant was found Guilty of 10 Acres and quoad residuum Not Guilty Acres in two Vills and the Jury found the Defendant Guilty and say not how many lie in one Vill and how many in another And it was moved in Arrest of Judgment That it was uncertain in which of the Vills those Lands lay and therefore no Judgment can be given Sed non Allocat and adjudged pro Quer. For the Sheriff shall take his Information from the party for what 10 Acres the Verdict was So is Siderf 75. If one Dcclares for a 100 Acres of Land in two Vills and the Jury find the Defendant Guilty this is good without saying how many Acres lie in the Vill and how many in the other And the Sheriff ought to take notice of this at his Peril in making of Execution And so in Dence and Dence his Case It shall be intended that every Acre of Land named in the Declaration lies in both Vills for so much is presumed by the Declaration and the Venire from both Vills Cro. Car. 467. Portman and Morgan Sid. p. 75. Yelv. 228. Dences's Case Trin. 43. El. Meredith and Brown It was adjudged in B. R. that in Ejectione Firme supposing the Ejectment of 10 Acre and the Jury find the Circumstances but of 4 Acres the Plaintiff shall recover these 4 Acres But Dame Baskervile's Case was in 39 Eliz. Assize was brought of a Park containing 60 Acres and the Jury â—ound the Disseisâ— but of 30 Acres and adjudged against the Plaintiff for all But note the Park was entire Dyer 15. b. As to time It was a great Case between Vernon and Gray The Ejectment was supposed the first of May and the Jury found the Ejectment to be circa the first of May. It was held not good Godb. 125. cited in Yarran and Bradshaw's Case Of a Verdict in other Leases or Date than is declared upon The Plaintiff Declares of a Lease by two Copyhold-Lords Jury find on a Demise generally Lessors of the Plaintiff for a Term certain and the Jury find a Demise generally and do not find the Lease whereupon the Plaintiff Declares and it may be any other Lease which might not be determined at the time of the Verdict but is now since and the Ejectment is only found out of this Count of a Lease for years in Possession the Jury sound the Lease made on another Day it s against the Plaintiff Aliter if it be made to commence at a Day to come and not on the Lease declared on 19 Car. 2. B. C. Lenthal and Thomas In Ejectment if the Plaintiff Declares of a Lease for years made the first of May to commence at the first of St. Michael then next ensuing which is now past if the Jury find that the Lease was made the first of June or at any other Day before the Feast of S. Michael This is found pro Quer. For the Day of the making is not material so that it was made to commence at a Day to come By Foster it s the common practice 1 Rolls Abr. 704. But if in Ejectment the Plaintiff Declares of a Lease for years in Possession such a Day and the Jury find the Lease to be made at another Day this shall be found against the Plaintiff because it is not the same Lease So it is If a Man in an Ejectione Firme Declare of a Lease made the 5th of May 10 Jac. Habend from the Annunciation before for three years And the Jury found the Lease to be made the 15 Day of May 10 Jac. Habend from the Annunciation before being the same Lady-day for three years This is found against the Plaintiff because this was a Lease in Possession at another Day scilicet 15 of May than the Plaintiff had counted altho' it had the same Commencement But in Musgraves's Case it was The Lease in the Declaration was a Lease made the 5 of May 10 Jac. Habend from the Feast of the Annunciation then last past for 21 years extunc scilicet from the Feast of the Annunciation next ensuing But the Lease found by the Jury was a Lease made the said 5 of May 10 Jac. per Indent bearing Date the said 5 Day of May Anno 10 Jac. Habend from the Feast of the Annunciation beate Marie Virginis tunc ultimo preterito pro termino 21 annorum prox sequen ' dat' dicte Indenture It was adjudged pro Quer. and so affirmed in a Writ of Error But I conceive this Case is best reported by Allen. The Plaintiff declared That J. S. the 5 of May 10 Jac. demised a House to him Habend from the Feast of the Annunciation last past for 21 years extunc prox sequend and the Defendant the same 5 Day of May ejected him And upon Not Guilty the Jury found that J. S. the said 5 of May by Indenture bearing Date the 4 of May demised the House to the Plaintiff Habend from the Feast of the Annunciation last past for 21 years next ensuing the Date hereof fully to be compleat and ended And upon the Verdict the Plaintiff had Judgment which was affirmed in Scaccario The Term began from the Feast of the Annunciation in Computation of the 21 years and on the 5 of May in point of Interest Allen p. 77. In Pope and Skinner's Case The Plaintiff must make his Title truly The Plaintiff Declares of a Lease made to him the 30 Day of March 11 Jac. Habend from the Feast of the Annunciation next before for a year The Defendant Traverseth the Lease modo forma The Jury find a Lease to the Plaintiff on the 25 Day of March for one year from thence next ensuing This is against the Plaintiff for being in Ejectione Firme he Demands and Recovers the Term and therefore must make his Title Aliter in Replevin Hob. pag. 73. Pope and Skinner Ejectment of a Lease made the 12 of December Habend à primo die On Not guilty The Jury found a Lease made in haec verba which was dated the 1 of December Hab. from henceforth but delivered the 12 of December It was objected That from the Day of the Date and from henceforth are several Commencements for the one begins the Day it was Sealed the other the Day after Habend hence forth But per Cur. They are both one being a computation of time from the time past and both shall be pleaded to begin from the Day of the Date when the Lease is afterwards Sealed at another Day and if the Lease be made the 1 of December Hab. henceforth the Ejectment may be alledged the same Day Aliter If it be à die datus Pro Quer. Cr. Jac. 258. Lewellin versus
Williams Verdict finds The Averment of the Estate Tail to be found that the Lessor of the Plaintiff was seised in Tail of the Rectory c. and does not shew the beginning of the Estate Tail which is the particular Estate Per Cur. It is an apparent fault Cr. Eliz. 407. Baker and Searle In the said Case where the Party comes in by a Limitation of an Use Where when the party comes in by Limitation of Use it must say vigore stat the Verdict saith virtute cujus dimissionis and it ought to have been virtute Statut. Per Cur. This is an apparent fault in Substance and Form The Issue in Ejectment was if Julian the Wife of the Defendant was alive at such a time Diversity of names and the Jury found that Jenimet the Wife of the Defendant was alive at such a time Per Cur. They shall not be adjudged one and the same Person without finding also by the Custom of the Country that Women baptised by the name of Julian have beenalso called Jenimet Moor 411. No. 560. Huntbach and Shepard Verdict as to Baron and Feme In Ejectione Firme against Baron and Feme On Not guilty pleaded and a Venire fac ' granted the Jury found the Wife Note guilty and found a Special Verdict as to the Husband Wife sound Not guilty and Special Verdict as to the Husband which Special Verdict is afterwards adjudged insufficient by the Court. A Venire fac ' de novo shall be awarded for both as well for the Wife as the Husband and upon this new Writ the Wife may be found Guilty because the Record and Issue is intire and for this their Verdict is insufficient in all and void 2 Rolls Abr. 722. Langly and Pain Venire de novo So in Swan's Case Stiles 412. Ejectment against Baron and Feme and the Feme is found Ejector by the Verdict and nothing is found concerning the Husband and a Venire fac ' de novo was awarded unless they will agree to amend the Verdict according to the Notes Where and in what Cafes Special Verdicts may be amended Where a Special Verdict is not entred according to the Notes Record of a Special Verdict amended the Record may be amended and made agree with the Notes at any time tho' it be 3 or 4 Terms after it is entred 4 Rep. 52. 8 Rep. 162. Cr. Car. 145. And where a Verdict is certainly given at the Tryal and uncertainly returned by the Clerk of the Assizes Postea where amended c. the postea may be amended upon the Judges certifying the truth how the Verdict was given Cr. Car. 338. The Plaintiff was Non-suited at the Assizes Non-suit â—oâ— default of Warrant to try the Cause not Recorded for default of the Warrant of the Justices to try the Cause viz. for not confessing Lease Entry and Ouster and prayed that the Non-suit might not be Recorded which the Court granted and an Alias Distringas 1 Keb. 508. Pits and Viner Cro. Car. 203. Aquila Wicke's Case If the Plaintiff makes Title upon a Demise made by Tho. Bill and Agnes his Wife and the Parties are at Issue and the Record of Nisi prius was entred by the Clerk that the said Tho. Bill and Anne his Wife made the Demise Record of Nisi prius variance from the Roll not amendable c. so that the Record of Nisi prius differs from the Roll this shall not be amended for if the Record should be amended the Jury should be attaint in as much as they found a Lease made by Tho. Bill and Agnes his Wife and peradventure this Lease will not prove a Lease by Tho. Bill and Anne his Wife 1 Rolls Abr. 202. King and King CHAP. XIII Where the Defendant shall have Costs and Damages How the Plaintiff may aid himself by Release of Damage Executor not to pay Costs Lessor of the Plaintiff to pay Cost Where Tenant in Possession liable to pay Costs or not Feme to pay Costs on Death of her Husband Infant Lessor to pay Costs of the Writ of Enquiry The Entry Writ of Error Lies upon the Judgment before the Writ of Enquiry and why Writ of Enquiry how abated The Jury are to find Costs and Damages in Debt Trespass Ejectment c IF the Plaintiff mistake his Declaration Regular the Defendant shall have Costs The Plaintiff may relinquish his Damages where part of the Action fails and take Judgment for the other Release of Damages And so is the Rule If part of the things Demanded in this Action are well demanded and part of the things demanded are not well demanded and Verdict is given for the Plaintiff for the whole and entire Damages are given The Plaintiff may release all the Damages in that which is not demanded and pray Judgment for the Residue and this shall aid Error if Judgment be given accordingly As in Ejectione Firme of a Messuage Cottage and Tenement if it be found for the Plaintiff and entire Damages given for the whole because Ejectione Firme does not lie of a Tenement the Plaintiff may release all the Damages because it is entire and have Judgment for all the Land saving the Tenement and this shall not be Erroneous So in Ejectment of Land and de libertate Pischarie for libera Pischaria which is not good the Plaintiff may Release all the Damages and have Judgment for the Land only altho' he cannot be said properly to Release Damages as to the Pischary where none were Godb. pag. 354. No. 439. 1 Rolls Abr. 786. Clive and Vere 1 Rolls Abr. 784 786. Retorick and Chappel Ejectment was for Entry into a Messuage sive tenementum and 4 Acres of Land to the same belonging As to the Messuage sive tenementum The Declaration is uncertain and if the Damages are Released Warranty the Costs are gone also It is uncertain to which the 4 Acres belong i. e. to the Messuage or Tenement But per Cur. as to the 4 Acres its certain enough and the words to the same belonging are merely void 3 Leon. p. 228. Wood and Pain In Ejectment Judgment is against the Defendant who dies Executors not to pay Costs and his Executor brings a Writ of Error and is Non-suited He shall not pay Costs an Executor is not within the Statute for paying of Costs Occasione dilationis Mod. Rep. 77. In Ejectment against 2. A. B. they prayed to be made Defendants and were so confessing Lease Entry and Ouster and at the Tryal A. confessed so much as was in his Possession for certain but B. would not proceed with him and the Plaintiff was Non-suit against both He that tried it prayed Costs which the Court granted but they must joyn in the Suit of Execution for Costs 2 Keb. 219. Sir Cyril Wych's Case The Lessor of the Plaintiff in Ejectment shall be liable to Costs Feme liable to pay Costs on Baron Death the Lease being made
they were fined severally where the Ejectment was against them all joyntly but because they were found several Ejectors of several Parcels the Judgment was good scilicet quilibet capiatur quoad his Parcel and if it had not been joynt it had not been been sufficient Bendl. 83. Darcy and Mason The Plaintiff shall be in Misericordia but once The Plaintiff shall be in Misericordia but once As Ejectment with Force three of the Defendants were found Guilty of the House and ten Acres of Land and Not guilty for the Residue The fourth Defendant is found Not guilty generally And Judgment was entred That he should recover his Term in the House and ten Acres of Land and Costs against the three Defendants and that the said three Defendants capiantur and that they be acquitted quoad residuun and that the Plaintiff quoad the three Defandants pro falso clamore for so much as they were acquitted pro falso clamore against the fourth Defendant sit in Misericordia It s good enough and the course that the Plaintiff in such Cases be in Misericordia but once which is specially entred Crok Car. 178. Dockrow's Case In Croke and Sam 's Case Stiles 122. 346. The Judgments was ideo considerat ' est qd recuperet and there wants Def. capiatur it is Erroneous Form of the Entry in Case of the Death of the Plaintiff or Defendant Note That 3 Plaintiffs in Ejectment were and on general Issue it was found for the Plaintiffs One of the Plaintiffs died during a Curi advisare And 4 days after the Verdict given was moved to stay Judgment a Special matter in Law whereof the Justices were not resolved and gave day over and in the mean time one of the Plaintiffs died This shall not stay Judgment for the Postea came in 15 Pas which was the 16 of April at which Day the Court ought to give Judgment presently But Cur. advisare vult and on the 19 of April one of the Plaintiffs died and the favour of the Court shall not prejudice for the Judgment shall have relation to the 16 day of April at which time he was alive 1 Leon. 187. Isley's Case In Ejectment two Defendants were found Guilty The Death of one Defendant shall not abate the Writ and the other not The one that is Not guilty dies The Plaintiff shave Judgment against the other So it is if he that is Dead had been Guilty because this Writ is but as a Trespass where the Death of one Defendant shall not abate the Writ Moor 469. 673. Griffith and Lawrence's Case Ejectione Firme against Baron and Feme Ejectione Baron and Feme Baron dies And Verdict pro Quer. and after between the Verdict and day in Banco the Baron dies and therefore the Court in Lee and Rowley's Case 1 Rolls Rep. 14. advised the Plaintiff to relinquish this Action and only to enter the Verdict for Evidence for if Judgment is given against the Defendant and one is dead at the time of the Judgment then this will be Erroneous per Dodderidge and Mann Preignotary But Coke said The Plaintiff may make allegation that the Husband is dead and shall have Judgment against the Wife And it hath been adjudged lately Ejectment against Baron and Feme which are but one person in Law yet if the Husband dies the Suit shall proceed against the Wife Hardr. 61. But in Rigley and Lee's Case Cr. Jac. 356. Ejectment against Baron and Feme after Verdict Baron dies before the day in Banco because it is in the nature of a Trespass and the Feme is charged for her own fact Per Cur. The Action continues against the Wife and Judgment shall be entred against herself because the Baron was dead Ejectment against divers Record where not to be amended all plead Not guilty and divers Continuances were between them all where revera one of the Defendants was dead after Issue joyned and a Verdict was after found pro Quer. and the Record was moved to be amended Per Cur. we cannot do it After Verdict and before Judgment the Plaintiff may surmise that the Defendant was dead before the Verdict and Continuance was against him One Defendent dies after Issue joyned as in full Life Jones 410. Sir John Fitzherbert versus Leech And In Ejectment to try the Custom of Copyhold Suggestion entred on the Roll one Defendant being dead after Non-suit The Plaintiff was Non-suit and one of the Defendants being dead Hales Chief Justices advised to Enter a Suggestion on the Roll that one was dead else the Judgment for the Defendants on the Non-suit will be Erroneous as to all M. 23 Car. 2. B. R. Hawthorn and Bawdan Ejectment was brought against seven Ejectment against seven and one dies hanging the Writ and Error brought one dies hanging the Writ and the Judgment was given against the six without speaking any thing of the seventh where the Judgment ought to be against them that were in Life and a nil cap. as to him that was dead Otherwise there is a variance between the Writ and Judgment And a Writ of Error was brought but it was not well brought for the seventh joyned in the Writ of Error which was ad grave damnum of all the seven But had it been omitted ad grave damnum of him that was dead it had been good 2 Rolls Rep. 20. Bethell and Parry Pal. 152. Mesme Case In Hide and Markham's Case it was Ruled After Verdict and before Judgment the Plaintiff dies and Judgment his given for him the same Term. That if one bring Ejectione Firme in B. R. and there had a Verdict in a Tryal at Bar and after before Judgment he dies and after the Judgment is given for him the same Term this is not Error for that the Judgment shall relate to the Verdict But if the Verdict pass against the Plaintiff at the Nisi prius and after before the Day in Bank he dies and after Judgment is against him this is Error for as much as Judgment is given against a dead Man 1 Rolls Abr. 768. and Jurdan's Case ibid. The Plaintiff in Ejectment dies ' The Plaintiff dies after Verdict and Judgment was not staid and why Addison's Case Mod. Rep. 252. Yet as that case was the Court would not stay Judgment for between the Lessor of the Plaintiff and the Defendant there was another Cause depending and tried at the same Assizes when this Issue was tried and by Agreement between the Parties the Verdict in that Cause was drawn up but agreed it should ensue the Determination of this Verdict and the Title go accordingly Now the submission to this Rule was an implicit Agreement not to take advantage of such occurrences as the death of the Plaintiff whom we know no ways to be concerned in point of Interest and many times but an imaginary person Per Cur. We take no notice judicially that the Lessor of the Plaintiff
whereof he is found Not guilty in as much as it is tenementorum praedictorum yet it shall be amended it being only the Default of the Clerk having the Postea before him when he entred the Judgment 1 Rolls Abr. 206. Sawyer and Hoskins Judgment quod recuperet and saith not terminum yet amended 1 Keb. 155. The Judgment was Amendment for Misprision of the Clerk quod recuperet the Possession of a Messuage Sixty Acres of Land Fifty Acres of Meadow and Fifteen Acres of Pasture whereas the Verdict was entred That he was found guilty of the Ejectment of a Messuage Ten Acres of Meadow and Thirteen Acres of Pasture and for the residue Not guilty so as there is not any Land in the Verdict and a lesser Quantity of Meadow and Pasture than is in the Judgment per Curiam it is amendable and is not like the Entry of a Capiatur for a misericerdia which is not amendable that being an Error in point of Law and cannot be imputed to the Default of the Clerk But here the Verdict is the Guide to the Judgment and when the Verdict is before the Clerk to enter up the Judgment it is but his Misprision especially the Entry of the Judgment in the Paper-book being right according to the Verdict Cro. Jac. 632. Mason and Stephenson EXECUTION In Ejectment against two Two Defendants one confesseth the other pleads Not guilty one confesseth the other pleads Not guilty and at the Tryal the Plaintiff is Nonsuited he cannot take Execution against him that confesseth but if by Rule of Court one be made Defendant for part and confess the Plaintiff notwithstanding the Nonsuit may take Judgment against him that confesseth for his part but if each Defendant take upon him the whole Title the Plaintiff in any case cannot have Execution but one Defendant being Lessor of the House reserving a Chamber who never had any notice of the Action and therefore Judgment entred of the whole House is not void quoad the Chamber only but wholly And Hide would have had the Attorney who entred Judgment pay Costs but ordered Possession to be delivered to the Tenant on Agreement to relinquish the Costs 1 Keb. 786. Burgoigne and Thomas It was a Question much debated If a Scire fac ' quare Executionem habere non debeat upon a Judgment in Ejectione Firme may be brought by the Administrator of the Lessee the Plaintiff in Ejectment Scire fac ' upon Judgment in Ejectment may be brought by the Administrator of the Lessee or Lessor himself or by the Lessor himself against the Free Tenants and Per Cur ' the Lessee or his Administrator as well as the Lessor himself shall have this Writ in such a Case this was on demurrer to the Scire fac ' Yet the Lessee nor his Administrator shall have it but the Lessor himself Sid. 317. Cole and Skinner Note Recovery by the Husband in Ejectione of the Wife 's Term. Baron and Feme are ejected out of a Term in the Right of the Wife and the Husband recovers in Ejectione Firme brought by him in his own Name this is an alteration of the Term and vests it in him only 1 Inst 46. Note After Judgment Court of Equity not to relieve the Mortgagor It was adjudged in Throgmorton and Sir Moyle Finch's Case That after Judgment for the Mortgagee in Ejectment a Court of Equity cannot relieve the Mortgagor but he ought to have preferred his Bill before Judgment 3 Bulstr 118. The Case was He by whom the Money was sent to be paid for the Redemption of the Land was by the way robbed of the Money but the Money was paid presently after Note also No Judgment upon Nihil dicit but upon Motion in Court In Ejectione Firme if a Rule is given to the Defendant to answer and he doth not and upon this another Rule is given to answer peremptorily and he fails to do it no Judgment shall be entred against him on a Nihil dicit but upon Motion in Court It is said in Carter and Claypool's Case 1 Rolls Abr. 887. If a Man recover in Ejectione Firme against J. S. who after dies he must sue Execution against his Heir for by Intendment J. S. his Ancestor the Ejector was was a Disseisor Of Judgment against ones own Ejector Judgment against the casual Ejector Council prayed that he might not plead to the Declaration of Michaelmas Term on Lease of the Bishop of Worcester made this January Habend ' from the 20th of October last which is ill per Cur ' and Judgment stayed but this is a good Declaration of this Term by new Delivery Declaration is of that Term when the Tenant appears tho' of Course a Declaration is of that Term always when the Tenant appears which was but this Term yet Judgment stayed 3 Keb. 729. Hill 18. Car. 2. Finch and Pley The Action was of Easter Term and the Demise and Title of the Plaintiff is but two days before Trinity Term A Trick to gain possession and there was a Rule for Judgment against the casual Ejector per Cur ' this is but a Trick to gain Possession as Sir Richard Mincham's Case was who delivered Ejectments in his Wife's Life-time on Lease then when he had Title as of subsequent Term when she was dead and it is not fit to put the Tenant to a Writ of Error So the Rule was set aside and ordered a new Declaration 3 Keb. 343. Tr. 26 Car. 2. Stedman's Case Judgment against ones own Ejector cannot be entred When Judgment against ones own Ejector to be entred till the Postea retorned and indorsed that the Nonsuit was for want of confessing Lease Entry and Ouster which the Secondaries agreed for a Rule 1 Keb. 246. Sir Hugh Middleton's Case Council prayed Judgment against his own Ejector in an Action for Lands in the County Palatine of Chester Judgment against ones own Ejector for Lands in Com' Chester which the Court granted because when the Defendant hath pleaded to Issue they may try it by Mittimus in the County Palatine 2 Keb. 135. Reddish against Smith CHAP. XV. Habere facias Possessionem 1 Keb. 579. How this Writ is to be executed And when and in what Cases a new Habere facias Possessionem shall be granted or not How the Sheriff is to deliver Possession Habere facias Possessionem after the year without Scire fac ' and why THis Writ is made out by the Clerk of the Judgments By whom made out and when after Costs taxed and the Judgment signed In Ejectione Firme of 20 Acres of Land The Defendant on Not guilty pleaded is found Guilty for 10 Acres and Not guilty for the Residue Now the Plaintiff at his own peril Plaintiff at his own Peril to be put in Possession of the Acres sound upon his own shewing which they are shall be put in Possession Savil p. 28. And if a Man bring
Ejectione Firme of 40 Acres of Land and recovers 30 and not the Residue Upon the Writ of Execution the Sheriff may deliver to him any viz. Three or more of the Acres in the name of the whole How the Sheriff must deliver it without setting out the Land recovered by Metes and Bounds tho' the Plaintiff had not recovered all the Acres whereof he brought the Action and whereof he had supposed the Defendant Tenant 1 Rolls Abr. 886. Now How the Sheriff is to esteem the Acres if a Writ of Execution go to the Sheriff to put a Man in Possession of 20 Acres of Land the Sheriff ought to give him 20 Acres in quantity according to the usage of the Country and not according to the usage of the Statute And if a Man recovers divers Messuages the Sheriff upon the Writ of Execution may make Execution of one in the name of all without going to every one in particular Where delivery of one Messuage in the name of all by the Sheriff is sufficient or not but if in such Case the Messuages be in the Possession of several Men he ought to go to every House particularly and of them to deliver Seisin and the delivery of Seisin of one in the name of all is not sufficient Floid and Bethel When many Acres are in demand and but part recovered and the Habere fac ' Possessionem comes to the Sheriff to deliver Execution of the Land recovered Where the Sheriff is to give all the Acres in particular it does not suffice there to give one Acre in the name of the whole recovered but he ought to set forth all the Acres particularly so that the Recover or may have benefit of the Judgment in certainty and the several profits without interruption Pal. Rep. 289. Molinex and Fulyam Sometime a Rule of Court is to give Possession If one recover Rent or Common How the Sheriff is to give Possession of Rent or Common a Writ Issues out to the Sheriff to put him in Possession and the Sheriff comes upon the Land and delivers him Seisin of the Rent or Common by parol this is well done 22 Ass 84. Hab. fac ' Possession ' Habere facias Possessionem good without return if execute is good without return But the Court may command the Sheriff to return it 1 Rolls Rep. 77. Note How Possession to be given of House Land of Rent The Sheriff in Cases where Land is recovered is to put the party in Possession and Seisin by a Twig Clod c. of an House by the Key c. of Rent by Corn or Grass growing on the Land out of which the Rent Issues 6 Rep. 52. Error was of a Judgment in the Kings-Bench in Ireland and Judgment for the Defendant was reversed and Judgment given for the Plaintiff quod recuperet terminum suum praed Habere fac Possessionem how awarded into Ireland It was moved how Habere fac ' possessionem should be awarded And it was resolved That there should be a Writ directed to the Chief Justice in Ireland to Reverse that Judgment commanding him to award Execution Cr. Car. 511. Mulcarry and Eyres In what Cases a new Habere fac ' Possessionem shall be granted or not and of the Sheriffs demeanor therein Nota pro Regula That after Habere fac ' possessionem executed be it by the Sheriff or voluntary delivery of Possession if the Party be turned out again by the Defendants means Where the Plaintiff shall have a new Habere facias Possessionem he may have a new Habere fac ' possessionem on motion in Court and an Attachment against him But if after quiet Possession others enter he must have a new Action or Restitution else by this means by practice the Plaintiff may turn out any of his after Lessees on Non-payment of Rent Had actual possession been by Agreement of the Parites or by Delivery of the Sheriff the Party can never after have a Habere fac ' possessionem But if there be agreement to deliver Possession in futuro if it be denied a new Writ may be had But after the year there must be a new motion for it in Court With this agrees Pearson and Tavernor's Case if one recovers in Ejectment upon which the Recoveror was put in Possession Per Habere fac ' possession and after the Defendant ousts him again if the Writ was never retorned because then it appears nor that the Plaintiff was ever out of Possession a new Writ shall be granted 1 Keb. 779. Ratliff and Tate 1 Keb. 785. Lovelace's Case 1 Rolls Rep. 353. Peirson and Tavernor's Case It is expresly resolved in Dame Molineux and Falgam's Case Palmer p. 289. If Haber e facias possessionem go to the Sheriff When the Writ of Hab. fac ' Possessionem is returned and filed the Court may not award a new Habere fac ' Possessionem and why and he returned Execution of the Writ and the Writ is filed there the Court may not award a new Habere fac ' possessionem but before they may because in the first case it appears the Party had Execution The Council prayed That the Defendant might file an Habere facere possessionem to the intent that no new one may be taken out or that that was taken out should not be filed after the return of it which the Court refused for the Party hath election to return it or not and may renew it at pleasure till an effectual Execution be had albeit the Party had Execution yet if there were any suddain expulsion of him he shall not be Estopt 2 Keb. 245. Underhil and Devereux Also New Habere facias Possessionem if the Sheriff give Seisin but of part he may have new Habere fac ' possessionem for the rest So in Stile 's Case 2 Browl. 216. Stiles upon a Judgment in Ejectione Firme was put into Possession by the Sheriff by Habere fac ' possessionem and after the Defendants enters again and the Writ was returned but not Filed It is at the election of the Sheriff whether he will return it or not Per Cur. He may not have a new Writ of Execution but is put to his new Action and the Filing of the Writ is not material for it is in the Election of the Sheriff if he will return it or not But if Execution had not been fully made as in case of persons hiding themselves in the upper Lofts and after the Sheriff was gone they outed those that were in Possession in this Case a new Writ of Execution was awarded But by the Chief Justice if the Sheriff put a Man in Possession and after the other which was put out enter forthwith in this Case the Court may award an Attachment against him for contempt against the Court and so an Attachment was awarded upon Affidavit in Gallop's Case 2 Brownl 253. To this purpose is Upton and Well's Case 1
Names of Baptism and cannot be amended but Curia advisare from Hillary Term till Pasche in the mean time the Defendant in the Writ of Error obtained a Release of all Errors from one of the Plaintiffs in the Writ of Error and the first day of Term Pasch pleaded it in Bar as a Plea puis darrein Continuance and thereupon a Demurer was entred in the Names of both the Plaintiffs in the Writ of Error Release from one of the Plaintiffs in Error shall bar only him that released it and why for in nullo est erratum being pleaded before there could not now be any Summons and Severance Per Curiam this Release shall bar him only that released it and not the other Plaintiff though the Action was in the personalty For the Plea being by way of Action to discharge themselves of Damages which were recovered against them and to be restored to the possession which was lost by the first Judgment and they being joyned in the first Action by the Act of the Plaintiff and their own voluntary Act it is not reason that the Act of one shall charge or prejudice the other But otherwise if they had been Plaintiffs in the Record by their own Act Cro. Jac. 116. Blewit and Snedstow Verdict was pro Quer ' for 10 Messuages 15 Acres of Land 15 Acres of Meadow and 20 Acres of Pasture and as to the Residue Non Culp And the Judgment was That the Plaintiff should recover the Messuages and the greater Quantity of Acres which were in the Verdict Upon which the Plaintiff brought a Writ of Error and assigned Errors and had a Scire fac and before the Defendant in the Writ of Error joyned in nullo est erratum it was moved in Common Bench for amendment of the Judgment It was objected 1. That the time after the Assignment of the Error was past for the amendment Amendment of the Judgment before a Certiorari awarded in Error Per Cur. The time is not past so long as a Diminution may be alledged or a Certiorari awarded it may be amended 2. The Judgment is the Act of the Court and therefore may not be amended Per Cur. It is the default of the Clerk who did not enter the Judgment according to the Verdict Jones Rep. p. 9. Ejectione Firme by two against one Defendant And on Not guilty Verdict for the Plaintiff The Error assigned was because Constantinus Callard was returned and so named in the Distringas but in the Pannel annext thereto by the Sheriff Constantius Callard was Returned and Sworn Release of Errors from one of the Plaintiffs in the Writ of Error pleaded shall bar only him that Released it and why and so was returned by that name on the back of the Postea It s manifest Error for they be distinct names of Baptism and not amendable But Curia advisare In the mean time the Defendant in the Writ of Error obtained a Release of all Errors from one of the Plaintiffs in the Writ of Error Ejectment against the Release of one shall not bar the other of a Writ of Error because this is to recover nothing but to have restitution of that which he lost by the Judgment And the first day of Easter Term pleaded it in Bar as a Plea puis darraine Continuance and thereon a Demur entred in the name of both the Plaintiffs in the Writ of Error For in nullo est erratum being pleaded before there could not be any Summons and Severance Per Cur. This Release shall bar only him that Released it for the Plea being by way of Action to discharge themselves of Damages which were recovered against them and to be restored to the Possession which was lost by the first Judgment and they being joyned in the first Action by the Act of the Plaintiff and not by their own voluntary Act it is not Reason that the Act of one should charge or prejudice the other for then by such practice any one might be charged and should have no remedy to discharge himself And the Judgment was reversed quoad him that did not Release and that he should be restored to all what he lost and quoad the other who released that he should be barred in his Writ of Error Cro. Jac. 116. Bluit and Snedstow 2 Rolls Ab. 411. Mesme Case So the Defendant in the Writ of Error Pleads Outlawry in one of the Plaintiffs Outlawry in one of the Plaintiffs pleaded in Error Per Cur. It s no Bar because this is an Action not to recover any thing but to restore them to what they had lost and to discharge them of Damages and Fines and they are forced to joyn because one of the Plaintiffs was a Defendant in the former Action Cro. Jac. 616. Bythell and Harrts Error without Bail is a Supersedeas in Ejectment Error without Bail a supersedeas 13 Car. 2. c. 2. notwithstanding the Act of 13 Car. 2. c. 2. being not within the general word Trespass 1 Keb. 308. Lufton's Case And unless all the Defendants in Ejectment do give Recognizance it s no Supersedeas for as to the Land its intire 3 Keb. 138. Cole and Levingstone Baron and Feme Lessors it s no Error to alledge the the death of the Wife before â—udgment Baron seised in the Right of the Feme makes an Ejectment Lease and the Lessee brings an Action upon it and hath a Verdict and Judgment it s not Error to alledge the death of the Wife before Judgment by which the interest of the Husband and Lease by him made to the Plaintiff determines because neither the Wife nor the Husband are Parties to the Action and this determins upon the Title to the Land for the Plaintiff may say That the Husband was seised in his own right 1 Rolls Abr. 768. Wilks and Jordan Error was brought to Reverse a Judgment in Ejectione Firme The Plaintiff in Ejectment dead before Judgment and Error in Fact assigned viz. That the Plaintiff in the Ejectment was dead before Judgment To which he that was Attorney for the Plaintiff pleaded That he was alive at such a place and upon this Issue joyned and found that he was dead Per Cur. The Issue is well joyned and the Judgment shall be reversed for this Error without Scirc fac against the Executors for until the Issue tried none can deny but that the appearance was good But the surer way had been for the Attorney to have pleaded quod venit pro magistro suo D. and not qd D. venit per Attornat Siderf p. 93. Dove and Darcen If a Man recover in Ejectione Firme The Plaintiff dies between Verdict and Judgment the Judgment is voidable by Error and after his Executor Sues Execution by Scire fac ' against the Recoveree the Recoveree may not avoid the Judgment nor stay Execution by saying That the Plaintiff died between the Verdict and Judgment or such like But he is put to his
be Filed ibid. Ejectment brought by a Vendee of the Commissioners of Bankrupt 23 Declaration upon a Lease by Commissioners of Bankrupts 78 Ejectment by Baron and Feme 36 75 Ejectment against Baron and Feme Baron dies since the Nisi prius and before the day in Bank the Action continued against the Wife In Ejectment the Wife found Not guilty and Special Verdict as to the Husband 216 Ejectment against Baron and Feme Verdict pro Quer. Between the Verdict and day in Bank Baron dies Q. if Error But it s good to enter the Verdict for Evidence 230 Judgment against Baron and Feme is quod capiantur tho' the Baron is only found Guilty 235 Bill of Exception on the Probate of a Will 158 Where Copy of a Bill in Chancery shall be Read in Evidence or not 159 160 C. Challenge what is principal or not 229 That the Lessor of the Plaintiff is Cosin to the high Sheriff is a principal Challenge in our feigned Ejectments 131 Challenge for default of Hundredors at a Trial at Bar 132 Colour not sufficient in Ejectione Firme and why How Tenant in Common of a Moiety may maintain Ejectione Firme 20 Ejectment by Tenants in Common 74 Conizance of Pleas how to be demanded allowed and pleaded 113 How Copyholder or his Lessee shall maintain Ejectment 15 16 Declaration by a Copyholder in Ejectment 16 Ejectione Firme by a Copyholder before admittance 17 Copyholder Mortgagee must be admitted before he can bring his Action ibid. The Lord upon the seisure of a Copyhold may bring Ejectment till the Heir come to be admitted Copyholder in reversion after an Estate Tail no Witness 147 One Copartner cannot be Evidence for another in Ejectment ibid. Ejectment by Coparceners 74 Where Copies of Deeds shall be Evidence or not 157 Where Copies of Court Rolls may be given in Evidence 158 Ejectment by a Corporation how to be brought 36 77 The Defendant not to plead till Costs assessed in a former Action was paid and security for new Costs 126 The Plaintiff may relinquish his Damages where part of the Action fails and take Judgment for the other 218. But the Costs gone Executor not to pay Costs 219 Feme liable to pay Costs on the Husbands death 220 Lessor of the Plaintiff where to pay Costs ibid. Tenant in Possession liable to pay Costs by the Law ibid. In Judgment against his own Ejector no Costs to be paid by the Tenant in Possession ibid. Costs for want of Continuance 222 Infant-Lessor pays Costs ibid. The sole Remedy for Costs in the first Tryal is by Attachment unless the second Tryal is in the same Court after Verdict ibid. In what Court new Ejectment to be brought 11 Of Ejectment in inferiour Courts 38 Cinque-Ports 112 D. The Plaintiff may relinquish his Damages where part of the Action fails and take Judgment of the other 218 Diversity where Damages are only recovered and where the Term 5 He that desires to be made Defendant in Ejectment must give a Note of what is in his Possession 44 He that is made Defendant in Ejectment is not to be charged in Actions by the by 45 Rule to make the Owner Defendant 105 The Inconvenience of the new Course of Leaving Declarations in Ejectment 40 Of Declarations in Ejectment 47 48 49 c. The Certainty and Quality of the Lands ought to be described in Ejectment 54 The Plaintiff must declare on one Title only 61 Surplusage in the Count not vicious ibid. If the Entry and Ejectment be supposed in the Declaration to be before the Commencement of the Lease the Declaration is void 62 64 It must be alledged in what Vill the Tenements are 62 Ejectment of the fourth part of an House in four parts to be divided and declares de Tenementis praedictis 73 How to declare upon a Lease of Tenant for Life and him in Remainder 76 Where in a Declaration a Life must be averred and where it need not 80 A new Declaration delivered on the Essoyn-day 81 The Declaration delivered after the Essoyn-day and the Consequence 82 Where Copies of the Declarations need not be paid for 83 Declaration need not be of more Acres than he was ejected 97 Of the Omission of vi armis 98 The Omission of Extra tenet ibid. Demanding of a part of Lands without shewing into how many parts divided 99 Declaration in Ejectment quod cum good not so in Trespass ibid. Forms of Declarations in B. R. 101 B. C. 102 Scaccario 103 Copy of a Declaration with the Endorsement ibid. What is to be done after a Declaration delivered 104 What is good Service of the Declaration 107 How and wherein a Special Verdict shall make a Declaration good 187 Decree or decretal Order where allowed to be Evidence 164 DEED Difference between pleading a Deed and giving it in evidence 154 Of finding Deeds in haec verba in Special Verdicts 178 Who to shew the Original Deed in evidence 155 Where a Deed may be proved by Testimony without shewing it 156 In Ejectment against two one pleads to Issue and the other demurs the Issue isfirst to be tryed and why 8 Where and in what Cases Depositions in Chancery shall be read at a Tryal or not 162 Where primer Possession makes a Disseisin 185 Doomsday-Book good evidence 155 E. EJECTMENT The Nature of Ejectione Firme 1 The reason of the Change of Real Actions into Ejectments 2 Ejectment and Trespass for Battery both in one Writ 8 Difference between Ejectione Firme and Quare ejecit infra terminum 9 In what Court Ejectment lies 10 Where to be brought into the Exchequer ibid. In what Court a new Ejectment may be brought 11 How Ejectment to be brought of Lands in Middlesex or London ibid. Who shall have Ejectione Firme 13 In what Cases the Action lies or not 13 14 15 Against whom Ejectione Firme lies 33 Who was counted an Ejector formerly ib. The new Practice in Ejectments 34 The old way of Sealing Ejectments and where and in what Cases still to be used 35 Of the Ejectment Lease 46 Of what things Ejectione Firme may be brought and of what not 47 Ejectment against Tenant by elegit in case of holding over Ely Jurisdiction pleaded 114 Elisors 130 Elegit must be shewed in evidence 154 Entry taken away by Lapse of Time for not entring 21 Entry to deliver Declarations not good to avoid a Fine 62 Entry before the Nisi prius to be pleaded at the Assises 113 Difference between Entry after Verdict and Death ibid. What Entry shall be intended and need not be proved 169 Estoppels how found by a Jury 178 Evidence vide Witnesses What shall be good Evidence in Ejectment 151 152. 153 154 If Record be pleaded it must be sub pede sigilli 151 Copy of a Record may be shewed in Evidence to a Jury ibid. Exemplificat ' of a record in Wales no good Evidence in B. R. and why 152 Scyrograph of a Fine given in Evidence 153 But