England or into parts not of the Dominion of England nor follows it because Goods were intended to be sold that is as Merchandise in a place where good market was for them that they were intended to be sold at any other place where no profit could be made or not so much or where such Goods were perhaps prohibited Commodities therefore the words of the Act brought as Merchandise must mean that the Goods are for Merchandise at the place they are brought unto And Goods brought or imported any where as Merchandise or by way of Merchandise that is to be sold must necessarily have an Owner to set and receive the price for which they are sold unless a man will say That Goods can sell themselves and set and receive their own prises But wreck Goods imported or brought any where have no Owner to sell or prize them at the time of their importation and therefore are not brought by way of or as Merchandise to England or any where else Secondly Though in a loose sense inanimate things are said to bring things as in certain Seasons Rain to bring Grass in other Seasons some Winds to bring Snow and Frost some Storms to bring certain Fowl and Fish upon the Coasts Yet when the bringing in or importing or bringing out and exporting hath reference to Acts of Deliberation and Purpose as of Goods for sale which must be done by a rational Agent or when the thing brought requires a rational bringer or importer as be it a Message an Answer an Accompt or the like No man will say That things to be imported or brought by such deliberative Agents who must have purpose in what they do can be intended to be imported or brought by casual and insensible Agents but by Persons and Mediums and Instruments proper for the actions of reasonable Agents Therefore we say not That Goods drown'd or lost in passing a Ferry a great River an arm of the Sea are exported though carried to Sea but Goods exported are such as are convey'd to Sea in Ships or other Naval Carriage of mans Artifice and by like reason Goods imported must not be Goods imported by the Wind Water or such inanimate means but in Ships Vessels and other Conveyances used by reasonable Agents as Merchants Mariners Sailors c. whence I conclude That Goods or Merchandise imported within the meaning of the Act can only be such as are imported with deliberation and by reasonable Agents not casually and without reason and therefore wreck'd Goods are no Goods imported within the intention of the Act and consequently not to answer the Kings Duties for Goods as Goods cannot offend forfeit unlade pay Duties or the like but men whose Goods they are And wreck'd Goods have not Owners to do these Offices when the Act requires they should be done Therefore the Act intended not to charge the Duty upon such Goods Judgment for the Plaintiff The Chief Justice delivered the Opinion of the Court. Hill 23 24 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 695. Richard Crowley Plaintiff In a Replevin against Thomas Swindles William Whitehouse Roger Walton Defendants THE Plaintiff declares That the Defendants the Thirtieth of December 22 Car. 2. at Kings Norton in a place there called Hurley field took his Beasts four Cows and four Heifers and detain'd them to his damage of Forty pounds The Defendants defend the Force And as Bailiffs of Mary Ashenhurst Widow justifie the Caption and that the place contains and did contain when the Caption is suppos'd Twenty Acres of Land in Kings Norton aforesaid That long before the Caption one Thomas Greaves Esquire was seis'd of One hundred Acres of Land and of One hundred Acres of Pasture in Kings Norton aforesaid in the said County of Worcester whereof the Locus in quo is and at the time of the Caption and time out of mind was parcel in his demesne as of Fee containing Twenty Acres That he long before the Caption that is 18 die Decemb. 16 Car. 1. at Kings Norton aforesaid by his Indenture in writing under his Seal which the Defendants produce dated the said day and year in consideration of former Service done by Edmond Ashenhurst to him the said Thomas did grant by his said Writing to the said Edmond and Mary his Wife one yearly Rent of Twenty pounds issuing out of the said Twenty Acres with the Appurtenances by the name of all his Lands and Hereditaments scituate in Kings Norton aforesaid Habendum the said Rent to the said Edmond and Mary and their Assigns after the decease of one Anne Greaves and Thomas Greaves Vncle to the Grantor or either of them which first should happen during the lives of Edmond and Mary and the longer liver of them at the Feasts of the Annunciation of the blessed Virgin Mary and St. Michael the Arch angel by equal portions The first payment to begin at such of the said Feasts as should first happen next after the decease of the said Anne Greaves and Thomas the Vncle or either of them That if the Rent were behind in part or in all it should be lawful for the Grantees and the Survivor of them to enter into all and singular the Lands in King's Norton of the Grantor and to distrain and detain until payment By vertue whereof the said Edmond and Mary became seis'd of the said Rent in their Demesne as of Free hold during their Lives as aforesaid The Defendants say further in Fact That after that is to say the last day of February in the Two and twentieth year of the now King the said Anne Greaves and Thomas the Vncle and Edmond the Husband died at King's Norton That for Twenty pounds of the said Rent for one whole year ending at the Feast of Saint Michael the Arch-Angel in the Two and twentieth year of the King unpaid to the said Mary the Defendants justifie the Caption as in Lands subject to the said Mary's Distress as her Bailiffs And averr her to be living at King's Norton aforesaid The Plaintiff demands Oyer of the Writing Indented by which it appears That the said Annuity was granted to Edmond and Mary and their Assigns in manner set forth by the Defendants in their Conuzance But with this variance in the Deed And if the aforesaid yearly Rents of Ten pounds and of Twenty pounds shall be unpaid at any the daies aforesaid in part or in all That it shall be lawful for the said Edmond and Mary at any time during the joynt natural Lives of the said Anne Greaves and Thomas Greaves the Uncle if the said Edmond and Mary or either of them should so long live and as often as the said Rents of Twenty pounds or any parcel should be behind to enter into all the said Thomas Greaves the Grantors Lands in King's Norton aforesaid and to Distrain Vpon Oyer of which Indenture the Plaintiff demurrs upon the Conuzance Two Exceptions have been taken to this Conuzance made by the Defendants The first for that
recited therein but in part for after as much as is recited of either Deeds respectively is said as more plainly appears among other Grants and Covenants in the said Deed. And if other Grants were in the Deed of 29 H. 8. besides those recited then the express Grant of the very Mannor of Hooknorton might be one of those Grants which is urg'd not to be granted because not recited in 29 H. 8. nominally and if so here being two former demises of the Mannor mentioned in the Indenture 1 Mar. and for different terms the one 29 H. 8. for Eighty years the other 1 E. 6. for Ninety years and so expiring at different terms it is uncertain from which Expiration the demise of the Mannor 1 Mar. shall Commence and consequently the demise having no certain Commencement will be void by the Rector of Chedington's Case 1. Rep. But admitting the Mannor not demis'd by 29 H. 8. yet the Jury finding the demise 1 Mar. Habendum à fine prioris dimissionis and not prioris dimissionis ejusdem Manerii it is uncertain still Whether the Habendum à fine prioris dimissionis as the Jury have found it shall referr to the end of the demise 29 H. 8. or to that of 1 E. 6. both of them being prior demises mentioned in the Indenture 1 Mar. for if only the demise 29 H. 8. had been mentioned in that of 1 Mar. the demise 1 Mar. for its Commencement must of necessity have referr'd to the Expiration of the demise by 29 H. 8. though the Mannor pass'd not by it and it will not then change the uncertainty because the demise 1 E. 6. is mention'd Nor shall you to this finding of the Jury suppose a different finding from their finding barely the Indenture of 1 Mar. call in aid any thing from the Recitals in 1 Mar. and so make up a Medley Verdict partly from what the Jury find expresly and partly from what is only recited and not otherwise found As for instance The Jury find the Mannor demis'd for Ninety years Habendum from the end of a former demise mention'd 1 Mar. This Verdict in it self finds no Commencement of the term by not finding from the Expiration of which term it begins nor find no Rent reserv'd But the demise of 1 Mar. as to them must be made out from the recitals of Deeds not found to be real which is a way of confounding all Verdicts When the Jury say The Mannor of Hooknorton was demis'd à fine prioris dimissionis in Indentura predict mentionat for Ninety years they do not say à fine prioris dimissionis ejusdem Manerii So as if nothing else were the former Indenture mention'd might be of the Vicaridge or any other thing and not at all of the Mannor and yet by the Indenture of 1 Mar. the demise of the Mannor was to Commence from the Expiration of such former demise whatever was demis'd by it But the Indenture of 1 Mar. demiseth all the Premisses contain'd in the first Indenture Habendum from the Expiration of the term Ergo If the Mannor be not compris'd in the first Indenture it cannot be demis'd by 1 Mar. from the Expiration of the first term in the first Indenture But admitting this Who can say the Mannor of Hooknorton is not compris'd in the first Indenture For first What if only part of the first Indenture is recited and not all in the Deed of 1 Mar. and so the Mannor omitted in the recital though it were compris'd in the Indenture of 29 H. 8. and perhaps the Jury might if that Indenture were produc'd to them see it was compris'd in the Indenture though not recited to be so 2. What if the Indenture of 29 H. 8. were mis-recited in 1 Mar. and instead of the Mannor the word Mansion recited 3. It is apparent That the Indenture of 29 H. 8. was not recited nor pretended to be recited verbatim in that of 1 Mar. Because after so much of the Indenture of 29 H. 8. as is recited in that of 1 Mar. it is said as by the said Indenture viz. 29 H. 8. among divers other Covenants and Grants more plainly appeareth So as there were other Grants in the said Indenture of 29 H. 8. than are recited in 1 Mar. and the Grant of the Mannor by name might be one of them 4. How can it appear to us but that the Jury did find the Mannor of Hooknorton to be expresly demis'd by the first Indenture if any thing were demis'd by it If then the Jury did conceive the Mannor of Hooknorton was demis'd by the first recited Indenture as most probably they did When they find That by the Indenture of 1 Mar. the said Mannor was convey'd à fine prioris dimissionis in Indentur praedict mentionat And there are mentioned in the Indenture of 1. Mar. two former demises of the Mannor viz. that of 29 H. 8. for a term of Eighty years and that of 1 E. 6. for a term of Ninety years there is no certain Commencement of the term of 1 Mar. because it is as uncertain from which of the two former demises it takes his Commencement as if ten former demises were mention'd and for different terms and then it could Commence from neither of them But admit it should be taken to Commence from the end of the term of 1 E. 6. and not from the other because in that term if any such were the Mannor is without scruple demis'd yet we must remember the present Question is not of the Mannor but of Two hundred Acres parcel of the Mannor And in the Lease of 1 E. 6. though the Mannor be demis'd yet there is an Exception of certain Lands and Tenements in the Town or Vill of Hooknorton which Croker then held for certain years enduring How doth it appear That the Two hundred Acres in question were not those Lands excepted out of the demise of 1 Mariae For though they were parcel of the Mannor they might be severally demis'd and excepted and though it be found Cok. Litt. 325. a. That at the time of the Demise and at the time of the Trespass the Two hundred Acres were parcel of the Mannor it is not found that they were not part of the Lands in the Vill of Hooknorton at the time of the demise made 1 Mar. then in Lease to Croker and excepted out of the said demise of 1 Mar. for if they were the Plaintiff makes no Title to them If the Issue be 15 Jac. B.R. between Ven◠and Howel whether by Custome of the Mannor a Copyhold is grantable to Three for the Life of Two and it be found that by the Custome it is grantable for Three Lives that is not well found for it is but an Argument Rolls 693. Title Tryal That because a greater Estate may be granted a less may and a new Venire Facias granted because the matter in Fact whereupon the Court was to judge and was the point of
it is said The Rent was granted out of the Twenty Acres being the Locus in quo by the Name of all the Grantors Lands and Hereditaments in King's Norton and that a per nomen in that Case is not good The Case of Grey and Chapman was urg'd 43 Eliz. Cro. f. 822. where by Indenture S. one Prudence Cousin let a House and Twenty Acres of Land by the Name of all her Tenements in S. But it was not alledg'd in what Vill the Acres were The Court was of Opinion in Arrest of Judgment that the naming of the Vill in the per nomen was not material Another Case to the same purpose was urg'd of Gay against Cay where a Grant in possession was pleaded 41 Eliz. Cro. f. 662. pl. 10. and not as in Reversion And upon view of the Record the Grantor had granted Tenementa praedicta per nomen of a Mesuage which A. P. held for life where the per nomen was adjudg'd not to make good the Grant The Court is of Opinion notwithstanding these Cases That in the present Case the per nomen is well enough because it is alledg'd the Grantor was seis'd of Two hundred Acres of Land in Kings Norton whereof the locus in quo being Twenty Acres is parcel By reason whereof the Rent being granted out of every parcel of the Two hundred Acres it is well enough to say it was granted out of the Twenty Acres per nomen of all his Lands in Kings Norton because the Twenty Acres are alledg'd to be parcel of all his Lands there being Two hundred Acres But in Chapman's Case It is not alledg'd that the Twenty Acres of Land demis'd were parcel of all the Tenements in S. per nomen of which the Twenty Acres were to pass As for the second Case of Gay it was not possible that Lands granted as in possession should pass per nomen of Land that was in Reversion The second Exception is Because the Clause of Entry and Distress in the Deed upon Oyer of it differs from the Clause of Entry and Distress alledg'd in the Conizance For in the Conizance it is said It should be lawful to Enter and Distrain if the rent were unpaid and behind after any of the Feasts whereon it was due that is at any Feast that should first happen after the death of Anne or Thomas Greaves for the Rent did not commence before But by the Deed If the Rent were behind at any the Feasts the Entry and Distress is made to be lawful for it during the joynt Lives of Anne and Thomas Greaves the Uncle and during their joynt lives it could not be behind for it commenc'd not till one of them were dead Scarplus Handkinson 37 El. Cro. f. 420. words repugnant and sensless to be rejected So as the sense must run That if the Rent were behind it should be lawful to distrain during the joint Lives of Anne and Thomas Greaves which was before it could be behind for it could not be behind till the death of one of them Therefore those words during their joynt natural lives being insensible ought to be rejected For words of known signification but so placed in the Context of a Deed that they make it repugnant and sensless are to be rejected equally with words of no known signification Judgment pro Defendent The Chief Justice delivered the Opinion of the Court. Trin. 16 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 2487. But Adjudg'd Mich. 20 Car. II. Bedell versus Constable BY the Act of 12 Car. 2. cap. 24. It is among other things Enacted That where any person hath or shall have any Child or Children under the Age of One and twenty years and not married at the time of his death It shall and may be lawful to and for the Father of such Child or Children whether born at the time of the decease of the Father or at that time in ventre sa mere or whether such Father be within the Age of One and twenty years or of full Age by his Deed executed in his life time or by his last Will and Testament in writing in the presence of two or more credible Witnesses to dispose of the custody and tuition of such Child or Children for and during such time as he or they shall respectively remain under the Age of One and twenty years or any lesser time to any person or persons in possession or remainder other than Popish Recusants And such disposition of the Custody of such Child or Children made since the Four and twentieth of February 1645. or hereafter to be made shall be good and effectual against all and every person or persons claiming the custody or tuition of such Child or Children as Guardian in Soccage or otherwise And such person or persons to whom the custody of such Child or Children hath been or shall be so disposed or devised as aforesaid shall and may maintain an Action of Ravishment of Ward or Trespass against any person or persons which shall wrongfully take away or detain such Child or Children for the Recovery of such Child or Children and shall and may recover Damages for the same in the said Action for the use and benefit of such Child or Children And such person or persons to whom the custody of such Child or Children hath been or shall be so disposed or devised shall and may take into his or their custody to the use of such Child or Children the profits of all Lands Tenements and Hereditaments of such Child or Children and also the custody tuition and management of the Goods Chattels and personal Estate of such Child or Children till their respective Age of One and twenty years or any lesser time according to such Disposition aforesaid and may bring such Action or Actions in relation thereto as by Law a Guardian in Common Soccage might do By the Will is devised in these words I do bequeath my son Thomas to my Brother Robert Towray of Rickhall to be his Tutor during his Minority Before this Act Tenant in Soccage of Age might have dispos'd his Land by Deed or last Will in trust for his Heir but not the Custody and Tuition of his Heir for the Law gave that to the next of Kinn to whom the Land could not descend But Tenant in Soccage under Age could not dispose the Custody of his Heir nor devise or demise his Land in trust for him in any manner Now by this Statute he may grant the Custody of his Heir but cannot devise or demise his Land in trust for him for any time directly for if he should the devise or demise were as before the Statute as I conceive which is most observable in this Case I say directly he cannot but by a mean and obliquely he may for nominating who shall have the Custody and for what time by a consequent the Land follows as an incident given by the Law to attend the custody not as an Interest devis'd or demis'd
ought to be traversed I shall for clearing this Learning shew in the next place when the Seisin in gross or appendency of the Advowson alledged by any Plaintiff in his Count is traversable by the Defendant and not the Presentation and the true reason of the difference 27 H. 8. f. 29. In a Quare Impedit the Plaintiff declared that I.S. was seised in Fee of a Mannor to which the Advowson was appendant and presented and after infeoffed the Plaintiff of the Mannor whereby he became seised until the Defendant disseised him and during the Disseisin the Church became void and the Defendant presented the Plaintiff entred into the Mannor and so recontinued the Advowson and the Church is again become void whereby the Plaintiff ought to present The Defendant pleads that a stranger was seised of 4 Acres of Land to which the Advowson is appendant and presented and of the four acres infeoffed the Defendant and the Church being void it belongs to the Defendant to present and takes a Traverse absque hoc that he disseised the Plaintiff of the Mannor This Traverse was adjudged not good for the disseisin or not disseisin of the Mannor was not material to intitle the Plaintiff to the Quare Impedit but all his Title was by the appendency of the Advowson to the Mannor and therefore the Traverse ought to have been and was so resolved to the appendency which destroyed the Plaintiffs intire Title to present and also inconsistent with the Defendants appendency of the Advowson to his four acres I shall only put one Case more to the same purpose out of the new Books reported by the Lord Hobart Sir Henry Gawdy Kt. brought a Quare Impedit against the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Sir William Bird and Humfrey Rone Clerk Sir Hen. Gandies Case Hob. 301. and declared that Sir Rich. Southwell was seised of the Mannor of Popenho in Norfolk to which the Advowson was appendant and presented and his Clerk was instituted and inducted that Southwell bargained and sold the Mannor to one Barow who being seised the Church became void by the death of Southwels Incumbent and so continued for eighteen months whereby the Queen in default of the Patron Ordinary and Metropolitan presented by Lapse one Snell then by mean Conveyances derives the Mannor to which the Advowson is appendant to himself and that by the death of Snell it belongs to him to present and is disturbed by the Defendants The Archbishop claims nothing but as Ordinary Sede vacante of the Bishop of Norwich Sir William pleaded ne disturba pas And Rone the present Incumbent pleaded that he was Parson by the Kings Presentation and that long before Southwell had any thing in the Mannor Queen Eliz. was seised of the Advowson in gross in right of the Crown and presented Snell that the Advowson descended to King James by the death of the Queen and he being seised the Church becoming void by Snell's death presented the present Incumbent who was instituted and inducted And traversed absque hoc that the Advowson was appendant to the Mannor of Popenho and thereupon Issue was joined In this Case also the Traverse of the appendency by the Defendant was clearly good and so admitted for the Plaintiff Gaudy had no more nor other Title to present than by the appendency of the Advowson to the Mannor and the Incumbents death and the appendency to the Mannor was inconsistent with the Defendants Title by the Advowson's being in gross These two last Cases fully prove the Rule by me taken and which will conclude the Case in question that the Traverse is well taken to the Appendency of the Advowson when it is all the Plaintiffs Title to present and is inconsistent with the Defendants But in this Case of Gawdys the Iury found specially that Southwell was seised of the Mannor with the Advowson appendant and presented and that the Incumbent dying 2 Feb. 1588. the Queen the 15th of Feb. in the same year presented Snell to the Church then void per mortem naturalem ultimi Incumbentis ibidem vacantem Et ad nostram Praesentationem jure praerogativae Coronae nostrae Angliae spectantem and her Clerk instituted by Letters of Institution running per Dominam Reginam veram indubitatam ut dicitur patronam And after the death of Snell King James presented Rone in these words ad nostram praesentationem sive ex pleno jure sive per lapsum temporis sive alio quocunque modo spectantem and referr'd to the Court whether the Advowson were appendant to the Mannor or not It was adjudged 1. That the Advowson remained appendant notwithstanding the Queens Presentation 2. That her Presentation could not be by Lapse for her Presentation and Institution and Induction were in the same month of Febr. wherein the voidance was 3. If the Queen had presented by Lapse it had made no severance of the Advowson 4. That the Queens Presentation made no Vsurpation because she presented as supposing she had a Title in right of her Crown as appeared by the form of her Presentation which is very remarkable and therefore her Presentation was meerly void for it shall not be intended the Queen took away anothers right against her own will and declared intention 5. For the same reason King James his Presentation of Rone who by the form of his Presentation supposed he had a good Title when he had none was also void and this agrees with the Resolution in Greens C. the 6th Rep. that the Queens Presentation made as by Lapse when she had no such Title to present by lapse but another Title either in right of her Crown or by Simony or some other way was void because she was mistaken in her presentation So if she presents by reason of some supposed Title in her Letters of presentation when indeed she had no Title at all the Presentation is meerly void and though such Presentation make a plenarty so as to avoid Lapse yet the right Patron is not out of possession but may present 7 years after and if his Clark be inducted the former presentee is immediately outed Hence it is to be noted as a point very observable in this Learning that though the King may present by Usurpation yet he shall never present by Usurpation if in the Letters of Presentation he present by some Title which he hath not but if he present generally making no Title at all by his Presentation and his Clerk be received and dyes he hath gained a Title by Usurpation But if the King declare in a Quare Impedit that he was seised of the Advowson in gross or as appendant to a Mannor and presented if he had presented before by Usurpation the Defendant shall not traverse his Seisin of the Advowson or appendency at all So is it in the Case of a Common Person also as appears in the end of the Case 10 H. 7. where it is said It was agreed by the Court that if
is not sufficient by the Rule of the Act of 25. unless confirmed by the King It was otherwise in the Popes case before the Act. There are many Presidents in Mr. Noy's Book where in like Obj. 2 case the King after the death of a Bishop holding in Commendam after his translation to another See and after his resignation hath presented All those Presidents are since the Twentieth of the Queen which Answ 1 cannot alter the Law 2. Who knows in the cases of death whether those Presentations were not by consent of the Patrons and doubtless there are Presidents wherein the Patrons did present else this Question had been earlier But Judicandum est legibus non exemplis Vpon Translation of a Bishop holding a Commendam in the Answ 2 Retinere as long as he continued Bishop there the King ought to present for the Dispensation is determined upon his remove and then is as if it had not been and a Dispensation gives no property to the Living nor takes away any But where property is given to the Living as by Presentation Institution and Induction or by Grant as in Appropriations Hob. Colts and Glovers Case and sometimes otherwise by the King such presenting or granting for a year or six is to grant it during life As an Atturnment cannot be for a time nor a Confirmation nor a Denization or Naturalization and the like but such Acts are perfect Manwarings Case 21 Jac. Crook f. 691. as they may be notwithstanding Restriction to time as is agreed well in Manwaring's Case I shall say nothing of the case of Resignation as not being in the present Question Judgment was given by the Opinion of the whole Court That the Avoidance was by Death not by Cession Hill 19 20 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 1785. Baruck Tustian Tristram Plaintiff Anne Roper Vicountess Baltinglass Vidua Defendant in a Plea of Trespass and Ejectment THe Plaintiff declares That the Defendant vi Armis entred into 20 Messuages 1000 Acres of Land 200 Acres of Meadow and 500 Acres of Pasture cum pertinentiis in Thornbury Shalston Evershaw Oldwick Westbury and Looffield and into the Rectory of Thornbury which Thomas Gower Kt. and Baronet and George Hilliard to the said Baruck demis'd the First of Octob. 19 Car. 2. Habendum from the Feast of St. Michael the Arch-angel last past for the term of Five years next ensuing into which he the said Baruck the same day entred and was ousted and ejected by the Defendant ad damnum 40 l. To this the Defendant pleads Not Guilty And the Jury have found specially That the Defendant is not guilty in all those Tenements besides 5 Messuages 400 Acres of Land 50 Acres of Meadow 100 Acres of Pasture cum pertinentiis in Thornbury Shalston Evershaw Oldwick and Westbury and in the Rectory of Thornbury and besides in one Messuage 100 Acres of Land 50 Acres of Meadow and 100 Acres of Pasture cum pertinentiis in Looffield And as to the Trespass and Ejectment aforesaid in the said five Messuages c. and in the Rectory of Thornbury the Iury say upon their Oath that before the said Trespass and Ejectment suppos'd 22 Junii 12 Jac. Sir Arthur Throgmorton Kt. was seis'd in Fee of the aforesaid Rectory and Tenements last mentioned and of the said Premisses in Looffield and so seis'd A certain Indenture Tripartite was made 22 Junii 12 Jac. between him the said Sir Arthur of the first part Edward Lord Wootton Augustine Nicholls Kt. Francis Harvey Esq and Rowly Ward Esq of the second part and Sir Peter Temple and Anne Throgmorton Daughter of the said Sir Arthur of the third part To this effect That the said Sir Arthur Throgmorton did covenant and promise with the said Lord Wootton and Sir Augustine Nicholls in consideration of Marriage to be had between the said Sir Peter Temple and the said Anne and other the considerations mentioned in the said Indenture by Fine or Fines before the Feast of St. Michael the Arch-angel next ensuing or other good Conveyance to be levied by him and the said Dame Anne his wife to the said Lord Wootton c. The scite and precinct of the Priory of Looffield the Rectory of Thornbury and divers Mannors Lands and Tenements in the said Indenture mentioned several yearly Rents therein mentioned and all other his Lands in the Counties of Northampton Buckingham and Oxford at any time belonging to the said Priory to convey and assure To the use of himself for life without Impeachment of Waste Then to the use of Dame Anne his Wife Then to the use of the said Sir Peter Temple and the said Anne his Wife during their natural lives and the longer Liver of them and after both their Deceases To the use of the first Son of the Body of Anne by the said Sir Peter begotten and of the Heirs Males of the Body of the said first Son so to the sixth Son Then to the use of all other Sons in succession in like manner of the Body of Anne begotten by the said Sir Peter And for default of such Heirs To the use of all the Issues Female of the Body of the said Anne by the said Sir Peter begotten and the Heirs of the Bodies of the said Issues Female For default thereof To the first Son of the said Anne by any other Husband and his Heirs Males and so to the tenth In like manner to the Issues Female of the Body of Anne with divers Remainders over A Proviso That it be lawful for Sir Arthur at all times during his life to lett set and demise all or any the said Premisses aforesaid which at any time heretofore have been usually letten or demised to any person or persons for and during the term of One and twenty years or under in possession and not in Reversion or for or during any other number of years determinable upon one two or three Lives in Possession and not in Reversion reserving the Rents therefore now yielded or paid or more to be yearly due and payable during such Lease and Leases unto such person and persons unto whom the said Premises so to be demised shall come and be by virtue of these Presents if no such demise had been made so long as the same Lessees their Executors and Assigns shall duly pay the Rents and perform their Conditions according to the true meaning of their Indentures of Lease and commit no waste of and in the things to them demised The like Proviso verbatim for Sir Peter Temple and Anne his Wife to make like Leases during their Lives and the Life of the longer liver of them after the death of Sir Arthur and Dame Anne his Wife That a Fine was accordingly levied c. to the uses aforesaid They find that all the Messuages Lands Tenements and Rectory in the Declaration mentioned are compris'd in the said Indenture Tripartite They find the death of Sir Arthur Throgmorton and Anne his Wife 2. Septemb.
1 Car. 1. and that Sir Peter Temple entred and was seis'd for term of his life They find he had Issue of the Body of Anne his Wife Anne the now Defendant Daughter and Heir of the Bodies of the said Sir Peter and Anne his Wife and that Anne Wife of Sir Peter died 2. Sept. 3 Car. 1. 1. They find a Demise by Sir Peter Temple to Sir Thomas Gower and Hillyard of the Rectory of Thornbury 9. Maii 23 Car. 1. for 30 l. Rent 2. They find a Demise by him to them of a Messuage in Thornbury 9. March 23 Car. 1. of Woolheads Tenement for 16 l. 13 s. 4 d. Rent 3. They find a Demise to them 9. March 23 Car. 1. of Land in Thornbury held by Roger Rogers Rent 13 l. 6 s. 8 d. 4. They find a Demise 9. March 23 Car. 1. of Nelson's Tenement in Thornbury Rent 16 l. 13 s. 4 d. at Michaelmass and Lady-day 5. They find a Demise 13. March 23 Car. 1. of Lands in Shalston Eversham and Oldwick held formerly by William Hughes Rent 15 s. 4 d. These respective Leases were made for the term of 90 Years determinable upon the Lives of the Lady Baltinglass the Defendant Sir Richard Temple's and the Life of a younger Son of Sir Peter Temple as long as the Lessees should duly pay the Rents reserved and commit no waste according to the Limitation of the Proviso in 12 Jac. which is recited in the respective Leases 6. Then the Iury find quod predicti separales reditus super praedictis separalibus Indenturis Dimissionis reservat fuerint reservat reditus de super premissis praedictis 22. dii Junii Anno Jacobi Regis 12. supradict Et quod praedict separales reditus c. in forma praedict reservat ad Festum Sancti Michaelis Arch-angeli quod fuit 1653. debit non solut sive oblat suerint super idem Festum sed quod iidem reditus infra unum mensem prox post Festum praedictum praefat Annae Roper Defend solut fuerunt 7. They find a Demise to them of the Scite and Priory of Looffield 9. March 23 Car. 1. at the Rent of 100 l. payable equally on Lady-day and Michaelmass-day demised by Sir Arthur Throgmorton and Anne his Wife 20th of May 12 Eliz. 1570. to William Hewer for 21 years Rent 100 l. Lady-day and Michaelmass with some Exceptions for the like term of 90 years and upon like Limitations as in the former Leases The Iury find quod Tenementa praedicta cum pertinentiis in Looffield supranominat tempore dict Eliz. nuper Reginae Angl. fuerint dimissa ad redditum 100 l. pro termino 21. Annorum sed dimissio terminus 21 Annorum expirati fuerunt Et dicunt quod eisdem Juratoribus non constabat quod dicta Tenementa in Looffield praedict 22 die Junii 12 Jac. aut per spatium 20 Annorum tunc antea fuerint dimissa Et dicunt ulterius quod 50 l. pro dimidio unius Anni de praedictis Tenementis in Looffield ad Festum Sancti Michaelis Arch-angeli quod fuit Anno Dom. 1653. debit oblatae fuerint Et quod praedicta Anna Roper ante Festum Annunciationis prox sequent intravit They find that Gower and Hillyard claiming the said 5 Messuages 400 Acres of Land 50 Acres of Meadow and 100 Acres of Pasture in Thornbury Shalston Evershaw Oldwick and Westbury As also the said Messuage and other the Premisses in Looffield and the Rectory of Thornbury before the supposed Trespass and Ejectment entred upon the Possession of the Lady Baltinglass and so possessed made a Lease to the Plaintiff by virtue of which he entred and was possessed until outed by the Defendant as by the Declaration But whither the Defendant be culpable they refer to the Court. Vpon this Verdict the Questions are two 1. The first Whither the Defendants entry into the six Tenements leased to Gower and Hillyard for not payment of the Rent reserv'd upon the day of payment were lawful or not And as to that the Court is of opinion that the Defendants Entry was lawful for that the Leases were not deriv'd out of the Estate of Sir Peter Temple who was but Tenant for life and had no Reversion in him but out of the Estate of Sir Arthur Throgmorton by Limitation of the Proviso in the Deed 12 Jac. so as the Leases were not Leases upon Condition to pay the Rent at the day to which any Demand or Re-entry was requisite for Non-payment but were Leases by Limitation and determined absolutely according to the Limitation Littl. f. 235. a. For this Littleton is express that the words quamdiu dum and dummodo are words of Limitation As if a Lease be made to a Woman dum sola fuerit or dum casta vixerit or dummodo solverit talem reditum or quamdiu solverit talem reditum so are many other words there mentioned And if there be not a performance according to the Limitation it determines the Lease But it is otherwise where a Rent is reserv'd upon Condition for there is a Contract between the Lessor and Lessee and the Law evens the Agreement between them as is most agreeable to Reason and the supposition of their Intention But in the present case Sir Peter Temple had no interest in him out of which such Leases could be deriv'd but had a power only to make them by virtue of the Proviso in Sir Arthur Throgmortons Deed and the Lessees must be subject to such Limitations as are thereby made It was agreed by the Council of the Plaintiff That it was not a Condition for payment of the Rent nor could it be but they would call it a Caution A Condition to determine a Lease or a Limitation is a Caution and a material one but such a Caution as hath no more effect than if it were not at all is a thing insignificant in Law and therefore must not supplant that which in proper terms is a Limitation and hath an effect 2. The next Question is upon the Lease of Looffield which arises upon the words of the Proviso That it should be lawful for Sir Peter Temple to demise all or any the Premisses which at any time heretofore have been usually letten or demised for the term of 21 years or under reserving the Rent thereupon now yielded or paid And the Iury finding the Lands in Looffield to have been demised 12th of the Queen for 21 years for 100 l. Rent and that that term was expired and not finding them demis'd by the space of twenty years before at the time of the Indenture 12 Jac. Whither the Lease by Sir Peter Temple of them be warranted by the Proviso there being reserv'd the Rent reserv'd by the Lease in 12. Eliz. viz. 100. l. The Court is of opinion that the Lease of Looffield is not warranted by that Proviso for these Reasons 1. It is clear Sir Arthur Throgmorton intended to exclude some Lands from being demisable by that
Land cum pertinentiis in Sandridge aforesaid That long before the Caption Ralph Rowlett Knight was seis'd of the Mannor of Sandridge in the said County whereof the said place is and was parcel time out of mind Grant of the Rent June 26 8 Eliz. That the said Sir Ralph 26. June 8 Eliz. at Sandridge aforesaid by his Deed in writing under his Seal produc'd in Court thereby granted and confirmed to Henry Goodyeare then Esquire and after Knight and to the Heirs of his Body a yearly Rent of 30 l. out of all his said Mannor and other his Lands in Sandridge aforesaid payable at the Feasts of St. Michael the Arch-angel and the Annunciation The first payment at such of the said Feasts which should happen after the expiration surrender or forfeiture to be made after Sir Ralph Rowlett's death of certain terms of years of parcel of the Premisses made to one William Sherwood and Ralph Dean severally With Clause of Entry and Distress to Henry and the Heirs of his Body if the Rent were unpaid And that Sir Ralph gave the said Henry seisin of the said Rent by payment of a peny as appears by the Deed. Rowletts death 1 Sept. 33 Eliz. Sir Ralph Rowlett after the First day of September 33 Eliz at Sandridge aforesaid died That after the Second day of September Terms expired Sept. 2. 33 Eliz. 33 Eliz. the said terms of years expired whereby the said Henry became seis'd of the said Rent in tail That Henry had Issue the said Elizabeth and Mary Hen. Good-year died 1. Octob. 33 Eliz. and one Anne his Daughters and Coheirs and died 1. Octob. 33 Eliz so seis'd That the said Coheirs being seis'd of the said Rent Mary married Samuel 1. May 1634. and Anne the same time married John Kingston to them and the Heirs of their Bodies the First of May 1634. Mary married the said Samuel Hildersham and Anne married one John Kingston whereby the said Elizabeth and Samuel and Mary in right of the said Mary and John and Anne in right of Anne were seis'd of the Rent December 25. 1635. Anne had Issue by John her Husband Anne had Issue Frances and Theodofia she and her Husband John died 1 Jan. 1635. the said Frances and Theodosia and John her Husband and Anne died 1. Januarii 1635. That thereby Elizabeth Samuel and Mary in right of Mary Frances and Theodosia became seis'd of the Rent April the 10th 1647. Frances married the said Biddulph and Theodosia the said Humphrey Holden whereby Elizabeth Samuel and Mary in right of Mary Biddulph and Frances in right of Frances and Holden and Theodosia in right of Theodosia became seis'd of the Rent And for 120 l. for four years arrear after the death of John and Anne ending at the Feast of St. Michael 1655. being unpaid at the time and place c. the Defendant as their Bailiff entred and distrained the said Cows The Plaintiff demands Oyer of the Deed of Grant and hath it in these words c. And then the Plaintiff replies that before the time of the Caption that is A die Paschae in quindecim dies a Fine was levied in the Court of Common Pleas in the One and twentieth of the King before the Iustices there c. between Richard Harrison Esquire and the Avowants of the said Rent with Warranty to the said Richard and his Heirs And that this Fine was to the use of the Conizors and their Heirs and demands Iudgment The Defendant thereupon demurrs WHERE the Law is known and clear though it be unequitable and inconvenient the Iudges must determine as the Law is without regarding the unequitableness or inconveniency Those defects if they happen in the Law can only be remedied by Parliament therefore we find many Statutes repealed and Laws abrogated by Parliament as inconvenient which before such repeal or abrogation were in the Courts of Law to be strictly observed But where the Law is doubtful and not clear the Iudges ought to interpret the Law to be as is most consonant to equity and least inconvenient And for this reason Littleton in many of his Cases resolves the Law not to be that way which is inconvenient which Sir Edward-Cook in his Comment upon him often observes and cites the places Sect. 87. In the present Case there are several Coparceners whereof some have Husbands seis'd of a Rent Charge in tail the Rent is behind and they all levy a Fine of the Rent to the use of them and their Heirs If after the Fine levied they are barr'd from distraining for the Rent arrear before the Fine is the Question It being agreed they can have no other remedy because the Rent is in the reality and still continuing If they cannot distrain the Consequents are 1. That there is a manifest duty to them of a Rent for which the Law gives no remedy which makes in such case the having of right to a thing and having none not to differ for where there is no right no relief by Law can be expected and here where there is right the relief is as little which is as great an absurdity as is possible 2. It was neither the Intention of the Conizors to remit this Arrear of Rent to the Tenant nor the Tenants to expect it nor could the Conizors remit it but by their words or intentions or both nor did they do it by either 3. It is both equitable in it self and of publick convenience that the Law should assist men to recover their due when detain'd from them 4. Men in time of Contagion of Dearth of War may be occasioned to settle their Estates when they cannot reasonably expect payment of Rents from their Tenants for Lives or others and consequently not seasonably distrain them and it would be a general inconvenience in such case to lose all their Rents in Arrear So as both in Equity and Conveniency the Law should be with the Avowants In the next place we must examine Whether the Avowants that is the Conizors of the Fine be clearly barr'd by Law to distrain for the Rent arreare before the Fine For it must be agreed they have no other remedy by the Common Law or otherwise to which purpose I shall open some Premises that my Conclusion may be better apprehended 1. A privity is necessary by the Common Law to distrain and avow between the Distrainor and the Distrained that the Tenant may know to whom the Rent or other Duty ought to be paid and likewise know a lawful distress from a tortious taking of his Cattel 2. This privity is created by Attornment either in Fact or in Law by the Tenant to the Lord to the Reversioner to the Grantee of a Remainder or of a Rent by Deed or by Fine Litt. Sect. 579. For this Sir Edward Cooe upon the 579th Section of Littleton and in many other of his Sections The Conizee of a Fine before Attornment cannot distrain because an
to that Issue but may take another This dis-affirms the former Case when the Information is by an Informer the King must maintain his Information Note the close of this Case Ut supra per Attornatum Regis alios legis peritos I shall give the Case here mentioned in this ut supra which will I think determine the Question and clearly establish the Law according to the Difference taken That Case is likewise in Br. and cited to be as in 34 H. 8. whereof there is no Year-book neither some four years before the last Case I mentioned It is thus Br. Prerogative p. 116. 34 H. 8. Nota by Whorhood Attornatum Regis alios When an Information is put into the Chequer upon a penal Statute and the Defendant makes a Barr and Traverseth that there the King cannot wave such Issue tender'd and Traverse the former matter of the Plea as he can upon Traverse of an Office and the like when the King is sole party and intitled by matter of Record for upon the Information there is no Office found before and also a Subject is party with the King for a moiety Quod nota bene Here it is most apparent That upon an Information when the King hath no Title by matter of Record as he hath upon Office found the King cannot waive the Issue tender'd upon the first Traverse though the Information be in his own name which disaffirms the second Case in that point And for the Supernumerary reason That the King is not the sole party in the Information it is but frivolous and without weight but the stress is where the King is sole party and intitled by matter of Record I shall add another Authority out of Stamford Praerogative If the King be once seis'd his Highness shall retain against all others who have not Title nothwithstanding it be found also that the King had no Title but that the other had possession before him 37 Ass pl. 11. as appeareth in 37. Ass p. 35. which is pl. 11. where it was found That neither the King nor the party had Title and yet adjudg'd that the King should retain for the Office that finds the King to have a Right or Title to enter Stamford Praerogative f. 62. b. makes ever the King a good Title though the Office be false c. and therefore no man shall Traverse the Office unless he make himself a Title and if he cannot prove his Title to be true although he be able to prove his Traverse to be true yet this Traverse will not serve him Stamford Prerogative f. 64. b. It is to be noted That the King hath a Prerogative which a Common Person hath not for his Highness may choose whether he will maintain the Office or Traverse the Title of the party and so take Traverse upon Traverse If the King take Issue upon a Traverse to an Office he cannot in another Term change his Issue by Traversing the Defendants Title for then he might do it infinitely But the King may take Issue and after Demurr 13 E. 4. expresly and several other Books 28 H. 6. f. 2. a. or first Demurr and after take Issue or he may vary his Declaration for in these Cases as to the Right all things remain and are as they were at first but this ought to be done in the same Term otherwise the King might change without limit and tye the Defendant to perpetual Attendance Judgment pro Defendente Hill 21 22. Car. II. C. B. Rot. 606. Thomas Rowe Plaintiff and Robert Huntington Defendant in a Plea of Trespass and Ejectment THE Plaintiff declares That Thomas Wise 1. April 21 Car. 2. at Hooknorton in the County of Oxford by his Indenture produc'd dated the said day and year demis'd to the said Thomas Rowe the Mannor of Hooknorton with the Appurtenances 4 Messuages 100 Acres of Land 50 Acres of Meadow 400 Acres of Pasture and 50 Acres of Wood with the Appurtenances in Hooknorton aforesaid As also the Rectory and Vicaridge of Hooknorton and the Tithes of Grain Hay and Wool renewing in Hooknorton aforesaid To have and to hold the Premisses from the Feast of the Annunciation of the Virgin then last past to the end and term of Seven years then next ensuing That by virtue thereof the said Thomas Rowe the Plaintiff into the said Mannor and Tenements enter'd and of the said Rectory Vicaridge and Tithes was possessed That the said Robert Huntington the Defendant the said First of April with Force and Arms into the said Mannor Rectory Vicaridge and Tithes entred and him Ejected against the Peace to his great damage and whereby he is endamaged 100 l. The Defendant Huntington pleads not Culpable And thereupon Issue is Ioyn'd The Jury give a Special Verdict That as to the Trespass and Ejectment in the said Mannor and Tenements and in the said Rectory Vicaridge and Tithes aforesaid excepting 200 Acres of Pasture parcel of the said Mannor of Hooknorton That the Defendant Huntington is not Culpable And as to the said 200 Acres they say that long before the said Trespass and Ejectment That is the 14th day of October 1. Mar. one Robert then Bishop of Oxford was seis'd in his Demesne as of Fee in Right of his Bishoprick of the said Mannor whereof the said 200 Acres are parcel and so seis'd the said 14th of October 1 Mariae at Hooknorton aforesaid by his Indenture of Demise seal'd with his Episcopal Seal Dated the said day and year and shew'd in Evidence to the Jury made between the said Bishop of the one part and John Croker of Hooknorton Esq of the other part for Considerations in the said Indenture of Demise mentioned had demis'd and to farm lett to the said Croker Among other things the said Mannor with the Appurtenances whereof the said 200 Acres are parcel To have and to hold to the said Croker and his Assigns from the end and expiration prioris Dimissionis in eadem Indentur Mentionat for and during the term of Ninety years then next following The tenor of which Indenture of Demise follows in haec verba This Indenture made the Fourteenth day of October 1 Mariae c. Between the said Bishop and the said John Croker c witnesseth That where the said Bishop by the name of the Reverend Father in God Robert King Abbot of Tame and Commendatory of the late Monastery of Oseney in the County of Oxford and the Covent of the same by their Deed Indented Dated 6. April 29 Hen. 8. with the Consent of their whole Chapter Have demis'd and to farm lett All that their Mansion or Farm of Hooknorton with the Appurtenances in the said County and all the Mansion and Farm Demesne Lands Meadows Leasowes and Pastures with all Commodities and Profits to the said Mannor belonging or appertaining and the customary works of all the Tenants not granted nor remitted before the Date of the Deed And the Parsonage of Hooknorton and
in Indentura praedict mentionat shall be as is contended an absolute and positive finding of a former Demise made to whose expiration the Indenture 1 Mariae referrs it must be either the demise 29 H. 8. or that of 1 E. 6. for no other are mentioned in the Indenture 1 Mar. and it can be but a finding of one of them for the words à fine prioris dimissionis in Indentur praedict mentionat cannot possibly extend to both Be it then understood the Demise 1 E. 6. for in that the Mannor is clearly named the Consequence must be That the Deed of 1 Mar. which is an intire lease as well of the Mannor as of the Vicaridge Parsonage and of other things under several Rents for Ninety years commencing as to the Mannor from the Expiration of the suppos'd Demise 1 E. 6. shall be a good lease for Ninety years thence forwards because that recited Demise is also suppos'd to be positively found by the Jury by those words of their Verdict But as to the Vicaridge Parsonage and other things and the Rents thereupon reserv'd which are demis'd by the Indenture of 1 Mar. for Ninety years to commence from the Expiration of the other recited Demise suppos'd in 29 H. 8. the lease of 1 Mar. must commence immediately from the Date because the Jury have not found that recited Demise positively but only as recited and therefore not found it to be a real Demise and consequently the lease of 1 Mariae as to those particulars referring the term to commence from the Expiration of a term granted 29 H. 8. not in esse because not found must begin from 1. Mar. which doubtless the Jury never intended But now for Authority I will resume the Case formerly cited of 3 E. 6. in the Lord Brook If A. makes a Lease to B. Habendum for Forty years from the expiration of a former Lease made of the Premises to J. N. and this be found occasionally by special Verdict as our Case is but the Jury in no other manner find any Lease to be made to J. N. then as mentioned in the Lease to B. By the Resolution of that Book the Lease to B for Forty years shall begin presently And who will say in this Case That because the Jury find a Lease made to B. for Forty years Habendum from the Expiration of a former Lease made to J. N. that therefore they find a Lease made formerly to J. N. when in truth J. N. had no such Lease for they only find what the Habendum in the Lease to B. is which makes a false mention of a former Lease to J. N. but had no Evidence to find a Lease which was not Exactly parallel to this is our present Case the Jury find the Bishop of Oxford by a Lease dated the Fourteenth of October 1 Mariae demised to Groker the Mannor of Hooknorton Habendum to him and his Assigns for Ninety years from the Expiration of a former Demise mentioned in the said Indenture of Lease 1 Mariae But do not affirm or find explicitly or implicitly any former demise made when they only find summarily the Habendum of the Lease 1 Mariae which mentions such a former Demise Cr. 10 Car. 1. f. 397. Another Case I shall make use of is the Case of Miller and Jones versus Manwaring in an Ejectment brought in Chester upon the Demise of Sir Randolph Crew The Jury in a Special Verdict found That John Earl of Oxford and Elizabeth his Wife were seis'd in Fee in Right of Elizabeth of the Mannor of Blacon whereof the Land in question was parcel and had Issue John the said John Earl of Oxford by Indenture dated the Tenth of February 27 H. 8. demis'd the Mannor to Anne Seaton for Four and Thirty years Elizabeth died 29 H. 8. And the said Earl of Oxford died March 31. H. 8. Afterwards John the Son then Earl of Oxford the Thirtieth of July 35 H. 8. by Indenture reciting the Demise to Anne Seaton to be dated the Tenth of February 28 H. 8. demis'd the said Mannor to Robert Rochester Habendum after the End Surrender or Forfeiture of the said Lease to Anne Seaton for Thirty years It was adjudged first in Chester and after upon Error brought in the Kings Bench It was resolv'd by all the Iudges who affirmed unanimously the first Iudgment That the Lease to Rochester began presently at the time of the Sealing for several Reasons 1. Which is directly to our purpose because there was no such Lease made to Anne Seaton having such beginning and ending as was recited in Rochester's lease 2. Because the lease made by John first Earl of Oxford was determined by his death Three years before Rochester's lease and consequently no lease in esse when the lease was made to Rochester which Reasons are in effect the same viz. That a lease made to commence from the end of any lease suppos'd to be in esse which indeed is not the lease shall commence presently From this Case these Conclusions are with clearness deducible 1. That if a lease be found specially by a Jury in which one or more other leases are recited the finding of such lease is not a finding of any the recited leases Therefore the finding of the lease made to Rochester was not a finding of the lease therein recited to be made to Anne Seaton in any respect 2. The second thing clearly deducible out of this Case is That although the Jury by their Special Verdict did find that John the Son Earl of Oxford did by his Indenture demise to Rochester for Thirty years the Mannor of Blacon Habendum from the End Surrender or Forfeiture of a former lease thereof made to Anne Seaton dated the Tenth of February 28 H. 8. yet this was not a finding of any such lease made to Anne Seaton but only a finding of the Habendum as it was in the lease made to Rochester which mentioned such a lease to be made to Anne Seaton So in our present Case the Jury finding that the Bishop of Oxford 1 Mariae did demise the Mannor of Hooknorton to John Croker Habendum for Ninety years from the Expiration of a former Demise mentioned in the Indenture of 1 Mar. is not a finding of any such former Demise to be made but a finding that in the Indenture 1 Mariae it is suggested there was such a former Demise and no more And if any man shall object That in Rochester's Case the Reason why no such lease is found to be made to Anne Seaton in 28 H. 8. to be because it is found that the lease made to Anne Seaton was in 27 H. 8. that is not to the purpose because the Jury might find and truly that a lease was made to her Dated the Tenth of February 27 H. 8. but that was no hindrance but that another lease was made to her in 28 H. 8. as is mentioned in Rochester's lease which had been a Surrender in Law
14 Jac. B.R. Robson and Francis Case which avoids the Exception Now as to the Second Question Admitting the Iudgment in London as pleaded be no sufficient barr of the Plaintiffs Action or if it be that the Recognizance as pleaded is no sufficient barr For if those will barr there is no further Question If then Iudgment ought to be for the Plaintiff upon the Defendants Plea to the whole matter And I conceive it ought not I shall agree That if the Defendant plead several Judgments against the Intestate or himself as Administrator and Statutes entred into by the Intestate and concludes his Plea That he hath not nor at any time had assets in his hand of the Intestates Estate praeterquam bona cattalla sufficient to satisfie those Judgments and Statutes and averrs they are unsatisfied and which assets are chargeable with the said Judgments and Statutes that this is a good Plea in barr of the Plaintiffs Action and so it is admitted to be in Meriel Treshams Case Meriel Treshams Case 9. Rep. and the Plaintiff must reply That he hath assets ultra what will satisfie those Judgments and Statutes as is there agreed But if the Plaintiff reply That any one of those Judgments was satisfied by the Intestate in his life time saying nothing to any of the rest And the Defendant demurr upon this Replication the Plaintiff must have Iudgment for the Plea was false and the falshood detrimental to the Plaintiff and beneficial to the Defendant for having pleaded he had no more assets than would satisfie those Iudgments one of them being satisfied before he hath confessed there is more assets than will satisfie the other Iudgments by as much as the Iudgment already satisfied amounts unto which would turn to his gain and the Plaintiffs loss if his demurrer were good Turners Case 8. Rep. But to plead That he hath not bona cattalla praeterquam bona quae non attingunt to satisfie the said Judgments and Statutes is not good for the incertainty for if the Judgments and Statutes amount to 500 l. 20 l. are bona quae non attingunt to satisfie them so is 40 l. so is 100 l. so is 200 l. and every Sum less than will satisfie so as by such Plea there is no certain Issue for the Iury to enquire nor no certain Sum confess'd towards the payment of any Debt as is well resolv'd in Turners Case So if a man pleads he hath not assets ultra what will satisfie those Iudgments the Plea is bad for the same reason for 20 l. is not assets ultra that will satisfie them nor 40. nor 100. nor 200. nor doth that manner of pleading confess he hath assets enough to satisfie As to say I have not in my pocket above 40 l. is not to say I have in my pocket 40 l. But in this Case the Defendant hath pleaded payment of several Bonds Bills and Judgments and pleads one Recognizance of 2000 l. and one Judgment of 7000 l. wholly unsatisfied and concludes his Plea with plene administravit And that he had not die impetrationis brevis nec unquam postea aliqua bona seu cattalla of the Intestates in manibus suis administranda praeterquam bona catalla ad valentiam separalium denariorum summarum per ipsum sic ut praesertur solutarum in discharge of the said several Judgments Bonds and Bills Et praeterquam alia bona catalla ad valentiam decem solidorum quae executioni recognitionis praedict judicii praedict per praefat Car. Cornwallis recuperat onerabilia existunt Now upon this Plea if Allington's Iudgment of 2670 l. or the Statute of 2000 l. or both be avoided yet the Plaintiff hath no right to be paid until the Iudgment of 7000 l. be so satisfied and that some assets remain after the satisfaction of it in the Administrators hands for before the Plaintiff hath no wrong nor the Administrator doth none nor hath any benefit by not satisfying the Plaintiff That spungy Reason that the Defendants Plea is all intire and therefore if any part be false as either in that of Allington's Iudgment or the Recognizance the Plea is bad is not sense for if the falshood be neither hurtful to the Plaintiff nor beneficial to the Defendant why should the Plaintiff have what he ought not or the Defendant pay what he ought not Suppose the Defendant pleaded a Iudgment obtain'd against the Intestate or himself and that the Intestate or himself were married at the time of the Iudgment obtain'd which in truth was false for that the one or the other was unmarried at that time his Plea being otherwise good Should this falsness cause the Plaintiff to recover surely no for the falsness is not material nor any way hurtful to the Plaintiff Besides the usual pleading as appears both by Turners and Treshams Case is that the Plaintiff must avoid all payments pleaded in barr until some assets appear in the Administrators hands remaining and then he is to have Iudgment Much noise hath been about this Case and without Reason as I suppose though there were no precedent Iudgment in the point but there is a Judgment per Curiam An Action of Debt was brought against Executors 9 E. 4. f. 12. b. who pleaded a former Recovery against them of 200 l. and Execution issued and pleaded likewise another Recovery against them of 100 l. and travers'd that they had no assets but to satisfie that Execution of 200 l. the Plea was adjudged good by the Court and that the Plaintiff must reply They had assets in their hands ultra the said 200 l. and ultra the said 100 l. for before the 100 l. were also satisfied the Plaintiff was not intitled to his Debt as the Book is Hill 18 19 Car. II. C. B. Thomas Price is Plaintiff against Richard Braham Elizabeth White Elianor Wakeman and Richard Hill Defendants In an Action of Trespass and Ejectment THE Plaintiff declares That one Henry Alderidge the First of November 18 Car. 2. at the Parish of St. Margarets Westminster demis'd to the Plaintiff and his Assigns an Acre of Land with the Appurtenances in the Parish of St. Margarets aforesaid Habendum from the Thirtieth of October then last past for the term of Five years next ensuing by virtue whereof he entred and was possessed untill the Defendants afterwards the same day entred upon him and did Eject him to his damage of 20 l. To this the Defendants pleaded That they are not Culpable Special Verdict is found By which it is found That the Defendants are not Culpable of Entry and Ejectment in the said Acre excepting a piece thereof containing One hundred and Eighty Foot thereof in length and Eight and twenty Foot in breadth And as to that piece they find that the same time out of mind was a Pool until within Twenty years last past during which Twenty years it became fill'd with Mudd They find That before
That Hugh Ivy Clerk the Tenth of May 22 Car. 2. at Wringlington demis'd to the said William One Messuage Twenty Acres of Land Twenty Acres of Meadow Twenty Acres of Pasture with the Appurtenances in Wringlington And also the Rectory and Parish Church of Wringlington Habendum to the said William and his Assigns from the Fifth day of May aforesaid for the term of Five years next ensuing By virtue whereof he entred into the said Tenements and Rectory and was possess'd until the Defendant the said Tenth day of May in the said year entred upon him and Ejected him to his Damage of Forty pounds The Defendant by words of course pleads he is not Culpable and Issue is joyn'd and the Verdict was taken by Default of the Defendant and the Jury find specially Upon the Special Verdict the Case appears to be this John Higden the Defendant was lawfully presented admitted instituted and inducted into the Rectory of Wringlington in the County of Somerset and Dioces of Bath and Wells in February 1664. being a Benefice with Cure of Souls and of clear yearly value of Fifty pounds per Annum and in the King's Books of no more than Five pounds yearly and that the Premisses demis'd were time out of mind and yet are parcel of the said Rectory That the said John Higden being lawful Incumbent of the said Church and Rectory of Wringlington the One and thirtieth of March 1669. was lawfully presented admitted instituted and inducted into the Rectory of Elme in the said County and Dioces being a Benefice with Cure of Souls also of clear yearly value ultra reprisas of Forty pounds per Annum and of the value of Ten pounds per Annum in the King's Books and subscribed the Articles of Religion according to the Act of the Thirteenth of the Queen 13 El. cap. 12. and was lawful Incumbent of the said Rectory of Elme but after did not read the Articles of Religion within two Months after his Induction in the Church of Elme according to the Act of 13 Eliz. Primo Maii 1669. Hugh Ivy Lessor of the Plaintiff was lawfully presented admitted instituted and inducted into the Rectory of Wringlington as suppos'd void and performed all things requisite for a lawful Incumbent of the said Rectory to perform both by subscribing and reading the Articles of Religion according to the Statute of 13 Eliz. And that he entred into the said Rectory and Premisses and made the Lease to the Plaintiff as in the Declaration That the said Higden the Defendant did enter upon the Plaintiff the said Tenth of May 1669. as by Declaration The Questions spoken to at the Barr in this Case have been two 1. Whether the Rectory of Wringlington being a Benefice with Cure and of clear yearly value of Fifty pounds and but of Five pounds in the King's Books shall be estimated according to Fifty pounds per Annum to make an Avoidance within the Statute of 21 H. 8. by the Incumbents accepting another Benefice with Cure But that is no Question within this Case for be it of value or under value the Case will be the same 2. Whether not reading the Articles according to the Statute of 13 Eliz. within two Months after induction into the Church of Elme shall exclude Higden not only from the Rectory of Elme but from the Rectory of Wringlington which is no point of this Case For whether he read or not read the Articles in the Church of Elme he is excluded from any right to the Church of Wringlington For this Case depends not at all upon any Interpretation of the Statute of 21 H. 8. of Pluralities but the Case is singly this Higden being actual and lawful Incumbent of Wringlington a Benefice with Cure be it under the value of Eight pounds yearly or of the value or more accepts another Benefice with Cure the Rectory of Elme and is admitted instituted and inducted lawfully to it be it of the value of Eight pounds or more or under The Patron of Wringlington within one month after admission institution and induction of Higden the Incumbent of Wringlington to the Rectory of Elme presents Hugh Ivy the Plaintiffs Lessor to Wringlington who is admitted instituted and inducted thereto the same day and after as by the Declaration enters and makes a Lease to the Plaintiff who is Ejected by the Defendant Higden The Doubt made by the Iury is if Higdens Entry be lawful It hath been resolv'd in Holland's Case and likewise in Digby's Case in the Fourth Report and often before since the Council of Lateran Anno Dom. 1215. Under Pope Innocent 3. Digby's Case Vid. Bon. C. pur Pluralities Anderson 1. part f. 200. b.p. 236 Vid. Moore 's Rep. a large Case to the same effect viz. Holland Digby's Case That if a man have a Benefice with Cure whatever the value be and is admitted and instituted into another Benefice with Cure of what value soever having no qualification or dispensation the first Benefice is ipso facto so void that the Patron may present another to it if he will But if the Patron will not present then if under the value no lapse shall incurr until deprivation of the first Benefice and notice but if of the value of Eight pounds or above the Patron at his peril must present within Six months by 21 H. 8. As to the Second Question Whether the Defendants not reading the Articles in the Church of Elme within two months after his induction there have excluded him not only from being Incumbent of Elme but also from Wringlington The Answer is First His not reading the Articles in the Church of Elme according to the Statute of 13. is neither any cause of nor doth contribute to his not being still Incumbent of Wringlington though as his Case is he hath no right to the Rectory of Wringlington since the admission institution and induction of Hugh Ivy the Plaintiffs Lessor into it as hath already appear'd Secondly As for the Rectory of Elme although it doth not appear that the Patron of Elme hath presented as he might have done or perhaps hath any other Clerk or that any other is admitted and instituted into that Church yet Mr. Higden can be no Incumbent there nor can sue for Tithes nor any other Duty because by not reading the Articles he stands depriv'd ipso facto For clearing this certain Clauses of the Act of 13 Eliz. are to be open'd The first is Every person after the end of this Session of Parliament to be admitted to a Benefice with Cure except that within two Months after his induction he publickly read the said Articles in the same Church whereof he shall have Cure in the time of Common-prayer there with Declaration of his unfeigned assent thereto c. shall be upon every such Default ipso facto immediately depriv'd There follows relative to this Clause Provided always That no Title to conferr or present by lapse shall accrue upon any deprivation
Interest for the Lessee Taverner had a Lease of the House Glebe and Barn and the Tithe continued in Astly 2. This severance was equally the same as if the Tithe had been demis'd to Taverner and the House and Land had remained still in Astly's possession 3. Though the Freehold of both remained still in Astly at his death notwithstanding the divided Interest in the Land and Tithe yet the Freehold being a thing quatenus Freehold not capable in it self of Occupancy nor no natural but a legal thing which the Law casts upon him that is Occupant that will not concern the Questions either who was Occupant or of what he was Occupant Cok. Litt. f. 41. b. 4. I take it for clear That a naked Tithe granted by it self pur auter vie and the Grantee dying without assignment living Cestuy que vie is not capable of Occupancy more than a Rent a Common in gross and Advowson in gross a Fair or the like are it being a thing lying in Grant equally as those others do Coke's Littleton There can be no Occupant of any thing which lyeth in Grant and cannot pass without Deed. I cited the place at full before with other Authorities against Occupancy of a Rent 5. If a man dye seis'd of Land which he holds pur auter vie and also dies seis'd of Rent held pur auter vie or of an Advowson or Common in gross held by distinct Grants pur auter vie and the same Cestuy que vie or the several Cestuy vies for that will not differ the Case living Though the Grantee died seis'd of a Freehold in these several things I conceive that he which enters into the Land first after his death will be Occupant of the Land which was capable of Occupancy but neither of the Tithe Advowson nor Common which are not capable of Occupancy and have no more coherence with dependence upon nor relation to the Land than if they had been granted pur auter vie to another who had happen'd to dye in like manner as the Grantee of the Land did And that which hath intricated men in this matter hath been a Conception taken up as if the Occupant had for his object in being Occupant the Freehold which the Tenant died seis'd of which is a mistake for the subject and object of the Occupant are only such things which are capable of Occupancy not things which are not and not the Freehold at all into which he neither doth nor can enter but the Law casts it immediately upon him that hath made himself Occupant of the Land or other real thing whereof he is Occupant that there may be a Tenant to the Precipe But as was well observed by my Brother Wilmott No Precipe lies for setting out Tithe at Common Law and I doubt not by the Statute of 32 H. 8. c. 7. though Sir Edward Coke in his Litt. f. 159. a. seems to be of opinion Coke Litt. 159. a. that a man may at his Election have remedy for witholding Tithe after that Statute by Action or in the Ecclesiastical Court by that Statute doubtless he hath for the title of Tithe as for title of Land or for the taking of them away but not perhaps for not setting them out 6. When a Severance therefore is once made of the Land and Tithe it is as much severance of them though the Tithe remain in Astly's possession as if he had leas'd the Land to Taverner and the Tithe to another if then Taverner becoming Occupant of the Land should have had nothing in the Tithe leas'd to another as the Land was to him no more shall he have the Tithe remaining in Astly himself at his death Still we must remember the ground insisted on That no Occupancy begins with the Freehold but begins by possessing the Land or other real thing which was void and ownerless and that by Act of Law the Freehold is cast upon the Possessor either entring where the possession was void or being in possession when Tenant pur auter vie died either as Lessee for years or at will to Tenant pur auter vie for the Law equally casts the Freehold upon him as was resolved in Chamberleyne and Eures Case reported by Serjeant Rolls and others Second Part. f. 151. Letter E. and in Castle and Dods Case 5 Jac. Cr. f. 200. Therefore after such Severance made by the Tenant pur auter vie the Land and Tithe are as distinct and sunder'd from each other as if Tenant pur auter vie had held them by distinct Grants or leas'd them to distinct persons In the next place I shall agree That the Occupant of a House shall have the Estovers or way pertaining to such House the Occupant of the Demesne of a Mannor or of other Land shall have the Advowson appendant or Villain regardant to the Mannor or Common belonging to the Land and the Services of the Mannor not sever'd from the Demesne before the occupancy For a Possessor of a House Land Demesne of a Mannor as Occupant doth not by such his possession sever any thing belonging to the Land House or Demesne more than the Possessor by any other title than occupancy doth and if they be not sever'd it follows they must remain as before to the Possessor of that to which they pertain So if a Mannor being an intire thing consisting of Demesnes and Services which are parts constituent of the Mannor the possessing and occupancy of the Demesns which is one part can make no severance of the Services from the intire and therefore the Occupant hath all And these things though primarily there can be no occupancy of them being things that lye in Grant and pass not without Deed yet when they are adjuncts or pertaining to Land they do pass by Livery only without Deed. Coke Litt. f. 121. 8. Sect. 183. Whatsoever passeth by Livery of Seisin either in Deed or in Law may pass without Deed and not only the Rent and Services parcel of the Mannor shall with the Demesns as the more principal and worthy pass by Livery without Deed but all things regardant appendant or appurtenant to the Mannor as Incidents or Adjuncts to the same shall together with the Mannor pass without Deed without saying cum pertinentiis And if they pass by Livery which must be of the Land they must likewise pass by any lawful Entry made into the Land and such the Entry of the Occupant is But as by occupancy of the demesn Lands of a Mannor the Services are not sever'd so if they be sever'd at the time when the occupancy happens that shall never of it self unite them again Now in the Case before us The Tithe is neither appendant or appurtenant or any sort of Adjunct to the Glebe or House nor are they to the Tithe nor will a lease and livery of the Glebe simply with the appurtenances pass the Tithe at all nor a Grant of the Tithe pass the Glebe nor are either
a House Barns and Tithe of Woolney and thereof seis'd in the right of his Prebendary makes a Lease to Astly of the Prebend una cum the Glebe House Barn and Tithe for Three Lives rendring the accustomed and ancient Rent of Five pounds Twelve shillings Astly demiseth to Taverner the House Glebe and Barn for a year reserving Twenty shillings and dies the Cestuy que vies living As I concluded before Taverner is Occupant of the House Barn and Glebe-land and consequently lyable to pay the whole Rent being Five pounds twelve shillings yearly though the Land House and Barn be found of the yearly value of Twenty shillings only but because the Rent cannot issue out of Tithes or things that lye in Grant it issues only out of the House Barn and Land which may be distrain'd on 2. If Taverner being Occupant of the Land shall not have the Tithes which remain'd in Astly according to his Lease for three Lives at the time of his death and whereof by their nature there can be no direct Occupancy It follows that the Lease made by Doctor Mallory is determin'd as to the Tithe for no other can have them yet continues in force as to the Land and House and all the Rent reserv'd which seems strange the Land and Tithe being granted by the same Demise for three Lives which still continue yet the Lease to be determined as to part 3. Though the Rent issue not out of the Tithe yet the Tithe was as well a Consideration for the payment of the Rent as the Land and Houses were and it seems unreasonable that the Lessor Doctor Mallory should by act in Law have back the greatest Consideration granted for payment of the Rent which is the Tithe and yet have the Rent wholly out of the Land by act in Law too which cannot yield it 4. Though Doctor Mallory could not have reserv'd a Rent out of the Tithe only to bind his Successor upon a Lease for Lives more than out of a Fair though it were as the ancient Rent and had been usually answered for the Fair as is resolv'd in Jewel Bishop of Sarum's Case Jewell's Case 5 Rep. Yet in this Case where the Tithe together with Land out of which Rent could issue was demis'd for the accustomed Rent the Successor could never avoid the Lease either in the whole or as to the Tithe only 13 Eliz. c. 10. This seems clear by the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 10. which saith All Leases made by any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical persons having any Lands Tenements Tithes or Hereditaments parcel of the Possessions of any Spiritual Promotion other than for One and twenty years or three Lives whereupon the accustomed yearly Rent or more shall be reserv'd shall be void Cokes Litt. f. 142. a. f. 144. a. Whence it is apparent this Statute intended that Leases in some sense might be made of Tithes for One and twenty years or Three Lives and an ancient Rent reserv'd but of a bare Tithe only a Rent could not be reserv'd according to Jewell's Case for neither Distress nor Assise can be of such Rent though an Assise may be de Portione Decimarum as is clear by the Lord Dyer 7 E. 6. and the difference rightly stated Therefore a Lease of Tithe and Land out of which a Rent may issue and the accustomed Rent may be reserved must be good within the intention of the Statute or Tithe could in no sense be demis'd 5. Taverner the Lessee being Occupant here by his possession becomes subject to the payment of the Rent to Waste to Forfeiture Conditions and all things that Astly the Lessee or his Assignee if he had made any had been subject to Also Coke's Litt. 41. He must claim by a que Estate from Astly he must averr the Life of Cestuy que vie so as he becomes to all intents an Assignee in Law of the first Lessee 6. Without question the Occupant being chargeable with the Rent shall by Equity have the Tithe which was the principal Consideration for payment of the Rent when no man can have the benefit of the Tithe but the Lessor Doctor Mallory who gave it as a Consideration for the Rent which he must still have Therefore I conceive the Reason of Law here ought necessarily to follow the Reason of Equity and that the Occupant shall have the Tithe not as being immediate Occupant of the Tithe whereof no occupancy can be but when by his possession of the Land he becomes Occupant and the Law casts the Freehold upon him he likewise thereby becomes an Assignee in Law of Astly's Lease and Interest and consequently of the Tithe An ancient Rent reserv'd within the Statute of 1. or 13. of the Queen upon a Lease of One and twenty years or Three Lives is by express intention of that Statute a Rent for publique use and maintenance of Hospitality by Church-men as is resolv'd in Elsemere's Case Elsmers C. 5. Rep. the 5. Rep. and therefore if the Lessee provide not an Assignee to answer the Rent to the Successors of the Lessor for the ends of that Law the Law will do it for him and none fitter to be so than the Occupant in case of a Lease pur auter vie as this is And if the Occupant being Assignee hath pass'd all his Estate and Interest to the Plaintiff hath good cause of Action for the Tithe converted by the Defendant Pasch 22 Car. II. Judgment for the Defendant Three Justices against the Chief Justice Trin. 20 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 2043. Harrison versus Doctor Burwell In a Prohibition for his Marriage with Jane the Relict of Bartholomew Abbot his Great Uncle The Questions are Quest 1 WHether the marriage of Thomas Harrison the Plaintiff with Jane his now wife being the Relict of Bartholomew Abbot his great Vncle that is his Grand-fathers Brother by the Mothers side be a lawful marriage within the Act of 32 H. 8. cap. 38 Quest 2 Admitting it to be a lawful marriage within the meaning of that Act Whether the Kings Temporal Courts are properly Judges of it because the unlawfulness or lawfulness of it by that Act doth depend upon its being a marriage within or without the Levitical Degrees For if within those Degrees it is not a lawful marriage by that Act. And the right knowledge of marriages within or without those Degrees must arise from the right knowledge ot the Scriptures of the Old Testament specially the Interpretation of which hath been and regularly is of Ecclesiastick Conizance and not of Lay or Temporal Conizance in regard of the Language wherein it was writ and the receiv'd Interpretations concerning it in all succession of time Quest 3 Admitting the Kings Temporal Courts have by that Act of 32. or any other special Conizance of the Levitical Degrees and of marriages within them And though this be no marriage within the Levitical Degrees it being articled in general to be an Incestuous marriage
The first is Haynsworths and Prettyes Case Where a man seis'd of Land in Soccage having Issue two Sons and a Daughter devis'd to his youngest Son and Daughter Twenty pounds apiece to be paid by his eldest Son and devis'd his Lands to his eldest Son and his Heirs upon Condition if he paid not those Legacies that his Land should be to his second Son and Daughter and their Heirs The eldest Son fail'd of payment After Argument upon a Special Verdict It was resolv'd by the Court clearly That the second Son and Daughter should have the Land 1. For that the devise to his Son and his Heir in Fee Hill 41. El. Cr. 833. a. being no other then what the Law gave him was void 2. That it was a future devise to the second Son and Daughter upon the contingent of the eldest Sons default of payment 3. That it was no more in effect than if he had devis'd That if his eldest Son did not pay all Legacies that his land should be to the Legatories and there was no doubt in that Case but the land in default of payment should vest in them Which Case in the reason of law differs not from the present Case where the land is devis'd by devise future and executory to the Nephew upon a contingent to happen by the Testators Son and Daughters having no issue 18 Jac. Pell Browns C. Cro. f. 590. The second Case is that of Pell and Brown the Father being seis'd of certain land having Issue William his eldest Son Thomas and Richard Brown devis'd the land to Thomas and his Heirs for ever and if Thomas died without Issue living William then William should have the lands to him his Heirs and Assigns 1. This was adjudg'd an Estate in Fee-simple in Thomas 2. That William by way of Executory devise had an Estate in Fee-simple in possibility if Thomas died without Issue before him And it being once clear That the Estate of Thomas was a Fee-simple determinable upon a contingent and not an Estate tayl and so in the present case it being clear'd that George the Testators Son had the land descended to him in Fee from the Testator and took no Estate tayl expresly or by implication from the Will it will not be material whether the Contingent which shall determine that Fee-simple proceeds from the person which hath such determinable Fee or from another or partly from him and partly from another as in Haynsworth's Case the Son determined his Fee-simple by not paying the Legacies in Pell and Brown's Case Thomas his Fee-simple determined by his dying without Issue living William the Fee-simple vested in George the Son by descent determines when he and his two Sisters dye without Issue and upon such determination in every of these Cases the future and executory devise must take effect But the great Objection is That if this should be an executory devise to the Nephew upon the contingent of George the Son and both his Sisters dying without Issue It will be dangerous to introduce a new way of perpetuity for if a man have several Children and shall permit his Estate to descend or by his Will devise it to his Heir so as he may therein have an unquestionable Fee-simple which is the same with permitting it to descend he may then devise it futurely when all his Children shall dye without Issue of their bodies to J. S. and his Heirs as long as A. B. and C. strangers shall have any Heirs of their bodies living and then to a third person by like future devise For if he should devise it futurely to J. S. and his Heirs as long as J. S. had any Heirs of his body it were a clear Estate tayl in J. S. upon which no future devise could be but it would be a Remainder to be docked This Objection was in some measure made by Doderidge in Pell and Browns Case and the Iudges said there was no danger Vid. Stiles Rep. Gay Gaps Case 258 275. because the Estate in Fee of Thomas did not determine by his dying without Heir of his body generally but by dying without Issue living William for if the land had been given to Thomas and his Heirs for ever and if he died without Heirs of his body then to William and his Heirs Thomas his Estate had been judg'd an Estate tayl with the Remainder to William and not a Fee upon which no future or executory devise can be So was it adjudg'd in Foy and Hinds Case 22 Jac. Cr. f. 695. 6. and anciently 37 Ass p. 18. 5. H. 5. f. 6. and to be within the reason of Mildmay and Corbets Case of Perpetuities But in Pell and Browns Case the Iudges said it was more dangerous to destroy future devises than to admit of such Perpetuities as could follow from them any way by determinable Fee-simples which is true for a Fee simple determinable upon a contingent is a Fee-simple to all intents but not so durable as absolute Fee-simples And all Fee-simples are unequally durable for one will escheat sooner than another by the failer of Heirs An Estate of Fee-simple will determine in a Bastard with his life if he want Issue An Estate to a man and his Heirs as long as John Stiles hath any Heir which is no absolute Fee-simple is doubtless as durable as the Estate in Fee which John Stiles hath to him and his Heirs which is an absolute Fee-simple Nor do I know any Law simply against a Perpetuity but against Intails of Perpetuity for every Fee-simple is a perpetuity but in the accident of Alienation and Alienation is an incident to a Fee-simple determinable upon a contingent as to any more absolute or more perdurable Fee-simple The Chief Justice Justice Archer and Justice Wylde for the Defendant Justice Tyrrell for the Plaintiff Judgment for the Defendant Hill 21 22 Car. II. C. B. Craw versus Ramsey Philip Craw is Plaintiff and John Ramsey Defendant In an Action of Trespass and Ejectment THE Plaintiff declares That Lionel Tolmach Baronet and Humphrey Weld Esquire January the Twentieth the Sixteenth of the King demis'd to the Plaintiff the Mannor of Kingston with the appurtenances in the County of Surrey one Messuage two Barns one Dove-house two Gardens eighty Acres of Land and ten Acres of Meadow with the appurtenances in Kingston aforesaid and other places and also the Rectory of Kingston aforesaid To have and to hold to the said Philip and his Assignes from the Feast of the Nativity last past for five years next ensuing By virtue whereof he entred into the Premisses and was possessed until the Defendant the said Twentieth of January in the Sixteenth year of the King entred upon him and Ejected him with force to his Damage of Forty pounds To this the Defendant pleads he is not Culpable Vpon a Special Verdict it appear'd That Robert Ramsey Alien Antenatus had Issue 1. Robert 2. Nicholas 3. John 4. George Antenatos
to dispense with a Corporation as it seems K. James had in this Case when the Patent was granted but by Law cannot his Power and consequently his Prerogative is less than if he could 1. Malum prohibitum is that which is prohibited per le Statute Per le Statute is not intended only an Act of Parliament but any obliging Law or Constitution as appears by the Case For it is said The King may dispense with a Bastard to take Holy Orders or with a Clerk to have two Benefices with cure which were mala prohibita by the Canon Law and by the Council of Lateran not by Act of Parliament 2. Many things are said to be prohibited by the Common Law and indeed most things so prohibited were primarily prohibited by Parliament or by a Power equivalent to it in making Laws which is the same but are said to be prohibited by the Common Law because the Original of the Constitution or prohibiting Law is not to be found of Record but is beyond memory and the Law known only from practical proceeding and usage in Courts of Justice as may appear by many Laws made in the time of the Saxon Kings of William the First and Henry the First yet extant in History which are now received as Common Law So if by accident the Records of all Acts of Parliament now extant none of which is elder than 9 H. 3. but new Laws were as frequent before as since should be destroyed by fire or other casualty the memorials of proceeding upon them found by the Records in Iudicial proceeding would upon like reason be accounted Common Law by Posterity 3. Publique Nusances are not mala in se but mala politica introducta though in some passages of Coke's Posthuma's they are termed mala in se because prohibited at Common Law which holds not for the reasons before given For liberty of High-ways strangers have not in Forreign Territories but by permission therefore not essential to Dominion because it may be lawfully prohibited 2. Liberty of the High-ways is prohibited with us in the night by the Statute of Winchester in some seasons of the year and in times of warr and for apprehension of Thieves in time of Peace c. The Assise of Bread and Ale is constituted by Statute and may be taken away Forestalling the Market and ingrossing hath like institution the first was prohibited by Athelstans Laws and William the First 's and may be permitted by a Law the second is allowed by the late Laws when Corn is at a certain low price quaere the Law tempore Car. 2. the pulling down of Bridges wholly or placing them in other places may be done by a Law and what may be or not be by a Law is no malum in se more than any other prohibitum by a Law is Judgment was given by the Advice of the Judges in the Kings Bench Quod Quaerens nil Capiat In a formedon in the Reverter Mich. 25 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 253. John Bole Esquire and Elizabeth his wife and John Ely Gent. and Sarah his wife Demandants against Anne Horton Widow Tenant of _____ The Writ ONe Messuage Thirty Acres of Land Fifteen Acres of Meadow Twenty Acres of Pasture and of the third part of One Messuage One hundred and forty Acres of Land Four and forty Acres of Meadow Eighty three Acres of Pasture with the Appurtenances in Tickhill and Wellingly which William Vescy Gent. Grand father of the said Elizabeth and Sarah whose Coheirs they are gave to John Vescy during the life of the said John and after the decease of the said John to the heirs males of the body of the said John begotten and for default of such issue to Robert Vescy and the heirs males of his body begotten and for default of such issue to William Vescy son of the said William the Grandfather and to the heirs males of his body begotten and for default of such issue to Matthew Vescy and the heirs males of his body begotten And which after the death of the said John Robert William the Son and Matthew to the said Elizabeth and Sarah Cosins and Coheirs of the said William the Grandfather that is to say Daughters and Coheirs of the said John Son and Heir of the said William the Grandfather ought to revert by form of the said gift for that the said John Robert William the Son and Matthew are dead without heirs males of their bodies lawfully begotten Then counts that The Count. William the Grandfather was seis'd of the Premisses in demand in his Demesne as of Fee and held the same in Soccage of the late King Charles as of his honour of Tickhill in the said County in free Soccage by fealty only and so seis'd the Eight and twentieth day of November 1628. at Tickhill aforesaid made his last Will in writing and thereby devised the said Lands to the said John Vescy for life and after to the heirs males of his body begotten And for default of such issue to Robert Vescy and the heirs males of his body and for default of such issue to William Vescy the Son and the heirs males of his body and for default of such issue to Matthew Vescy and the heirs males of his body and after the Six and twentieth of December 1628. at Tickhill aforesaid died so seis'd And the said John after his death entred and was seis'd by force of the said gift and died so seis'd without heir male of his body After the death of John Robert entred by vertue of his said Remainder and was seis'd accordingly and so seis'd died without heir male of his body after whose death William entred by vertue of his said Remainder and was seis'd accordingly and he being so seis'd Matthew died without heir male of his body and after the said William died seis'd of the premisses without heir male of his body After the death of which William the Son for that he died without heir male of his body begotten the right of the Premisses reverts to the said Elizabeth and Sarah who together with their said Husbands demand as Cosens and Coheirs of the said William the Grandfather that is to say Daughters and Coheirs of the said John Son and Heir of the said William the Grandfather and which after the death of the said John Robert William and Matthew for that they died without any heir male of their bodies ought to revert to them The Tenant Anne for Plea saith That the said William The Barr. whose Cosens and Coheirs the said Elizabeth and Sarah are by his Deed dated the Seventh of November 1655. in consideration of a marriage to be solemnized between him and Anne the now Tenant then by the name of Anne Hewett and of 1200 l. marriage Portion and for a Ioynture for the said Anne and in satisfaction of all Dower she might claim out of his Lands And for setling the said Lands upon the issue and heirs of