the Land descends to her and her Sister as unto one moyety of the Land the Lease is determined but not as to the other moyety Whiddon Iustice Where a Devise is for the benefit of a stranger there the Heir shall take by the Devise and not by descent As if a Lease be made for years the remainder to the Heir there the Heir shall take the Land by the Devise Catline She hath it be Descent and not by the Devise But if he deviseth the Land to the Heir in tail with this That he shall pay a certain sum of Mony unto another there the Heir shall take by the Devise for the benefit which may accrue to the stranger and not by descent for otherwise the Will should not be performed But where the Estate of the Heir is altered by the Will nor any benefit doth accrue unto another after that the Lands come to the hands of the Heir in that case he shall have the Land by descent And so here in this case for as much as the Devise is That the Daughter shall enter they both being but one Heir to their Father shall have the Land by descent and the words of the Will That he shall enter into the moiety shall be void as if the Devise had been to the Heir for life there the same is void because the Fee-simple which descendeth to her doth drown the particular estate for life And therefore in the principal case here the Vncle shall have but the moyety of the moyety which is so devised and the other Sister shall have the other moyety of the Land and as to that moyety which is devised to the Wife for years the same shall enure according to the Common Law that the Vncle shall have the moyety of that and the other Sister the other moyety LIV. Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THis Case was moved to the Court by Lovelace Serjeant A Man Covenants with another to make and execute an estate of such Lands as should descend to him from his Father and Grandfather by a certain day the same Lands to be of the clear yearly value of 40 Marks And the Question which he moved to the Iustices was That if the party had more Lands which came to him from his Grandfather and Father than did amount to the yearly value of 40 Marks If he was to make assurance of all the Lands or of so much thereof only as amounted to the value of 40 Marks And Manwood Iustice conceived That he should make assurance of Lands only which were of the value of 40 Marks per annum For the words such which do not go so largely as if he had said All my Lands which shall descend or to me be descended for then the yearly value were but a demonstration and all his Lands ought to be assured But here the Intent of the Indenture cannot be taken otherwise than to have but an Assurance of so much Land as if he had said Of such Lands and Tenements as were my Grandfathers and Fathers amounting to 40 Marks by the year for there by those words he shall have but 40 Marks by the year Lovelace It hath been taken That where the Queen made a Lease of all her Lands in such a Town amounting to the yearly value of 40 l. that that valuation is not a demonstration and shall not abridge the Grant precedent to have all in the Town which should be of the value of 40 l. but her Grant shall be taken and construed according to the words precedent Manwood The Common case of assurance upon a settlement of Marriage is That he shall stand seised of so much of his Land as shall be of the clear yearly value of 40 Marks If the marriage take effect The Question hath been If they to whom the assurance is made may enter into any part of the Land at their election and take that which is the best Land to the value of 40 Marks per annum and hold the same in severalty or if they shall be only Tenants in Common with the other And also it hath been a Question Whether they may choose one Acre in one place and another Acre in another place and so through the whole Land where they please because the Grant shall be taken strong against him that granteth But I conceive that it should be a hard case to make such Election of Acres But it was said by some Serjeant at the Bar That if a Man granteth to another to take 20 Trees in his Lands that the Grantee may cut down one Tree in one place and another in another place Manwood agreed that Case but of the other Case the Court doubted of it The principal case was adjourned LV. Vernon and Vernons Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte That in the Case of Dower between Vernon and Vernon and the Argument of it the Plaintiff would have been Nonsuit Dyer Iustice said It should be an ill President if a Nonsuit should be after Demurrer And therefore he said That for his part he would not agree that any Nonsuit should be upon it but he said he would be advised and take better Consideration of it If the Nonsuit should be awarded or not And afterwards at another day Manwood and Dyer took a difference where the Nonsuit is the same Term and where in another Term and said It is like unto the Case where a Man would Wage his Law and is present ready to do it that there the Plaintiff cannot be Nonsuit because it is in the same Term but he shall be barred But in another Term afterwards he might be Nonsuit if the Defendant take day over to wage his Law until another Term and so they said it should be in this case LVI Sir Peter Philpots Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THis Case was moved by Meade Serjeant to the Iustices of the Court of Common Pleas viz. That Sir Peter Philpot Knight seised in Fee of divers Mannors and Lands suffered a Recovery and made a Feoffment thereof unto divers persons To the use of himself for life the remainder to his right Heirs And after the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Wills He devised all his said Mannors and Land to his Wife for life and it was expressed in his Will That he could not devise all his Lands by reason of the Statute of 32 H. 8. that his Will was That his Wife should have so much which might be devised by the Laws of the Land And there was another Clause in the said Will That his Feoffees should stand seised of the same Mannors and Lands after the death of his Wife To the use of one Hurlock and others for years for the payment of his Debts and for the raising of Portions for the preferment of his Daughters in Marriage And further by his said Will he willed That if the Law would not bear it That Hurlock and the others should have the Interest Then he
now the Grant to Fortescue be good or not Vide inde Dyer 2 Eliz. 17. Vpon a Writ of Mandamus The Escheator charged the Enquest who were agreed of their Verdict and delivered the same in Paper to the Escheator And before the engrossing sealing and delivery of it came a Supersedeas And it was Resolved by all the Iustices That before the engrossing indenting and sealing it was no Verdict See this Case Reported in Cook 5. Part 54. CLXXIX Nelson's Case Pasch 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass brought by Nelson chief Preignothory of the Court of Common Pleas the Case was That the Abbot of D. was seised of a Common out of the Lands of the Abby of S. as appendant unto certain Lands of the said Abby of D. And afterwards the said Houses were dissolved and the possessions of them given to the King by Act of Parliament to have and hold in as large and ample manner and form as the late Abbots c. After which the King so being seised granted the said possessions of the said Abby of D. to A. and the possessions of the said Abby of S. to B. It was argued That the Common notwithstanding the unity of possession did continue For unity of possession is so qualified and restrained by the Statute by the words aforesaid and also by the words in the state and condition as they now be And the Abbot of D. was seised in the right of his House of the said Common Therefore so also shall be the King and his Patentees and so a special seisin is given to the King. Rhodes Windham and Anderson Iustices to the contrary And the said words in the said Statute are to be construed according to the Law and no further And by the Law the said Common cannot stand against the Vnity of possession CLXXX Leonard's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 192. 2 Roll. 787. LEonard Custos Brevium brought an Action of Trespass for breaking of his Close The Defendant pleaded That William Heydon was seised and enfeoffed him And upon Ne enfeffa pas they were at Issue And it was found by Special Verdict That the said William Heydon was seised and leased to the Defendant for years and afterwards made a Charter of Feoffment to him by these words Dedi Concessi with a Warrant of Attorny in it and delivered the same to the said Lessee who delivered the same to him who was made Attorny in the said Deed who made Livery accordingly It was moved by the Plaintiff's Counsel That here is not any Feoffment found but only a Confirmation For as soon as the Charter was delivered to the Lessee for years the Law gave it its operation to that effect to vest the Fee in the Lessee by way of Confirmation See Litt. 532. But the Opinion of the whole Court was clear to the contrary for here the Lessee hath liberty how and by what Conveyance he shall be adjudged seised of the Land either by Feoffment or by Confirmation And it appeareth here That when the Lessee delivered the Charter to the Attorny And also when the Lessee accepted Livery from the Attorny he declared his meaning to be That he would take by the Livery And the Lord Anderson said That if Tenant in tail be disseised and makes a Charter-Feoffment with a Warranty of Attorny and delivers the same to the Disseisor who delivers the same to the Attorny who makes Livery accordingly the same is a good Feoffment and so a Discontinuance And after many Motions the Court awarded That the Plaintiff should be barred CLXXXI Palmer and Waddington's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. RIchard Palmer brought an Action upon the Case against Anthony Waddington And Declared That Henry Waddington Brother of the Defendant was endebted to the said Plaintiff in 20 l. Et jacens in extremis mortem indies expectans vocavit ad se dict Anthonium quem executorem Testamenti ultimae voluntatis Constituisset eum rogans ut dictas 20 Libras praefato Richardo infra spacium duorum Mensium mortem suam proxime sequend numeraret solveret Et dictus Anthonius in Consideratione inde super se assumpsit c. And all the matter aforesaid was found by Verdict upon Non Assumpsit pleaded And it was the Opinion of the whole Court That the Declaration was insufficient because there is not any good Consideration set forth in it for it is not said That in Consideration that the said Henry made the Defendant his Executor c. CLXXXII Stransham and Collington's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Plaintiff sued in the Spiritual Court for Tythes against the Defendant within the Parish of C. The Defendant said 1 Cro. 128. That the Tythes are within the Parish of A. and the Parson of A. came in pro interesse suo and thereupon they proceeded to sentence and that was given against Stransham who now sued a Prohibition And the Question was If within such a Parish or such a Parish be tryable by the Law of the Land or by the Law of the Church Wray Chief Iustice said It hath been taken That it is tryable by our Law. Fenner The Pope hath not distinguished Parishes but hath Ordained That Tythes shall be paid within the Parish CLXXXIII Higham's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 226. More Rep. 221. 1 Cro. 15. IT was found by Special Verdict That Thomas Higham was seised of 100 Acres of Lands called Jacks usually occupied with a House And that he Leased the said House and 40 Acres of the said 100 Acres to J.S. for life and made his Will by which he devised the said House and all his Lands called Jacks then in the Occupation of J.S. to his Wife for life and that after the decease of his Wife the Remainder thereof and of all his other Lands appertaining to Jacks to Richard his second Son c. It was said by Meade That the Wife should not have by Implication the Residue of Jacks for that she hath an express estate in the House and 40 Acres of the Land and her Husband having expressed his Will as to that his Will shall not be construed by Implication to pass other Lands to the Wife And it was said by him That it had been adjudged in the Case between Tracy and Glover That if Lands be devised to one and to his Heirs and if he dieth without Heir of his body 1 Roll. 839. that then the Land shall remain over that in such case the Donee hath but an Estate in tail to him and the Heirs males of his body And it was then also said by Anderson Chief Iustice That in the time of Sir Anthony Brown it was holden That if a Man be seised of two Acres of Land and devised one of them to his Wife for life and that J.S. shall have the other Acre after the death of his Wife that the Wife
hath not any estate in the later Acre for the cause aforesaid Afterwards It was moved What thing passed to the second Son by that Devise And the Lord Anderson conceived That the words in the Will Usually Occupied with it did amount to as much as Land let with it and then the 60 Acres were not let with it and therefore did not pass Windham Iustice held the contrary and he said Although they do not pass by the words Occupied with it yet it shall pass to the Son by the name of Jacks or the Lands appertaining to Jacks To which Anderson mutata opinione afterwards agreed CLXXXIV Wroth and the Countess of Sussex Case Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Co. 6. Rep. 33. 1 Len. 35. 4 Len. 61. THe Case was this In Anno 4 5 of King Philip and Queen Mary A private Act of Parliament was made by which it was Enacted That the Mannor of Burnham was assured to the Countess of Sussex for her Ioynture with a Proviso in the Act That it should be lawful for the Earl of Sussex to may a Lease or Leases for 21 years and afterwards a year before the first Lease was ended he made another Lease for 21 years and this second Lease was to begin and take effect from the end of the first Lease And if this second Lease were a good Lease within the intent and meaning of the Act was the Question Popham the Queens Attorny General said That it was not 1. Because it was a Lease to begin at a day to come And 2. Because it was made before the first Lease was ended But he said It may be Objected That the Act saith Lease or Leases It is not the sense of the Act that he might make Leases in the Reversion but the sense and meaning of the Makers of the Act was That he might make Leases in possession and not Leases in futuro for if it should be so then he might make a Lease for 21 years to begin after his death which should be a great prejudice to the Countess and against the meaning of the Act which was made for her advantage The Lord Treasurer and Sir Walter Mildmay Knight have a Commission from the Queen to make Leases of the Queens Lands for 21 years because the Queen would not be troubled It was holden That by virtue of that Commission they could not make any Leases but Leases in possession only But all other Leases which did exceed the Term of 21 years and in Reversion were to pass by the hands of the Queen and her Attorny General and not by them only by virtue of their said Commission And if I grant to one power before the Statute to make Leases of my Land for 21 years he cannot make any Lease but only Leases in possession and he cannot Lease upon Lease for by the same reason that he might make one Lease to begin in futuro by the same reason he might make 20 several Leases to begin in futuro and so frustrate the Intent of the Act. It was Marshall's Case upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. of Leases to be made by Bishops The Bishop of Canturbury made a Lease to him for one and twenty years and afterwards he made a Lease unto another for 21 years to begin at the end of the first Lease And it was holden That the second Lease was void But in the great Case which was in the Exchequer-Chamber upon this Point There the second Lease was in possession and to begin presently and to run on with the other Lease and therefore it was adjudged to be good because the Land was charged with more than 21 years in the whole And if the Earl had done so here it had been a good Lease Wray Iustice said That if the second Lease had been made but two or three years before the expiration of the first Lease that then it had been utterly void but being made but 2 or 3 days or months before the expiration of the first Lease he doubted If it should be void or not The Statute of 32 H. 8. makes Leases for 21 years to be good from the day of the date thereof And a Lease was made to begin at a day to come And yet it was holden by two of the Iustices in the Court of Common Pleas That it was a good Lease And by two other Iustices of the same Court it was holden the Lease was not good And Clench Iustice said That there was no difference If it be by one Deed or by two Deeds And therefore he held That if the Earl had made a Lease for 21 years and within a year another the same had been void if it were by one Deed or two Deeds for that he did exceed his authority And he said In the principal Case If there had not been a Proviso he could not have made a Lease and therefore the Proviso which gave a power to make a Lease for 21 years should be taken strictly There was a Case of the Lord Marquess of c. that it should be lawful for him to make Leases for 21 years by a Statute And he made another Lease to begin after the end or expiration of the first Lease and it was doubted Whether it were a good Lease or not because he had not made any Lease before But if both were made by force of the Statute all held That the second Lease was void At another day the Case was argued by Daniel for the Lease in Reversion to begin at a day to come And he said That in a Statute the words alone are not to be considered but also the meaning of the parties and they are not to be severed Also he said That a Statute-Law is to be expounded by the Common-Law And by the Common-Law If one giveth power unto another to make Leases of his Lands he might make Leases in Reversion because an Authority is to be taken most beneficially for them for whose cause it was given So that if a Man grant an authority to another to make Estates of his Lands by those general words he may make Leases for years or for life Gifts in tail Feoffments or any Estates whatsoever If one gives a Commission to another to make Leases for one and twenty years of his Lands he may make a Lease in Reversion and so it was holden in the Dutchy in the Case between Alcock and Hicks Also he said That this Lease was a good Lease by the Statute-Law For the Statute of Rich. 3. gives authority to Cestuy que Use that he may make Estates in Reversion The Statute of 27 H. 8. which gives authority to the Chief Officer of the Court of Surveyors to make Leases if it had stayed there he might have made Leases in Reversion Therefore the Statute goes further and saith Proviso That he shall not make a Lease in Reversion See 19 Eliz. Dyer 357. The Statute of 35 H. 8. of Leases to be made by the Husbands
and his diet for himself his servants and horses Vpon which the Debt in demand grew but the said Young was not at any price in certain with the Defendant nor was there ever any agreement made betwixt them for the same It was said by Anderson Chief Iustice That upon that matter an Action of Debt did not lie And therefore afterwards the Iury gave a Verdict for the Defendant CCXI. Heidon and Ibgrave's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 148. A Writ of Right was brought by Heidon against Ibgrave and he demanded the third part of 40 Acres of Land in the County of Hertford and they were at Issue upon the meer Right Vpon which the Grand Assise appeared And first the 4 Knights were specially sworn to say upon their Oath Whether the Tenant hath better right to hold the Land than the Demandant to demand it And afterwards the rest of the Iurors were sworn generally as in other Actions And there was some doubt made Whether the Demandant or the Tenant should first begin to give Evidence And at the last it was Ruled by the Court That the Tenant should begin because he is in the affirmative And it was said by Periam Iustice That so it was late adjudged in the Case betwixt Noell and Watts And upon the Evidence the Case was That King Hen. the 8th by his Letters Patents gave to the Demandant the Mannor of New-Hall and all the Lands in the Tenure and Occupation of John Whitton before demised to Johnson and in the Parish of Watford And the truth was That the said 40 Acres whereof now the third part was in demand were in the Occupation of the said John Whitton but were never demised to Johnson nor in the Parish of Watford And by the clear Opinion of the Court the said 40 Acres did not pass for the circumstances of the Deed are not true scil the Demise to Johnson and the being in the Parish of Watford but both were false But if the said Land had had an especial name in the Letters Patents then it had been well enough notwithstanding the misprision in the rest And by Anderson If upon the particular it had appeared that the Demandant had paid his Mony for the said 40 Acres peradventure they had passed CCXII. The Dean of Gloucester's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Dean and Chapter of Gloucester brough a Writ of Partition against the Bishop of Gloucester upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Partition And it was moved That upon the words of the Statute that the Action did not lie in this Case for the Statute doth not extend but to Estates in Ioynt-Tenancy or in Common of Lands whereof such Ioynt-Tenants or Tenants in Common are seised in their own right And also it is further said That every such Ioynt-Tenant or Tenant in Common and their Heirs shall have Aid to deraign the warranty without speaking of the word Successors And by Periam and Windham Iustices The Writ doth not lie But Anderson seemed to be of a contrary Opinion CCXIII. Hare and Meller's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HUgh Hare of the Inner-Temple brought an Action upon the Case against Philip Meller and declared Ante 138. That the said Defendant had exhibited to the Queen a scandalous Bill against the Plaintiff charging the said Hugh to have recovered against the said Defendant 400 l. by Forgery Perjury and Forswearing and Cosenage And also that he had published the matter of the said Bill at Westm c. It was said by the Court That the exhibiting of the Bill to the Queen is not in it self any cause of Action for the Queen is the Head and Fountain of Iustice and therefore it is lawful for all her Subjects to resort to her to make their complaints But if a Subject after the Bill once exhibited will divulge the matter comprised in it to the disgrace and discredit of the person intended the same is a good cause of Action And so was the Case of Sir John Conway who upon such matter did recover And as to the words themselves It seemeth to the Court That they are not Actionable For it is not expresly shewed That the Plaintiff had used Perjury Forgery c. And it may be that the Attorny or Sollicitor in the Cause hath used such indirect means the Plaintiff not knowing it and in such case the Plaintiff hath recovered by Forgery c. and yet without reproach And by perjury he could not recover for he could not be sworn in his own Cause And Stanhops Case was remembred by the Court which was That Edward Stanhop of Grays-Inn brought an Action upon the Case against one who had Reported That the said Edward Stanhop had gained his Living by swearing and forswearing And by the Opinion of the Court The Action did not lie for those words do not set forth any actual forswearing in the person of the Plaintiff but it might be in an Action depending between the Plaintiff and a stranger that another stranger produced as a Witness had made a false Oath without any procurement or practice of the Plaintiff in which Case it might be that the Plaintiff had gained by such swearing CCXIV. Cheverton's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HEnry Cheverton brought a Quare Impedit and Counted That he was seised of the moyety of the Church of D. that is to say To present qualibet prima vice and that J.S. is seised of the other moyety that is to say To present qualibet secunda vice c. And Exception was taken to the Count Because it was not shewed how the special Interest did begin scil by Prescription Composition or otherwise for it is clearly against common Right and therefore that ought to be shewed See Dyer 13 Eliz. 229. CCXV Edmond's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Case against Edmonds the Case was That the Defendant being within age requested the Plaintiff to be bounden for him to another for the payment of 30 l. which he was to borrow for his own use to which the Plaintiff agreed and was bounden ut supra Afterwards the Plaintiff was sued for the said Debt and paid it And afterwards when the Defendant came of full age the Plaintiff put him in mind of the matter aforesaid and prayed him that he might not be damnified so to pay 30 l. it being the Defendant's Debt Whereupon the Defendant promised to pay the Debt again to the Plaintiff Vpon which promise the Action was brought And it was holden by the Court That although here was no present consideration upon which the Assumpsit could arise yet the Court was clear That upon the whole matter the Action did lie and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCXVI Farrington and Fleetwood.'s Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer BEtween Farrington and Fleetwood the Case was upon the Stat. of 31 H. 8. of Monasteries 2
1 And. 234. every one ought to assent Wray There the Ordinance made was to charge the Inheritance but here it is only to charge their Goods wherefore the assent of the greater part is sufficient And afterwards a Procedendo was granted CCCLV. Pendleton and Green's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. PEndleton sued Green in the Spiritual Court for Tythes Ante 203. 1 Len. 94. who pleaded That Pendleton was not lawful Incumbent but one Taylor and that plea those of the Spiritual Court would not allow to the Parishioner to plead to the right of the Incumbency and thereupon he prayed a Prohibition for otherwise he should be twice charged for Tythes and therefore a Prohibition was granted CCCLVII Knevytt and Cope's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. KNevytt brought Ejectione firmae against Cope and declared Quod 4 Len. 59. cum John Hopkins by his Indenture bearing date the 20 of May 32 Eliz. had let to him his House and two yard-Yard-Lands containing 40 Acres of Land Meadow and Pasture apud Tythingham de Forecomb in parochia de S. c. upon Not guilty pleaded The Venire facias was de Tythingham de Forecomb Exception was taken by Cook That the Declaration had not any certainty for it is not shewed in certain How much there was of Meadow how much of Land and how much of Pasture there was contained in the said two Yard-Lands and the Iury may find the Defendant guilty as to the Land only but not to the residue Also he hath not shewed in the Declaration When the Lease was made but only saith That by Indenture bearing date the 20 of May c. but doth not shew any day of delivery of the Indenture for then the Lease takes effect To which Exception It was said by the Court That the Declaration as to that was good enough for it shall be intended to have been delivered at the day of the date Ante 193. Another Exception was taken to the Visne Because that the Visne ought to be of the Parish and not of Tythingham c. See 11 H. 7. 23 24. Forcible Entry in the Mannor of B. in B. the Visne shall not be of the Mannor of B. but of B. Gawdy Iustice You shall never have a Visne of the Parish for divers Towns may be in one Parish but here the Visne is good of Tythingham c. for it may be that it is a Town Cook It is but a Ville Conus from which a Visne cannot come CCCLVIII Taylor and Fisher's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. TAylor brought an Action of Trespass against Fisher for entring into his House and taking and carrying away of his Goods To which the Defendant pleaded That before the Trespass supposed one A. was possessed of the said Goods and the said Goods being in the House of the said Plaintiff the said A. sold them to the Defendant by force whereof he was possessed And so possessed came to the Plaintiffs House where c. And by assent and licence of the Plaintiffs Wife he entred into the said House and carried away the said Goods c. Vpon which there was a Demurrer It was holden That the same is no plea for there is no Colour given to the Plaintiff and the licence given by the Wife is not any matter for the justifying of the Entry And as to the Goods the plea was holden good For if A. might sell them being in the House of another and not in his own possession is scrupulous to the Lay-people Wray If the Goods of the Defendant were in the House of the Plaintiff with the knowledge of the Defendant it had perhaps been a good plea but that is not alledged here Cook 30 E. 3. 23. In Trespass for breaking of his Pound the Defendant said That he came to the place where the Cattel were impounded and there found the Plaintiffs Wife to whom he offered Pledges for the Cattel impounded to make Amends according to reason and prayed to have deliverance of the Cattel and the Plaintiffs Wife delivered them without that that he brake the Pound c. And it was said That this want of Colour is but matter of form which he ought to have alledged upon his Demurrer or otherwise he shall not have advantage of it Wray Iustice The Defendant in his plea doth not meet with the Plaintiff Therefore the plea is not good in substance It was Adjourned CCCLIX Downhall and Catesby's Case Pasch 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Formedon by Downhall against Catesby 4 Len. 113. the parties were at Issue And it was tryed by Nisi prius It was moved in Banco because that some of the Iurors did eat and drink before that they gave their Verdict That the Court would not receive the Postea The Court said That we cannot do here for we do not know if your Information be false or not and that matter ought to have been examined by the Iustices of Nisi prius and they ought to certifie us of it and then we shall have good cause to stay it And it was then said there That if any of the Iurors eat and drink before the Verdict at their own Costs that the same doth not make the Verdict void but otherwise if it be of the Costs of the Plaintiff or the Defendant CCCLX Withrington and Delabar's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Appeal of Murder by Withrington against Delabar of the death of her Husband The Defendant pleaded never accoupled in lawful Matrimony And pleaded over Not guilty The Plaintiff replyed Lawfully accoupled but did not reply over to the Felony It way moved as a discontinuance of the whole Wray If the Defendant pleads matter tryable at the Common Law and over to the Felony there the Plaintiff ought to reply to both but where the first matter is not tryable by the Common Law there the same is not needful Quod caeteri Justiciarii concesserunt CCCLXI. Lake's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. STephen Lake Commissary of the Bishop of Canterbury Fr. Alredge Register and R. Hunt Apparitor were endicted of Extortion that they colore officiorum suorum had malitiose accepted and received 11 s. 6 d. for the Absolution of one B. who was excommunicated where they ought to have but 2 s. 6 d. And Exception was taken to this Indictment because that all their Offences are put together scil colore Officiorum suorum whereas the particular Offence of every Offendor ought to be specially set down but here they are confounded Which see by the Statute of 25 E. 3. 9. That Ordinaries shall not be impeached by such general Indictments unless they say and put in certain In what thing and of what and in what manner the said Ordinaries have committed Extortion But that Exception was not allowed for of that the party grieved cannot have notice for they took in gross and afterwards parted it betwixt
years or for life with the ancient Rent reserved is sufficient and is a good and immediate descent of the third part And this word here immmediatè to be construed ratione temporis is a frivolous Construction for the wore Descent implys that For there cannot be an expectant and future descent For descent is clearly immediate without mean time But here in this case the word immediate is to be taken in both senses et re et tempore For by the Relation of the Waiver it is as if no Ioynture had been made and the Heir is to have the profits of the Land from the death of his Ancestor And so the descent of Hinton immediatè et re et tempore And that the same time hath had such reasonable Construction is now to see The Statute of 18 H. 6 Cap. 1. is That the Chancellor shall make Patents to bear date the same day that the Warrant was made and not before It hath been taken That if the Patents bear date after the Warrant entred they are good Which see 19 Eliz. Plow Com. 492. in Ludford and Gretton's Case The Statute of Acton Burnel is That if the Extendors extend the Land too high statim respondeant illi qui fecerunt extent This word of time statim shall not be construed that the Extendors shall pay presently but that they shall pay without delay i.e. at the day limited in the Statute See 2 H. 4. 17 18. It hath been Objected That it is a great inconvenience that the King for his third part should attend the pleasure of the Wife the time of her Election and therefore the Will shall be void But the same is no inconvenience for the Ioynture never was actually in the Wife to her prejudice until she entred into the Land c. And now by the Waiver the Ioynture is avoided ab initio to all intents as if it never had been made So as the King shall be answered of the entire profits after the time of the death of the Husband and may seize the whole Land presently without staying the Election of the Wife or taking notice of her Ioynture And so are the words of the Diem clausit Extremum Tibi praecipimus quod omnia Terras Tenementa of which c. et ea salvò Custodias donec aliud tibi praeceperimus And that may be before any Office found And those who have any Interest in the Land or otherwise may shew the same upon the Traverse of the Office or in the Court of Wards and have allowance of it And so there is not any prejudice to the King No more than when Tenant in Knight-service Deviseth all his Lands There Division is to be made and the King hath not any prejudice by it In the true Construction of this Statute it is very necessary to consider the intention and meaning of both Statutes And it is certain That the said Statutes were made for the benefit of the Subjects to enable them to dispose of their Lands for the preferment of their Wives advancement of their Children and payment of their Debts whereof they were restrained by the Statute of 27 H. 8. of Uses The Savings in the said Statute are for the benefit of the King and the Lords So as Provision is made not only for the benefit of the Subjects but also for the profit of the King and other Lords The disability of the subjects to dispose of their Lands to the intents aforesaid appears in the Preface of the Statute of 32 H. 8. And the favour and grace of the said King towards his Subjects to supply the necessity of Subjects appeareth by the Prefaces of both Statutes The later Statute is an Explanation of the former in divers Points The first Statute to persons Having Mannors c. Ex vi termini includes Tenants in tail Ioynt-Tenants Enfants Idiots Feme-Coverts but the same is explained by the later Act to be of Feesimple only and of sole Estates and to persons of sound memory not of Coverture And so If the Kings Tenant Deviseth all his Land the same is good for two parts of it so if he Devise all which he hath in Feesimple and leaveth the third part to descend in tail This Statute shall be taken strict against the Heir For the whole Scope and Intent of the Parliament was to bind the Heirs and to enable their Fathers to dispose so as the third part be saved to the King and the Lords And that is manifest For the Estates made by Collusion are preserved and by an express Clause in the Statute kept in force against the Heir but void as to the Lords As to certain Readers Cases which have been put to prove That these Statutes ought to have a strict Construction I conceive Nihil operatur A Man seised of one Acre by Disseisin and of two Acres by good Title all holden in chief by Knight-service Deviseth the two Acres which he hath by good Title and dieth so as the Acre which he hath by Disseisin descends to the Heir being within age the King seiseth the third Acre is devested by Eigne Title the Devise of the other two Acres is good against the Heir for it is within the express words of the Statute Having a sole Estate in Fee-simple And yet by another Branch of 34 H. 8. the King for his time shall have recompence out of the other two Acres and he agreed the Law to be so but the same doth not conclude our Case A Man seised of two Acres in Socage and of one Acre holden by Knight-service in Chief of equal value is disseised of the Acre holden in Chief and Deviseth the other two Acres in Fee the same is a good devise for it is within the first branch expresly Having a sole Estate in Feesimple and not having any Lands holden by Knight-service for during the disseisin he hath not the Land whereof he was disseised and therefore the devise is good for the benefit of the Devisee and the Lord is not at any Mischief For the Disseisee notwithstanding the Disseisin remains Tenant of the Lord as to the Avowry and the Lord shall have the Wardship of such Heir and may enter upon the Disseisor and so have a third part And that Case was put out of Gilbert's Reading A Man seised in Fee of two Mannors of equal value holden by Knights-service in Capite and a third Mannor of the same value is conveyed to him by Deed of Bargain and Sale acknowledged and before Enrollment he deviseth the two first Mannors to J.S. in Fee and dieth and afterwards the Indenture is enrolled yet the devise is not good for the said two Mannors by any Relation of the Bargain and Sale enrolled That Case may well be agreed to be Law For the Estate doth not vest in the Vendee before Enrollment and so the Estate was not perfectly in the Devisor at the time of the Will For although that the Enrollment shall relate
to prevent all acts and charges made mean by the Vendor yet it shall not relate to vest the Estate from the time of the delivery of the Deed For the Vendee cannot punish a Trespass Mean And if the Vendee hath a Wife and the Vendee dieth before Enrollment and afterwards the Deed is enrolled she shall not be endowed but here shall be some descent to take away an Entry yet the Heir shall have his age But in our Case it is otherwise for by the Waiver the Ioynture was waived ab initio And he cited Carrs Case 29 Eliz. in the Court of Wards The King granted the Mannor of C. to George Owen in Fee tenend in Socage and rendring 94 l. per annum And afterwards granted 54 l. parcel of the said Rent to the Earl of Huntington in Fee to be holden by Knight-service in Capite and afterwards purchased the said Rent in Fee And afterwards of the same Mannor enfeoffed William Carr who devised the same for the payment of his Debts And it was holden That the devise was good against the Heir And the King was not entituled to Livery or Primer Seisin And therefore the Defendant was dismissed But peradventure the Queen shall have benefit of the Act. See Cook 3 Part 30 31. Butler and Baker's Case The King gives Lands unto A. in Fee to hold by Knights-service during his life and afterwards to hold in Socage He may devise the whole For at the time when the devise took effect he was Tenant in Socage Lands holden in Knight-service are given to J.S. in tail scil to the Heirs Males of his Body the Remainder to the right Heirs of J.S. J.S. deviseth these Lands and afterwards dieth without Issue Male the same is good for two parts yet during his life he had not an Estate in Fee in possession The Father disseiseth his Son and Heir apparent of an Acre of Land holden in Chief by Knight-service in Capite and afterwards purchaseth a Mannor holden in Socage and deviseth the said Mannor and dieth his Heir within age the Devise is good for the whole and the King shall not have Wardship of any part and that in respect of the Remitter and yet it is within the words Having sole Estate in Fee of Lands holden and within the Saving Tenant in tail of an Acre of Land holden of the King in Chief by Knight-service seised of two Acres in Fee holden ut supra makes a Lease for three Lives of the Acre entailed reserving the accustomed Rent and afterwards deviseth the other two Acres in Fee and afterwards dieth seised of the Reversion and Rent The same is a good devise of all the two Acres And here is an immediate descent of the third part for the same is within the words In Possession Reversion or Remainder or any Rent or Service incident to any Reversion or any Remainder See the Statute of 34 H. 8. A Man seised of three Acres of equal value holden by Knight-service in Capite assureth one to his Wife for her Ioynture by Act executed and deviseth another to a stranger And the third to his Wife also The King in this case shall have the third part of every Acre But if the stranger waiveth the devise the King shall have the Acre to him devised and the Wife shall retain the other two Acres and it shall not go in advantage of the Heir So if he deviseth the said three Arces severally to three several persons to each of them one Acre and the one Waives the devise in one Acre The devise of the other two is good Or otherwise the King shall have the third part of every Acre c. CCCLXVII Mich. 35 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 5 Co. 29. THe Case was An Enfant was made Executor And Admimistration was committed to another viz. A. durante minori aetate who brought an Action of Debt against the Debtor and recovered and had him in Execution and now the Executor came of full age It was moved What should be done in this Case and how the party should be discharged of the Execution for the authority of the Administrator is now determined and he cannot acknowledge satisfaction or make an acquittance Windham Although the authority of the Administrator be determined yet the Record and the Iudgment remain in force But peradventure you may have an Audita Querela But he conceived That an Administrator could not have such Action for that he is rather a Bailiff to the Enfant than an Administrator See Prince's Case 42 Eliz. Cook 5 Part 29. Which Rhodes concessit A. was bounden unto B. in an Obligation of 100 l. upon Condition to pay a lesser sum The Obligee made an Enfant his Executor and died Administration was committed durante minori aetate to C. to whom A. paid the Mony It was doubted If that payment was rightful or If the Mony ought to have been paid to both Windham Doth it appear within the Record That the Enfant was made Executor and that Administration was committed ut supra To which it was answered No. Then Windham said You may upon this matter have an Audita Querela In this Case It was said to be the Case of one Gore 33 Eliz. in the Exchequer in a Scire facias by an Assignee of a Bond against an Enfant Executor He pleaded That the Administration was committed to A. and his Wife during her minority And it was adjudged no Plea. CCCLXVIII Mich. 35 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was the Opinion of all the Iustices Jones Rep. 243. That if Lessee for 20 years makes a Lease for 10 years that he may grant the Reversion without Deed but in such case if there be a Rent reserved there ought to be a Deed and also an Attornment if the Rent will be had And it was agreed by them all That if there be Lessee for years and the Lessor granteth the Land to the Lessee and a stranger that the Reversion shall pass without Livery or Attornment and that by the Acceptance of the Deed by him who ought to Attorn But whether he shall take joyntly or in Common or whether in a moyety or in the whole the Iustices were of divers Opinions Ideo Quaere for it was not Resolved FINIS A TABLE of the principal Matters contained in the Third Part of LEONARD'S Reports A. ABatement of Writ Page 2 4 77 92 Ex Officio Curiae p. 93 Accompt p. 38 61 63 Damages given in it p. 150 Damages given in it not expresly but the Court shall give Quoddam Incrementum p. 192 Brought by the Grantee of the King against an Executor where maintainable where not p. 197 Generally brought where good p. 230 Acquittance Must be shewed upon payment of Debts by Executors p. 3 Action upon the Case For stopping of a way p. 13 Against one for proceeding to Judgment and awarding of Execution in an inferiour Court after an Habeas Corpus awarded p. 99 Where lieth
the Enfant Hob. Rep. 281. for the Wife had her said Estate to her own use and then her Husband surviving her should have it and that without any admittance for that he is not in of any new Estate but in the Estate of his Wife as Assignee And it was said by them That if a Copyholder be for years and maketh his Executors and dieth that the Executors should have the Term Co. Case of Copyholders and that without any Admittance Weston contrary in that case as to the Executors XXIII Tindall and Cobbs Case 7 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. WAste was brought by Tindall Knight against Jeoffery Cobbe Esquire and the Plaintiff declared of a Demise of the moyety of the Mannor of Wolverton and of the moyety of a Wood called Wolverton-Wood The Defendant pleaded That Robert Winckfield before the Waste supposed was seised of and in tertia parte alterius Medietatis of the said Mannor and of and in tertia parte alterius Medietatis of the aforesaid Wood and held the same insimul pro indiviso with the Plaintiff and that the said Robert Winckfield by his Deed sold to the Defendant omnes omnimodas arbores subboscos suos crescent in praedict tertia parte alterius medietatis praedicti bosci ad libitum ipsius Galfridi succidend and so justified the cutting down of 300 Oaks in which the Waste is assigned with this that he will aver That the aforesaid 300 Oaks were the third part only in numero precio medietatis omnium arbor subboscorum at the said time when the Waste is supposed to be done and demanded Iudgment if Action And divers Exceptions were taken to the Count 1. He sheweth Vaugh. Rep. 175. that the Demise of the moyety of the Mannor was per nomen c. and doth not shew that the demise was by writing and if not then he cannot plead it by a per Nomen 2. The Waste is assigned in digging of Clay in 100 Acres of Lands parcel Medietatis Maner de Wolverton and hath not shewed in what Town the Land is For he hath shewed before the Demise of the moyety of the Mannor of Wolverton in Wolverton 3. He shews the Demise of the moyety of the Mannor of Wolverton and of other Lands and assigns the Waste in cutting down Oaks in quodam bosco vocat Wolverton Wood parcel praemissorum and that cannot be for this Wood cannot be parcel of the Mannor of Wolverton and of the other Lands also And for these Causes the Count by the whole Court was holden to be insufficient XXIV Stamfords Case 7 Eliz. Dyer In the Common Pleas HUgh Stamford seised in Fee had Issue A. his eldest Son and B. his younger Son A. had Issue George and Elizabeth by divers Women Hugh made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of George in tail and afterwards to the use of A. in tail and afterwards to the use of the right Heirs of Hugh Hugh dieth A. dieth George levieth a Fine to the use of himself in tail the remainder over to B. in Fee and dyeth without Issue It was holden by Bendloes Carell Kelloway both the Bromleys and Kingsmill That Elizabeth is barred by this Fine by the Statute of 4 H. 7. 32 H. 8. XXV 7 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was this Grandfather Father and Son Lands are given to the Grandfather for life the remainder to the Son in tail The Grandfather and Father joyn in a Feoffment with warranty The Feoffee makes a Lease for years and afterwards conveys the Land to the Grandfather for life the remainder to the Father in Fee The Grandfather and Father die The Son entreth and puts out the Lessee Weston was of Opinion That the Entry of the Son was lawful for it was the Feoffment of the Grandfather and the Confirmation of the Father and the Warranty of the Grandfather collateral to the Father and his Estate but when the Land is re-assured as above is said and afterwards the Son entreth after the death of the Grandfather and Father now he is remitted and the warranty gone by taking back the Estate and the Son is now seised of as high an Estate as his Ancestor was at the time that he departed with the Land by which the warranty is determined Dyer contrary Here had not been any discontinuance if the warranty had not been for the Father was never seised by force of the entail And I conceive that against a warranty collateral one cannot be remitted for it binds the Right as a Fine with Proclamation after the Statute of 4 H. 7. And I conceive that during the possession of the Grandfather the Warranty is but suspended and not determined and although that by the death of the Grandfather it be determined yet having respect to the Lessee it is in being for his Estate is derived out of the Estate which was warranted and which descends with the Warranty Bendloes One cannot make Title by a Collateral Warranty only c. XXVI Simonds Case 8 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Formedom the Tenant vouched Rose Simonds as Daughter and Heir of Henry Simonds Clerk and because she was within age he prayed that the Parol might demur Bendloes recited the Case to be this A Fine was levied of the Lands to Henry Simonds upon Condition c. who rendred back the Land to the Conusor by the same Fine and that the said Henry Simonds never had any possession or seisin but that which he had mean between the Conusans and the Rendee of which possession the Wife should not be endowed And therefore it is a good Counter-plea to say That the said Rose nor any of her Ancestors c. for that was not such a Seisin upon which Warranty might rise and so if a Feoffment in Fee had been made to the said Henry Simonds to the use of another And of that Opinion was Dyer Iustice for Henry Simonds had not any possession by force of which he might be vouched Welsh contrary For the Fine imports in it self that he hath a Fee and that he hath granted and rendred the same Fee and this Fine amounts to a Feoffment Dyer said to Bendloes The best way for you is to plead the Counter-plea generally and if he estop you by the Fine to demur upon it Afterwards Bendloes moved another matter viz. Henry Simonds was a Priest and therefore Rose is a Bastard and if so then she cannot be vouched as Heir But I would not trust the Bishop to Certifie the Bastardy if I should plead it generally and therefore I will plead the special matter and so it shall be tryed by the Country Dyer and Welsh So you may do if you please and yet if you plead general Bastardy it shall be tryed by the Country for Rose is not a party to the Writ and in such case Bastardy shall be tryed by the Country XXVII Mich. 8
are to have advantage of it yet the Lord shall not avow for not repairing of it without alledging that the Bridge was in decay And so when the Tenure is to Cover his Hall he shall not Avow without alledging that his Hall needed Reparations And so in the principal Case here he ought to alledge that there was a present necessity for making of the By-Law for it may be that there was not any Sheep within the Mannor when the By-Law was made and then there was no cause that it should be made And in the like manner as it hath been said of the Common Law That certainty ought to be shewed so shall it be by the Statute Laws As if Tenant for life makes default if one prayeth to be received for the default of the Tenant for life he ought to shew that he hath the Reversion and that he bringeth his Action by reason thereof And as it hath been said of the Common Law and Statute Law so it shall be said of Custom As in 44 E. 3 where the Parishioners prescribe to make By-Laws and that they made such an Ordinance That for every Acre of Land or for every Beast every one should pay for the Reparations of the Church c. there it may be said in Avowry that the Church wanted Reparation And so where a Tax and Levy is to make a Wall against the See there if the party will justifie the levying of the Tax or Levy he must say That there was need of it otherwise the same cannot be levied But as to the ability of a person he shall be enabled by Intendment As if an Obligation be made by a Man or a Woman in an Action brought upon the Bond he shall not be compelled to say That the Man was of full age or that the Woman was a single Woman for that shall be intended until the contrary be shewed But by Statute Law if a Man pleads a Grant it shall be otherwise As upon the Statute of 1 R. 3. If he plead a Feoffment or a Grant of Cestuy que Use he must plead That he was of full age out of prison of sound memory and within the 4 Seas And so where a Pardon was made in the time of King Ed. the 14th to all but to those who were with Queen Margaret there if he will take advantage of the Pardon he must plead That he was not with the said Queen And if a Man plead a Feoffment of J.S. at the Common Law it shall be good and if he were within age it shall be shewed on the other side But if a Man pleadeth a Feoffment by Custom and the other saith that the Feoffor was within age and the Plaintiff replyeth That an Enfant by the Custom may make a Feoffment the same is not good but a Departure for he ought to have shewed that at the beginning in his Declaration And in 37 H. 6. Where a Man pleaded a Devise and it was shewed that the Devisor was within age there the Plaintiff need not say that the Custom is That an Enfant may devise for that is a Departure Another matter of the Custom which they have alledged is That they may make By-Laws for the better Ordering and they have not taken averment that this Ordinance was either better or worse and if it be not better then they have no cause to make the By-Law If a Feoffment be made causa Matrimonii praeloquuti it shall not be intended that the Feoffment was for any other cause than Marriage And if a Woman brings a Writ of Dower and the Defendant pleads a Lease for life made by the Husband it shall not be intended that that Lease was in allowance of her Dower according to the Statute if it be not expresly shewed And so If Cestuy que Use in tail makes a Lease for life it shall not be intended that Cestuy que Vie is alive unless a special Averment be taken That he is yet alive And so here it doth not appear that this is the better Order nor that the Lands are several or lie in Common so as by no means or Circumstance it can appear if it be the better or not Another cause wherefore the pleading is not sufficient is Because he saith Vpon a pain of Forfeiture to the Lord for the time being and he hath not alledged in fact that the Lord Cromwell who was Lord of the Mannor in Anno 6 E. 6. was Lord in the 13th year of the Reign of the Queen that now is and without shewing that shall not be intended As in 7 H. 7. A Man pleads a Feoffment and that J.S. was seised and did enfeoffe him that is not good but he ought to plead that he being so seised made the Feoffment for it shall not be intended that his seisin continued until the time of the Feoffment without shewing of it And so where a Man pleads That J.S. was seised of a Reversion granted it he ought to plead And that he being so seised granted it And so where an Attornment is pleaded for if he was not seised at the time of the Attornment the Attornment was not good And so where a Man will plead a Surrender he shall shew that he who Surrendreth and he to whom a Surrender is made were seised Quaere If the one or the other were not seised one of the Term and the other of the Reversion whether the Surrender be not good And 31 H. 6. If a Man will plead a Lease by Feoffees to use he shall say And that so seised they made the Lease And see 6 7 10 11 H. 7. Where Cestuy que Use makes a Feoffment averment shall be taken that at the time of the Lease that the Feoffees were seised to the use of the Lessor And because that here it is not shewed nor alledged that the Lord Cromwell is now Lord of the Mannor it shall not be so intended Also for divers other causes I conceive that the Avowry is insufficient For he hath shewed that a By-Law was made but doth not shew when it was made nor for what time it was to continue And it is not shewed Whether the same were made for the better ordering of the Lands which the Lord held joyntly or in common with others or which he held in his own Right alone And as to the Prescription I conceive that the same is not good because it is against reason and not ex rationabili causa For if one Man keeps the Law and another Man breaks the Law yet according as they have alledged this Custom to be he may be distrained who hath not offended and his Cattel taken for the Offence done by the Cattel of another Man and it is against reason that any one should be punished for the default or offence of another But the Custom of Borough English is good and so is the Custom of Gavelkind because that every Son is as good a Gentleman as the eldest and therefore those
Parliament 35 H. 8. it was Enacted That the said Lady should hold part of her Inheritance and dispose of the same as a Feme sole and that the Marquess should have the Residue and that he might Lease the same by himself without his Wife for 21 years or less rendring the ancient Rent being Land which had been usually demised c. The Marquess Leased for 21 years and afterwards durante Termino praedict Leased the same Land to another for 21 years to begin after the determination of the first Lease It was moved in this Case That this last Lease was void and that for 3 Causes 1. Because the Marquess had but an Estate for life and then it could not be intended that the Statute did enable one who had but such an Estate determinable to make such a Lease which peradventure might not commence in his life-time 2. The Letter of the Statute is 21 years or under and the word Under strongly expounded the meaning of the Statute to be not to extend to such an Estate For here upon the matter is a Lease for 40 years 3. Because the Land demised is the Inheritance of the Wife And in this Case it was said That in the Case of one Heydon such a private Act was strictly construed which was That it was Enacted That all Copies for 3 Lives granted by the Lord Admiral of the Lands of his Wife should be good The Admiral granted Leases in Reversion for 3 Lives And it was holden That that Grant was not warranted by the Statute Dyer said The words are general Omnes dimissiones and therefore not to be restrained unto special Leases scil to Leases in possession Manwood said A Feme Covert by duresse joyns in a Lease with her Husband the same shall bind her CXI The Queen and Sir John Constables Case Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 5 Co. Constables Case A Quo Warranto was brought by the Queen against Sir John Constable who claimed certain Wreck in the County of York The Defendant pleaded That Edward Duke of Buck. was seised of such a Mannor to which he had Wreck appendant and that he was de alta proditione debito modo attinctus and that found before the Escheator And shewed further That the said Mannor descended to Queen Mary who granted the same to the Earl of Westmerland who granted the same to the Defendant Vpon which It was demurred And Exception was taken to the Plea because the Attainder is not fully and certainly pleaded It was argued by Plowden That the Attainder was certainly pleaded scil debito modo attinctus And it is shewed That the Wreck is appendant to the Mannor and then if the Defendant hath the Mannor he hath the Wreck also and if he hath the Mannor it is not material as to the Queen how he hath it for the Queen doth not claim the same but impeacheth the Defendant for using there such a Liberty But if the Heir of the said Duke had demanded the Mannor there against him the Attainder ought to have been pleaded certainly And it was said by him That the Interest of the Queen in the Sea extends unto the midst of the Sea betwixt England and Spain But the Queen hath the whole Iurisdiction of the Sea between England and France because she is Queen of England France c. And so it is of Ireland CXII Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant for life made a Feoffment of White-Acre of which he was seised for life and made a Letter of Attorny to deliver Livery and Seisin secundum formam Chartae before Livery the Tenant purchased the Fee and afterwards Livery was made It was resolved by the Court in this Case That all passed But if the Feoffment had been of all his Lands in D. and the Letter of Attorny accordingly and before Livery made the Feoffee had many Lands there If he purchased one Acre after the Livery should not extend to that Acre because the Authority was satisfied by the other Acre CXIII Banks and Thwaits Case Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Case was That A. had pawned an Indenture of Lease for years of a Messuage and Lands to Banks Thwaits intending to purchase the same required Banks to deliver him the said Lease and he would give Banks 10 l. whether he bought it or no at what time he would request the 10 l. Post 200. And Banks delivered the same to Thwaits accordingly Post 200. And afterwards brought an Action upon the Case and declared upon the whole matter and concluded Licet saepius requisitus c. without alledging a request express in certain and the day and place of it It was said by Cook That here the monies did not grow due before Request nor is payable before Request and therefore a Request ought to be made in facto And so he said It was ruled in this Court in an Action upon the Case betwixt Palmer and Burroughs and he said that the Mony was not due by the Promise but by the Request And it was the Opinion of the whole Court That although it be a duty Yet it is not a duty payable before Request And the Request makes a Title to the Action But if A. selleth to B. a Horse for 10 l. there is a Contract and a Request in facto need not be layed And the Opinion of the Court was also That upon this matter the Plaintiff could not have an Action of Debt for there is not any Contract for the thing is not sold but it is a Collateral promise grounded upon the delivery And by Clench Here the Request is traversable And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff And it was said It was so ruled in Alderman Pullisons Case in the Exchequer Post 201. CXIV Segar and Boyntons Case Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 156. IN Trespass the Case was this King Henry the 8th Anno 27 of his Reign gave the Mannor of D. to Sir Edward Boynton Knight and to the Heirs Males of his body Sir Edward Boynton had Issue Andrew his eldest Son and C. the Defendant his younger Son and died Andrew Boynton Covenanted by Indenture with the Lord Seymore that the said Andrew Boynton would assure the said Mannor to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the said Lord and his Heirs The said Lord Seymore in recompence thereof should assure other Lands to the use of himself for life the remainder to the use of the said Andrew Boynton in tail who 37 H. 8. levyed a Fine of the said Mannor without proclamations to two strangers to the uses according to the said Agreement and before any Assurance made by the said Lord The said Lord was Attainted of Treason and all his Lands were forfeited to the King And afterwards the said Andrew Boynton made a Suggestion to Queen Mary of the whole matter and upon his humble Petition the said
Plaintiff ad requisitionem dicti Davidis repararet And the Plaintiff declares That reparavit generally without saying 2 Cro. 404. That ad requisitionem Davidis reparavit And that is not the Reparation intended in the Consideration i. e. reparatio ad requisitionem c. but a Reparation of his own head and at his pleasure And for this Cause the Iudgment was stayed CXXXII Wrennam and Bullman's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 52. 1 Len. 282. WRennam brought an Action upon the Statute of 1 2 Phil. Mar. against Bullman for unlawful impounding of Distresses and was Nonsuit It was moved by Shuttleworth Serjeant If the Defendant should have Costs upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. And it was Adjudged That he should not And that appears clearly upon the words of the Statute c. for this Action is not conceived upon any matter which is comprised within the said Statute and also the Statute upon which this Action is grounded was made after the said Statute of 23 H. 8. which gives Costs and therefore the said Statute of 23 H. 8. and the remedy of it cannot extend to any action done by 1 2 Phil. Mary And Rhodes Iustice said It was so adjudged in 8 Eliz. CXXXIII Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 161. Dyer 291. IN a Formedon of a Mannor The Tenant pleaded Ioynt-Tenancy by Fine with J.S. The Demandant averred the Tenant sole Tenant as the Writ supposed and upon that it was found and tryed for the Demandant Vpon which a Writ of Error was brought and Error assigned in this Because where Ioynt-Tenancy is pleaded by Fine the Writ ought to have abated without any Averment by the Demandant against it and the Averment had been received against Law c. Shuttleworth At the Common-Law If the Tenant had pleaded Ioynt-Tenancy by Deed the Writ should have abated without any Averment but that was remedied by the Statute of 34 E. 1. But Ioynt-Tenancy by Fine doth remain as it was at the Common Law For he hath satis supplicii because by his Plea if it be false he hath by way of Conclusion given the moyety of the Land in demand to him with whom he hath pleaded Ioynt-Tenancy And the Law shall never intend that he would so sleightly depart with his Land for the abatement of a Writ As in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant confesseth himself to be a Villein of a stranger the Writ shall abate without any Averment Free and of Free estate for the Law intends that the Tenant will not inthral himself without cause Wray to the same purpose But the Demandant may confess and avoid the Fine as to say That he who levied the Fine was his Disseisor upon whom he hath before entred And if Tenant in Feesimple be impleaded and he saith That he is Tenant for life the remainder over to A. in Fee and prayeth in Aid of A. the Demandant shall not take Averment That the Tenant at the time of the Writ brought was seised in Fee. Note In this Formedon Ioynt-Tenancy was pleaded but as to parcel And it was holden by Wray and Southcote That the whole Writ should abate the whole Writ against all the Defendants And so where the Demandant enters into parcel of the Land in demand if the thing in demand be an entire thing the Writ shall abate in all In this Writ the Demandant ought to have averred in his Writ an especial foreprise of the Land parcel of the Land in demand whereof the Ioynt-Tenancy by the Fine is pleaded For this dismembring of the Mannor and distraction of the Land of which the Ioynt-Tenancy is pleaded is paravail and under the gift whereof the Formedon is conceived and therefore in respect of the title of the Demandant it remains in right parcel of the Mannor and therefore ought to be demanded accordingly with a foreprise But if A. giveth unto B. a Mannor except 10 Acres in tail there if after upon any Discontinuance the issue in tail is to have a Formedon in such case there needs not any foreprise for the said 10 Acres for they were severed from the Mannor upon the gift But if Lands in demand be several as 20 Acres except 2 Acres this foreprise is not good See Temps E. 1. Fitz. Brief 866. Praecipe c. unam bovatam terrae forprise one Sellion and the Writ was abated for every demand ought to be certain but a Sellion is but a parcel of Land uncertain as to the quantity in some places an Acre in some more in some less Another Point was Because the Tenant hath admitted and accepted this Averment scil sole Tenant as the Writ supposeth And the Question was If the Court notwithstanding the Admittance of the Tenant ought without Exception of the party Ex Officio to abate the Writ And it was the Opinion of Wray Chief Iustice That it should For it is a positive Law As if a Woman bring an Appeal of Murder upon the death of her Brother and the Defendant doth admit it without a Challenge or Exception yet the Court ought to abate the Appeal 10 E. 4. 7. See the principal Case there Non ideo puniatur Dominus c. And if an Action be brought against an Hostler upon the Common Custom of the Realm and in the Writ he is not named Common Hostler yet the Court shall abate the Writ Ex Officio See 11 H. 4. and 38 H. 6. 42. CXXXIV Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seised of Lands in the right of his Wife for the Term of the life of the Wife made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of his said Wife for her life It was holden in that Case That the Wife was remitted And it is not like Amy Townsends Case Plow Com. 1 2 Phil. and Mar. 111. For in the said Case the Entry of the Wife was not lawful for she was Tenant in tail which Estate was discontinued by the Feoffment of her Husband And Periam Iustice cited a Case Sidenham's Case Bacon seised in the right of his Wife for the Term of the life of the Wife They both surrendred and took back the Lands to them and a third person And it was holden That the Wife was not presently remitted but after the death of her Husband she might disagree to the Estate CXXXV Harper and Berrisford's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Writ of Partition The Defendant demanded Iudgment of the Writ because the Writ is Quare-cum A. teneat c. pro indiviso c 4 mille acras whereas it should be Quatuor Mille acrarum And many Grammarians were cited all which agreed That it was good both ways viz. Mille Acras or Mille Acrarum And Rhodes Iustice said That Cowper in Thesauro suo Linguae Latinae saith Quod Mille fere jungitur Genitivo Ergo non semper Wherefore Anderson with the assent of the other Iustices Ruled
he might be disseised But because the words of the Indictment were Expulit disseisivit which could not be true if the party expelled and disseised had not Freehold the Exception was disallowed Another Exception was taken to the Indictment For these words In unum tenementum intravit and this word Tenementum is too general and an uncertain word and therefore as to that the party was discharged But the Indictment was further In unum Tenementum decem acras terrae eidem pertinent And therefore as to the 10 Acres the party was enforced to Answer CL. Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Granted to B. a Rent-charge out of his Lands to begin when J.S. died without Issue of his body J.S. died having Issue which Issue died without Issue Dyer said The Grant shall not take effect For J.S. at the time of his death had Issue and therefore then the Grant shall not begin and if not then then not at all And by Manwood If the words had been To begin when J.S. is dead without Issue of his body then such a Grant should take effect when the Issue of J.S. dieth without Issue c. Dyer If the Donee in tail hath Issue and dieth without Issue The Formedon in Reverter shall suppose that the Donee himself died without Issue For there is an Interest and there is a difference betwixt an Interest and a Limitation For if I give Lands to A. and B. for the Term of their lives if any of them dieth the Survivor shall have the whole But if I give Lands to A. for the life of B. and C. now if B. or C. die all the Estate is determined because but a Limitation and B. and C. had not any Interest See Cook 5 Part Bradnell's Case CLI Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Enfeoffed B. upon Condition That if he pay 10. l. to the Feoffee his Executors or Assigns 4 Len. 232. 1 Len. 285 286. Hill. 12. Car. 2 B.R. Goodyer and Clarks Case within 3 yeares next ensuing that then it should be lawful for him and his Heirs to re-enter The Feoffee hath Issue two Sons whom he makes his Executors and dieth before the day of payment The Ordinary commits â—etters of Administration to J.S. during the minority of the Executors Manwood conceived That it is a most sure way for A. to pay the Monies to the Executors for they remain Executors notwithstanding the Administration committed to another For the Administrator in such case is but as Bailiff or Receivor to the Executors and shall be accomptable to them Which Harper and Dyer Concesserunt And Manwood said If in this Case the Monies be paid to one of the Executors it is sufficient and the same well paid but that Conditional Feoffments are as a Sum in gross and not in nature of a Debt Which the rest of the Iustices granted CLII. Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seised of a Mannor seased the same for years rendring Rent with Clause of re-entry and afterwards levied a Fine Sur Conusans de Droit to the use of himself and his Heirs The Rent being demanded is behind Dyer A. cannot re-enter for although in right the Rent passeth without Attornment yet he is without remedy for it is without Attornment and it would be hard without Attornment to re-enter c. It was moved further If here the Conusor be Assignee within the Statute of 32 H. 8. Manwood The Reversion of a Termor is granted by Fine there wants privity for an Action of Debt Waste and Re-entry But if the Conusee dieth without Heir although that in right it was in the Conusee yet the Lord by Escheat shall make Avowry and yet the Conusee by whom he claimeth could not And in the Case at Bar the Conusee himself could not but the Conusor being Cestuy que use who is in by the Act of Law 1 Inst 309. shall avow and shall re-enter without Attornment For the Conusor is in by the Statute of 27 H. 8. Harper The Heir of the Conusee shall avow and re-enter before Attornment Dyer 13 H. 4. The Father leaseth for years rendring Rent with Clause of re-entry the Father demands the Rent which is not paid the Father dieth the Son cannot re-enter For the Rent doth not belong unto him And therefore in the Case at Bar the Conusee cannot avow for the Rent before Attornment therefore not re-enter CLIII Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT is Enacted by the Statute of 5 Eliz. Cap. 8. That no person shall cut down any Oak Trees but between the first day of April and the last day of June but Timber imployed and bestowed in or about Buildings or Reparations of Houses c. And upon an Information upon that Statute the Defendant pleaded That he cut down the said Oak Trees and thereof made Laths to be bestowed in building and that he had sold them to J.S. who had imployed part of them in building and is imploying the residue in the same manner Windham The intent of the Defendant in cutting down the Oaks was not to have them imployed in building but to sell them Although it is not necessary for the satisfaction of that Statute that the Oaks presently after the cutting be imployed about building For if the Lessee of a Messuage who is to have House-bote seeing that his Messuage will want reparation cutteth down a Tree for such intent although there be not such urgent occasion at present that it ought to be presently repaired the same shall not be said Trespass for it is good Husbandry to have such Timber to be seasonable which cannot be without some reasonable time between the cutting down and the imployment Periam If at the time of the cutting the Vendor or Vendee had an intent to employ them about building it is good enough And it is a strong Case here because the Defendant imploys the Timber himself in Laths which is not of any use but for building and cannot be made but of Timber CLIV. Eve and Finch's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. PEter Eve and John Finch brought an Action of Trespass against Nathaniel Tracy and Margaret his Wife and upon the pleading the Case was that John Finch Father of J.F. the Plaintiff seised of the Mannor of St. Katherines held the same of the Queen by Knight service in Chief and was also seised of the Land where the Trespass was done being holden in Socage and so seised 6 Junij 20 Eliz. for the preferment of the said Margaret then his Wife enfeoffed of the said Mannor A. and B. unto the use of himself and the said Margaret and their Heirs And that the said John the Father had not any other Land but that before mentioned and that the said Mannor at the time of the said Feoffment and at the death of the said John the Father attingebat ad duas partes of all the Lands and Tenements of the said
force of the first assurance by way of Bargain and the Relation is utterly gone So in our Case The Grant of the Queen mean between the Award of the Commission and the Retorn of it hath destroyed the force and effect of the Commission so as no appearance shall be had of it And he agreed That here are several Rents but the Condition is entire and admit that a Condition may be apportioned in some Cases yet in some Cases it cannot And the Statute of 32 H. 8. gives the Condition and the Reversion to which it is annexed to the King in such sort as it was in the Prior But the Condition in the Prior was not capable of Apportionment and therefore no more it shall be in the Case of the King. As where a Recognizance is acknowledged whicâ— cometh to the King by the Attainder of the Conusee Now if the King will sue Execution upon it he shall not have the whole Land of the Conusor in Execution but only the moyety by Elegit c. This Case afterward Trin. 28 Eliz. for Difficulty was adjourned into the Exchequer-Chamber and there argued before all the Iustices and Barons of the Exchequer And Shuttleworth Serjant argued for the Plaintiff And first he said Here are several Rents and so several Conditions especially when all the things demised are of such a Nature that they may yield a Distress but if any of the things demised cannot yield Distress then it shall be one entire Rent and shall issue out of the Residue c. Which see 17 Ass 10. An Assise was brought of 20 s. Rent and the said Rent was reserved upon a Lease for life made of 100 Acres of Lands and 15 Acres of Wood scil for the Land 10 s. and for the Woods 10 s. And by the Assise it was found the Disseisin in the Wood but not in the Land. Wherefore it was awarded That the Plaintiff should recover seisin of the 10 s. and for the residue that he should take nothing And although these words reddendo inde Trench unto all the things demised entirely yet this word viz. is a distributive and makes an Apportionment And the viz. is not contrary to the premisses scil to the reddendo inde As if I enfeoffe A. and B. of an Acre of Land Habendum the one moyety thereof to A. in Fee and the other moyety to B. in Fee this is good for it well stands with the premisses But if I enfeoffe A. and B. of two Acres of Lands Habendum the one Acre to A. and the other to B. the same Habendum is void because contrary to the premisses for each of them is excluded out of one Acre which was given to him in the premisses And in our Case If the Rent set forth in the Viz. had been greater or less than that which is reserved upon the Reddendo then the Viz. should be void for the contrariety and the Reddendo stand Walmesley contrary And that here is one entire Rent Which see to be so by the close of the Condition Si Redditus praedict ' aut aliqua inde parcella c. And the Lessor may distrain in any part of the Land demised for the whole Rent notwithstanding the Viz. And it was moved by Shuttleworth That admit the Rent and Condition be entire Yet now when the King grants the Reversion of one of the things demised in Fee to a stranger the Condition remains and not determined by the destruction of the Reversion as in the case of a Subject For the King hath divers Prerogatives by which he is exempted and protected from such Mischiefs and Inconveniences which happen to Subjects by their own Acts and their Laches and Folly which shall not be imputed to the King And the reason of Extinguishment of a Condition in such case in the case of a Common person is his own Folly that he will distrahere his Reversion And Folly shall never be imputed to the King And as the Case is here the King is not bound to take notice of a Condition made by a Common â—erson For it is not matter of Record and by this Grant of the King the Rent doth not pass for the Grant is only of the Reversion without any mention of the Rent And the King hath divers Prerogatives in a Condition As in the creating of a Condition 35 H. 6. 38. The Abbot of Sion's Case Ad effectum is a good Condition in the Case of the King by Prison And where the King grants Lands in Fee to one upon Condition That the Grantee shall not alien the same is a good condition So for a Rent-Seck the King may distrain And the King may reserve a Rent and a Condition to a stranger and if he doth reserve a Rent and a Condition to himself he may grant the same over to a Subject 2 H. 7. 8. And the Condition in the case of a Common person may be apportioned As if Lessee of two Acres upon Condition alien one of them in Fee and the Lessor entreth for the forfeiture or recovereth part in an Action of Waste c. but of a surrender it is otherwise Walmesley contrary The Condition is gone For a Condition in the hands of the King is of the same Nature as in the case of a common person impatient of any Division Partition or Apportionment As if the King hath a Rent out of 3 Acres of Land and afterwards purchaseth one of them the Rent is utterly gone and shall not be apportioned as well as in the Case of a common person So of a Common And as this Case is If the Condition doth remain then upon the breach of it the King shall enter into the whole for the words of the Condition are Wholly to re-enter and so he should defeat his own grant And he cited a Case adjudged at the Assizes at York The King gave Land in Fee-Farm rendring Rent with Clause of re-entry The King granteth the Rent over to a stranger And after the Rent is behind The King cannot re-enter nor the Grantee It was also moved If the Iurors of Middlesex might enquire of the usual Feast days in London Shuttleworth That they might do so See 5 H. 5. 23. Where a Commission issued out to enquire in the County of Surrey of Escheats words c. who found that A. held of the King in Chief and took to Wife one E. Cosen of A. within the Degrees they then knowing of it and had Issue betwixt them and afterwards they were Divorced in the County of Kent c. And Exception was taken to that Office Because the Enquest of Surry had found a Divorce in the County of Kent Another matter was Because the Iurors have found the breach of the Condition And before the Iurors had put their Hands and Seals to the Inquisition the Queen granted part of the things demised in his hands to Fortescue After which Grant the Inquisition was sealed and Retorned into the Exchequer If
for the variance is in a thing which is matter of surplusage and so much the rather because the said A. had not another House in D. c. CLXXXVI Lucas and Picroft's Case Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was That an Assise of Novel Disseisin was brought in the County of Northampton of two Acres of Lands 2 Len. 41. and as to one Acre the Tenant pleaded a plea tryable in a Forreign County Vpon which the Assise was adjourned into the Common Pleas and from thence into the forreign County Where by Nisi prius It was found for the Plaintiff and now in the Common Pleas Snag Serjeant prayed Iudgment for the Plaintiff and cited the Book 16 H. 7. 12. Where an Assise is adjourned into the Common Pleas for difficulty of the Verdict they there may give Iudgment But all the Court held the contrary For here is another Acre of which the Title is yet to be tryed before the Iustices of Assise before the tryal of which no Iudgment shall be given for the Acre of which the Title is found And the Assise is properly depending before the Iustices of Assise before whom the Plaintiff may discontinue his Assise And it is not like to the Cases of 6 E. 4. and 8 Ass 15. Where in an Assise a Release was pleaded dated in a forreign County which was denyed Wherefore the Assise was adjourned into the Common Pleas and there found by Enquest not the Deed of the Plaintiff's Now if the Plaintiff will release his Damages he shall have Iudgment of the Freehold presently But in our Case parcel of the Land put in View remains not tryed which the Plaintiff cannot release as he may his Damages 2 Len. 199. and therefore the Court remanded the Verdict to the Iustices of Assise CLXXXVII Hare and Mellers Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Post 163. HUgh Hare of the Inner-Temple brought an Action upon the Case against Phillip Mellers and declared That the Defendant had exhibited unto the Queen a slanderous Bill against the Plaintiff charging the said Hugh to have recovered against the Defendant 400 l. by Forgery Perjury and Cosening And also that he had published the matter of the said Bill at Westm c. In this Case it was said by the Court That the exhibiting of the Bill to the Queen is not in it self any Cause of Action For the Queen is the Head and Fountain of Iustice and therefore it is lawful for all her Subjects to resort unto her ad faciendam Querimoniam But if a subject after the Bill once exhibited will divulge the matter therein comprehended to the disgrace and discredit of the person intended the same is good cause of Action And that was the Case of Sir John Conway who upon such matter recovered And as to the words themselves It was the Opinion of the Court That they are not actionable For it is not expresly shewed That the Plaintiff hath used perjury forgery c. And it may be that the Attorny or Sollicitor in the Cause hath used such indirect means not known to the Plaintiff And in such case it is true That the Plaintiff hath recovered by forgery c. and yet without reproach And by perjury he cannot recover for he cannot be sworn in his own Cause It was adjudged against the Plaintiff CLXXXVIII Moore and the Bishop of Norwich's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit by Moor against the Bishop of Norwich c. It was found for the Plaintiff and thereupon issued forth a Writ to the Bishop which was not retorned Vpon which an Alias issued forth Vpon which the Bishop retorned That after Iudgment given in the Quare Impedit the same Incumbent against whom the Action was brought was Presented Instituted and Inducted into the same Church and so the Church is full c. And if that was a good retorn It was oftentimes debated Windham cited the Case L. 5 E. 4. 115 116. A Quare Impedit against Parson Patron and Ordinary and pendant the Writ the Parson resigned and the Ordinary gave notice of it to the Patron and afterwards by Lapse the Ordinary presented the same Incumbent who resigned And afterwards the Plaintiff in the Quare Impedit had Iudgment to recovers And it was holden Because the same Incumbent is now in by a new title scil by Lapse and the same person against whom the recovery was had and that appeared to the Court he should be removed See 9 Eliz. Dyer 260. and 21 Eliz. Dyer 364. And it was said by the Lord Anderson What person soever is presented and admitted after the Action brought unless it be that the title of the Patron be paramount the title of the Plaintiff upon such Recovery he shall be removed And so in the principal case It was adjudged That the Retorn of the Bishop was not good Wherefore he was fined 10 l. and a Sicut alias awarded upon pain of 100 l. CLXXXIX Parret and Doctor Matthews Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Praemunire was brought and prosecuted by the Queens Attorny General and Parret 1 Len. 292. against Doctor Matthews Dean of Christ-Church in Oxford and others for that they procured the said Parret to be sued in the City of Oxford before the Commissary there in an Action of Trespass by Libel according to the Ecclesiastical Law In which Suit Parret pleaded his Freehold and so to the Iurisdiction of the Court and yet they proceeded there and Parret was Condemned and Imprisoned And afterward the said Suit depending the Queens Attorny withdrew his Suit for the Queen It was now moved to the Court If notwithstanding that the party Informer might proceed in his suit there See 7 E. 4. 2. the King shall have Praemunire and the party grieved his Action See Br. Praemunire 13. for by Brook None can have Praemunire but the King. Cook There is a President in the Book of Entries 427. In a Praemunire the words are Ad respondendum tam Domino Regi quam R F. and that upon the Statute of 16 R. 2. And see ibid. 429. tam Domino Regi de Contemptu praedict quam dicto A.B. de Damnis But it was holden by the whole Court That if the Queens Attorny will not ulterius prosequi the party grieved cannot maintain that Suit For the principal matter in the Praemunire is the Conviction and the putting of the party out of the Kings protection and the damages are but accessary and then the Principal being Released the damages are gone And it was also holden That the Presidents in the Book of Entries are not to be regarded For there is not any Iudgment upon any of the pleadings there CXC Archeboll and Borrell's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ARcheboll brought an Action upon the Case against Borrell and declared That the Defendant had procured one L. to bring an Appeal of the death of J.S. against
Also the words Of the Mannor of Fremmington and Hundred are put amongst others which are Mannors in truth By which he conceived That the Devisor did not intend to pass but one Mannor and no other Herediatments by this Mannor of Fremmington There is a Rule in Law That in the Construction of a Will a thing implyed shall not control a thing expressed But here If by implication the Rent shall pass then the Mannor of Camfield is not passed which was the intent of the Testator to pass and that by express words See 16 Eliz. Dyer 330. Clatches Case No Implication of any Estate in remainder can serve when a special Guift and Limitation is made by the Devisor himself See also 16 Eliz. Dyer 333. Chapman's Case But in our Case here there are not sufficient words to warrant any Implication for neither in truth nor in common reputation was it taken for a Mannor 27 H. 6. 2. green-Green-Acre may pass by the name of a Mannor although it be but one Acre of Land because it is known by the name of a Mannor See acc 22 H. 6. 39. And see Where before the Statute of Uses A Man had recoverors to his use and he willeth by his Will That his Feoffees sell his Lands they might sell And he said That if a Man seised of a Mannor parcel in Demesne and parcel in Service and he granteth the Demesnes to one and his Heirs and afterwards deviseth his Mannor peradventure the Services shall pass but this Rent hath not any resemblance to a Mannor Gawdy This Rent shall pass by the name aforesaid Favourable Construction is always given in Wills according to the meaning of the Devisor and no part of his Will shall be holden void if by any means it may take effect Then it here appeareth that his intent was That upon these words something should pass to the Devisee concerning the Mannor of Fremmington for otherwise the words Of the Mannor of Fremmington are void and frivolous which shall not be in a Will if any reasonable Construction may be made For it is found expresly by the Iury That neither at the time of the Will made nor at the time of the death of the Testator the Devisor had any thing in the said Mannor of Fremmington but the said Rent of 130 l. per annum And it may well be taken That the Devisor being ignorant what thing a Mannor is thought that this Rent was a Mannor because that she had Rents and Services out of the said Mannor For in Construction of a Will the words shall serve the intent And therefore if a Man Deviseth That his Lands shall be sold for the payment of his Debts his Executors shall sell them for the intent of the Devisor names the sellers sufficiently And See Plowden 20 Eliz. 524. L. after the Statute of 27 H. 8. deviseth that his Executors shall be seised to the use of A. and his Assigns in Fee whereas then there was no Feoffees to use the same was holden a good devise of the Land to A. But the Iustices conceived That the Devisor was ignorant of the operation of the Statute in that case and therefore his ignorance was supplyed See Br. Devises 48. 29 H. 8. A. had Feoffees to his use and afterwards after the Statute of 27 H. 8. and 32 H. 8. he willed That his Feoffees should make an Estate to B. and his Heirs It was holden by Baldwin Shelley and Mountague Iustices That it was a good Devise And see 26 H. 6. Fitz. tit Feoffments Faits 12. A Carue of Land may pass by the name of a Mannor therefore a fortiori a Rent for Rents and Services have more affinity and more resemble a Mannor than a Carue of Land. And it cannot be intended that the meaning of the Testator was to grant the Mannor it self in which he had not any thing especially by his Will for Covin Collusion or indirect dealing cannot be presumed in a Will. Also The Marchioness for 4 years together before her death had the Rent and Services of the said Mannor and she well knew that she her self had not any thing in the said Mannor but the said Rent and Services and therefore it shall be intended that the same was her Mannor of Fremmington A. seised of a Capital Messuage and great Demesnes lying to it Leased the same for years rendring Rent and afterwards devised to another all her Farm in such a place And it was Ruled in that Case That by that Devise the Rent and the Reversion passed See the Case between Wrottesley and Adams Plow 19. 1 Eliz. by Anthony Brown and Dyer Periam Iustice conceived That this Rent might be divided well enough But by Anderson It is but a Rent-Seck Periam It is distrainable of Common right Anderson doubted of it But all the Iustices agreed That the Rent might be divided but there should not be two Tenures The Lord Mountjoy being advised that this Rent did not pass but descended to the Heir being the full third part of the Lands entred into the Residue and made a Lease of the Mannor of Camfield unto the Plaintiff upon which the Ejectione firmae is brought And afterwards the Plaintiff seeing the Opinion of the Court to be against him and for the Devise of the Rent for the reasons aforesaid Discontinued his Suit c. CCXIX. Williams and Drew's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Widow of Williams who was Speaker of the Parliament brought Dower against Williams and Drew upon the Grande Cape Williams made default And now came Drew and surmised to the Court That he is not Tenant of the Land But further he saith That the Husband of the Demandant Leased the said Lands to him for 50 years and that this Action is brought by Covin to make him lose his Term and prayed to be received And the Opinion of the whole Court was That although he was party to the Writ yet he should be received and that by the Statute of Gloucester for he is in equal mischief And the Court was also clear of Opinion That upon the default of Williams the Demandant should not have Iudgment for a moyety for that the Cause of the receipt trenched to the whole And by all the Iustices but Rhodes If Iudgment had been given upon the deault of both i. e. Williams and Drew yet the Term of Drew should stand but Drew should be put out of possession and put to his Action And Anderson conceived That the Resceit upon that Statute did not lie unless that Covin be alledged betwixt the Demandant and the Tenant to make him to lose his Term and that Covin is traversable Which all the other Iustices denyed for the Covin ought to be averred but ought not to be traversed And also they all but Anderson were clear of Opinion That in this Case of Receipt the party shall not plead upon his Receipt as upon the Statute of Westminster but he shall be received
to the Bar because he hath not shewed that at that time of the cutting it was not Fawning time Poph. 158. 2 Cro. 637 679. for at the Fawning time his prescription doth not extend to it and that was holden to be a material Exception but because that the Plaintiff had replyed and upon his Replication the Defendant had demurred the Court would not resort to the Bar but gave Iudgment upon the Replication and therefore Nihil Capiat per breve CCXC. Brocas's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. BRocas Lord of a Mannor Covenanted with his Copyholder to assure to him and his Heirs the Freehold and Inheritance of his Copyhold And the said Copyholder in Consideration of the same performed Covenanted to pay such a sum It was the Opinion of the whole Court That the said Copyholder is not tyed to pay the said sum before the assurance made 1 Roll. 415. and the Covenant performed But if the words had been In Consideration of the said Covenant to be performed then he is bounden to pay the mony presently and to have his remedy over by Covenant CCXCI. Ireland and Higgius's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared Owen Rep. 93. That he was possessed of a Greyhound ut de bonis suis propriis and that such a day he lost it and that it came to the hands of the Defendant by Trover and that the Defendant afterwards in Consideration thereof promised the Plaintiff to deliver the said Greyhound to the Plaintiff and shewed his request Ley The Action doth not lie For of those things which are ferae naturae the Plaintiff hath not any property but ratione fundi as of Deer c. And in Trespass for them he cannot say suos but only Quare claufum fregit lepores cepit without saying suos And to that purpose were cited 3 H. 6. 56. 18 E. 4. 14. 10 H. 7. 19. 22 H. 6. 12. 14 Eliz. Dyer 106. Sir John Spencer's Case And it was holden That the Action did not lie And if not for a Hawk much less for a Hound CCXCII Ognell and Trussell's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Star-Chamber A Bill was Exhibited in the Star-Chamber by Ognell of London against one Trussell of Warwickshire setting forth such matter That whereas the said Trussell had for good Consideration sold and assured unto the said Ognell a Mannor Now to gratifie a great person who earnestly desired the said Mannor he for effecting thereof practised by fraudulent means to avoid the said assurance and practised by other persons to be Indicted of a Robbery supposed to be committed before the said Assurance and compounded with the Lord of the Fee that if he be attainted so that by such Attainder the said Mannor should escheat to the said Lord That he upon request should reassure to the said Trussell the said Mannor in Fee after Pardon obtained which was promised to him by the said great Parsonage Vpon which Indictment Trussell was Arraigned and Convicted upon Evidence which he himself procured to be falsly given against him And all that was to extort the Land which was lawfully sold before And upon the Bill Trussell demurred in Law because he is a person attainted of Felony and so dead in Law and therefore shall not be put to answer Hatton Lord Chancellor It is not reason that he be put to Answer for Nemo tenetur seipsum prodere And thereupon the Bill was referred to Anderson and Periam Iustices to Consider If the Defendant should be put to answer or not Who certified unto the Court That although the Defendant be attainted ut supra and so quodam modo dead in Law to all intents yet in Criminal Causes he shall answer Wherefore it was ordered That he answer accordingly CCXCIII Cardinal and Arnold's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CArdinal brought an Action upon the Case against Arnold and declared That the Dean and Chapter Ecclesiae Cathedralis Cantuar. per nomen Decani Capituli Ecclesiae Cathedral Metropolitan Christian Cantuar. Leased unto Seckford for years the Mannor of Hadley by force of which he was possessed And so possessed granted to the Plaintiff the Office of Stewardship of the said Mannor and the Defendant disturbed him The Defendant pleaded a Lease absque hoc that the said Seckford granted And it was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That that Lease being made in the manner aforesaid was void For the Declaration is That the Dean and Chapter Ecclesiae Cathedralis Cantuar where the Lease is made by the name ut supra Here are two several Names therefore two several Corporations therefore Decanus Capituli Ecclesiae Cathedralis Cantuariensis did not Lease But Decanus Capituli Ecclesiae Cathedralis Metrapolitan Christi did Lease CCXCIV. Anderson and Hayward's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Copyholder of Inheritance of a Mannor in the hands of the King is ousted It was holden in such case That he hath not gained any Estate so as he may make a Lease for years upon which his Lessee may maintain an Ejectione firmae but he hath but a possession against all strangers And also in that Case It was holden That if a Copyholder dieth his Heir within age he is not bound to come at any Court during his Non-age to pray Admittance Or to tender his Fine Also that if the death of his Ancessor be not presented nor proclamation made he is not at any Mischief although he be of full age CCXCV. Brightman's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber UPon a Writ of Error brought upon a Iudgment given in the King Bench The matter was A. Leased for 20 years to B. two Acres of Land rendring Rent with Condition of Re-entry who Leased one of the said Acres to C. for 10 years And afterwards granted the Reversion of the said Term in the said Acre to A. It was holden by the Iustices That the same was no present suspension of the said Condition because there was not any possession CCXCVI. Fitzhugh's Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Dower against Fitzhugh who pleaded in bar a Fine with proclamations and 5 years passed after the death of the Husband of whose seisin she demanded Dower To which the Demandant said That within the 5 years after the death of her Husband she brought a Writ of Dower against the now Tenant and delivered the same to the Sheriff c. but did not shew that the Writ was Returned upon which the Tenant did demur in Law. It was holden by Periam Iustice That the Fine is not avoided by such manner of Claim For the words of the Statute are So that they pursue their Claim or Title by way of Action or lawful Entry within the 5 years but here the Demandant hath not pursued c. therefore she shall not be Retained by the said Statute
Commoner shall not use his Common before that the Lord hath put in his Cattel was holden to be a void Custom On the other side It was said That this Custom might have a lawful beginning and that it might be grounded upon the reason of the Common Law That a Remainder should not be without the assent of the particular Tenant and therefore that the Custom might be good And it was said That Wife should not have her Dower unless she claimed it within a year and a day that the same was adjudged to be a good Custom The Court delivered no Opinion in the Case but the Case was adjourned to another time CCCIV. Mich. 31 Eliz. In C. B. THE Case was a Man devised Socage Lands to his Brothers Son in tail to have the same at his age of 25 years and died having Issue a Daughter The Nephew after 21 years entred and levied a Fine and afterwards accomplished his age of twenty five years It was the Opinion of the whole Court That the Issue of the Devisee was barred by this Fine For the Heir in Tail and the Heir in Fee are all one by the Statute of 4 H. 7. And it was holden That this was not a Fine which doth enure by way of Estoppel but that it passeth the very right It was said to be the same Law If one who hath but a condition levyeth a Fine and afterward entreth for the condition broken c. CCCV Palmer and Smalbrook's Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case The Plaintiff declared 1 Len. 132. Owen 97. 1 Cro. 178. That the Defendant had recovered a certain Debt against one A. and thereupon took forth a Capias against the said A. to Arrest his Body and delivered the said Capias to the Plaintiff being then Sheriff and prayed a Warrant for the serving of the Capias and that he would name to him one B. for a special Bayliff and promised the Plaintiff That if B. Arrested A. by force of the said Capias and suffered him to escape that he would not sue him for the said escape and further declared That he made a Warrant according to the said Capias and therein named and appointed the said B. his special Bailiff who Arrested A. accordingly and afterwards suffered him to escape and that the Defendant notwithstanding his Promise aforesaid sued the Plaintiff for the said escape and it was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in stay of Iudgment That that Promise was against the Law to prevent the punishment inflicted by the Statute of 23 H. 8. upon the Sheriff and that it is meerly within the said Statute and so the Promise void Cook This is not any Bond or Promise taken of the Prisoner nor of any for him and therefore it is not within the Statute and it was Davies Case Wray A Promise is within the Statute as well as a Bond. But the Statute doth not extend but where the Bond or Promise is made by the Prisoner or by some for him And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCVI Wood and Payn 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Ejectione firmae for Entry into a Messuage sive Tenementum and 4 Acres of Lands to the same belonging Vpon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved by Cowper Serjeant That the Declaration is uncertain Messuagium sive Tenementum quod fuit Concessum Cook We will release our damages Kemp Then your Costs are gone also Cowper You cannot have Iudgment of the 4 Acres For the Declaration is 4 Acres to the said Messuage or Tenement belonging and for the incertainty to which thing belonging But to that it was said That as to the 4 Acres it is certain enough For the words To the same belonging are meerly void And afterwards the Plaintiff released damages and had Iudgment CCCVII Bennington and Bennington's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. BEnnington brought an Action of Trespass against Bennington for breaking of his Close c. The Defendant pleaded That long time before the Trespass supposed That it was the Freehold of one Joan Bennington and that he as her servant and by her Commandment entred upon which they were at Issue And it was found That for two parts of the Land where c. in three parts to be divided it was the Freehold of the Plaintiff and for the other part that it was the Freehold of the Defendant and by the clear Opinion of the whole Court The Plaintiff could not have Iudgment for now it appeareth That the Plaintiff and Defendant are Tenants in Common betwixt whom an Action of Trespass doth not lie and although this Tenancy in Common be not pleaded but found by Verdict yet it was the Opinion of the Court That it is all one CCCVIII Brereton and Auser's Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. JOhn Brereton of the Inner-Temple brought a Writ of Error against Auser to Reverse an Outlawry And the Case was That the said Auser had caused the said Brereton to be endicted upon the Statute of Magna Charta and divers other Statutes For that Whereas the said Auser had sued the said Brereton in a Bill of Debt in the Court of Request against the said Brereton and by the said Suit procured the said Brereton to be imprisoned Vpon which Endictment Brereton was Outlawed And Error was assigned in the Outlawry because whereas the Endictment was taken in Middlesex the Exigent upon it was in London whereas it ought to issue out of Middlesex but the proclamations issued in the County whereof he was named Nuper and that was peremptory for if he make default upon that Process he shall encur the danger of a Praemunirè And for that cause the Outlawry was reversed Also the party was discharged of the Endictment for this Suit in the Court of Requests as it appeareth upon the Endictment was before Iudgment in the Bill of Debt CCCIX Constable and Farrer's Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared That whereas the Defendant had brought an Action against him the Issue in which ought to be tried at the next Assises at N. the Defendant in Consideration that the now Plaintiff should confess the Action aforesaid at the Assises holden the 4th of August promised that he would stand to the Arbitrament of J.S. for the said matter And upon Non Assumpsit the Iury found That the Defendant made such a Promise the 5th of August but not the 4th of August Cook I conceive That upon this Verdict the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment for in truth the Assises began the 4th of August and the Consideration was That the now Plaintiff should confess the Action at the same Assises which although they continue divers days yet in Law all is but one day And all the Assises shall be said to be holden the 4th of August
bring a new Writ But Gawdy said That the Writ brought was good enough CCCXVII Pike and Hassen's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Action upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. touching buying of Titles And the Bargain was laid in Norfolk but the Land c. was in Suffolk And the Issue was tryed in Norfolk and the value of the Land also And as to the 5 Acres they found the Defendant guilty and found also the value of them And for the Residue a Special Verdict was given and for the 5 Acres the Plaintiff had Iudgment presently And by the special Verdict it was found That the Defendant had occupied the Residue of the Land for two years before c. as Tenant at sufferance and afterwards sold the Inheritance Wray Chief Iustice Tenant at sufferance is in truth a Tort feasor by which his taking of the profits is not such as is intended by the Statute But yet he afterwards looking into the words of the Verdict which were That the Defendant tenuit the Lands for two years ex permissione of another thereupon it ought to be intended That he was Tenant at will. CCCXVIII Sparry and Warfield's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN False Imprisonment against the Defendant and others they pleaded The Charter of Bridewell and that the Plaintiff was mali nominis famae and that certain Goods were stollen from J.S. and upon search the Plaintiff was found suspitiously c. And that thereupon they put him into Bridewell It was the Opinion of the Iustices That the Plea was not good CCCXIX. Bragg's Case Pasch 32 Eliz. Rot. 318. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass by Strait against Bragg Quare Clausum fregit containing one Acre in C. in the County of H. and for the taking of a Horse The Defendant pleaded That long time before the Trespass The Dean and Chapter of Pauls were seised of the Mannor of C. in the said County in Fee in the right of their Church whereof the place where is parcel c. And so seised King E. 4th by his Letters Patents dated Anno 1 of his Reign granted to them all the Fines pro Licentia Concordandi of all their Homagers and Tenants resiants or not resiants within their Fee And shewed That for all that time they have used to have such Fines of their Tenants And shewed further That 29 Eliz. A Fine was levied in the Common Pleas between the Plaintiff and one A. of 11 Acres of Land whereof the place where the Trespass was done was parcel and the Post-Fine assessed to 15 s. And afterwards Scambler the forreign Opposer allowed to them the said 15 s. because the said Land was within their Fee and afterwards in the behalf of the said Dean and Chapter he demanded of the Plaintiff the said 15 s. who refused to pay it for which he by the Commandment and in the right of the Dean and Chapter entred and took the said Horse in the name of a Distress as Bailiff to the said Dean and Chapter for the said 15 s. and afterwards sold it c. upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law And it was moved That here it is not averred That the Land whereof the Fine was levied was within their Fee but they say That Scambler allowed it because it was within their Fee. And that is not a sufficient averment quod curia concessit And also the opinion of the Court was Ante 56. 2 Len. 179. That the Dean and Chapter cannot distrain for this matter but they ought to sue for the same in the Exchequer as it appeareth 9 H. 6. 27. in the Duchess of Summersets Case Gawdy Iustice The Grant doth not extend to the Post-Fine for the Fine pro licentia Concordandi is the Kings Silver and not the Post-Fine Wray Iustice All passeth by it for it is about one and the same matter And they in Opinion to have given Iudgment for the Plaintiff Quaere of it CCCXX South and Marsh's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer NOte It was holden by the Court That where Marsh was endebted unto South without any Obligation for it but only by a Note in writing signed with the Hand of Marsh scil By me W. Marsh but not sealed that such a debt might be assigned to the Queen although that before the Assignment against a Creditor he might have waged his Law for in as much as by these Notes and Bills the certainty of the debt appeareth and being true debts they may well be assigned See 21 H. 7. 9. An Obligation may be assigned to the Queel without Deed enrolled and where the Obligee is not endebted to the Queen But it cannot be assigned to a subject Noy 52. if not for a debt due by the Assignor to the Assignee for otherwise it is Maintenance And in this Case it was holden That where the King sues for a debt assigned to him the Obligor cannot plead Nihil debet for now by the Assignment it is become matter of Record CCCXXI. Trapp's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. RObert Trapps 1 Eliz. seised of 15 Messuages in Clarkenwell in the Occupation of 15 several persons viz. A.B.C. c. and named them certain demised them to one Cox And afterwards conveyed the Inheritance of them to one Brian Trapps in Fee who afterwards demised to J.S. all those 15 Messuages in Clarken-well which Robert Trapps did demise inter alia to Cox by Indenture dated 1 Eliz. now in the Occupation of A.B.C. c. And one of the Occupiers names was left out in the recital And it was holden by the whole Court That notwithstanding the said Omission the said Messuage did pass for there was sufficient certainty before and the falsity came after the verity CCCXXII Brewin and Mansfield's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That A. was endebted to him in 10 l. and made the Defendant his Executor and died And that the Defendant in Consideration that the Plaintiff would forbear the Defendant for a certain time promised to pay it at two several days and shewed which in certain And it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That it is not set down in the Declaration by what portions the 10 l. shall be paid Clench Iustice conceived That the Defendant had liberty to pay it in what portions he pleased Gawdy He ought to pay it by equal portions as a Rent reserved payable at two Feasts without saying by what portions it shall be paid And he said That if the plea for the cause aforesaid had been defective yet now after Verdict all is helped for it is but form And afterwards the Opinion of the whole Court was That the matter shewed was not good to stay Iudgment Wherefore the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover CCCXXIII Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was The Plaintiff in a
Demands or Grants Omnia terras tenementa sua But general words qualified with a restraint where the Limitations are effectual As if the King Grants Omnia terras tenementa sua in D. which he hath by the Attainder of J.S. or which were the possessions of such dissolved Monasteries such Grants are good And where the Case is That Queen Mary hath the Lands in possession of the annual value of 19 l. and other Land there in Reversion of the annual value of 6 l. and then she Grants Omnia terras tenementa nostra rendring 19 l. per annum I conceive That upon these words the Land in possession only passeth because that the said general words may be aptly served and satisfied with the Lands in possession if no other Lands pass And I agree That this word Nostra extends as well to the Lands in Reversion as to Lands in possession but most properly to Lands in possession for Land in Reversion cannot dici simpliciter Nostra but quodam modo tanquam terra revertens and not to take the natural profits of it for the Termor hath such properly that he shall have an Action of Trespass Quare clausum fregit But the intent and meaning of the Queen is to be regarded and that is the surest way to have right intelligence of the Grants of the King For here the Queen hath reserved but 19 l. Rent which is the proper and ancient Rent of the Lands in possession and if Lands in Reversion should also pass the Rent of which was 6 l. per annum then upon the whole Grant but 19 l. being reserved the Queen should lose 6 l. per annum of her ancient Rent which should be contrary to the intent and meaning of the Queen and the intent of the Grantor even in the Case of a Subject shall direct the construction of Grants As 9 H. 6. Br. Grants 5 by Babington A Man grants Common in his whole Lands he shall not have Common in his Orchards Gardens or Meadows for such was the meaning of the Grantor a fortiori in the Case of the King. It hath been argued That the former Lease ought not to be recited because that after the first Lease made by King Henry the 8th the Inheritance hath been in a Subject that is the Bishop of Bath and Wells but the same is not so For if the King makes a Lease for years and afterwards Grants the Reversion upon Condition which after is broken and so found by Office by which the Reversion is reduced to the King If now the King will make a new Lease he ought to recite the former Estate notwithstanding the mean grant of the Reversion or else such second Lease is void Another matter hath been Objected wherefore the former Lease ought not to be recited and that is because it is determined by surrender in Law before that the new Lease takes effect Sir the same is not so for the former Lease is in being as the Case betwixt Fulmerston and Steward 1 Mar. Plow Com. 106. upon the Statute of Monasteries 31 H. 8. See the words of the Statute whereof and wherein any Estate or Interest for years at the time of the making of any such Lease had his being or continuance And an Abbot made such a Lease to one who had a term for years of a former Grant although here be a Surrender yet this Case is within the said Statute and the said former Lease shall be said to have his being at the time of the making of the later Lease and the Surrender shall not be said so to preceed the making of the Lease but that the former Lease shall be said in Esse at the time of the making of the later Lease And in our Case it shall not be taken for any Surrender for then the Queen shall lose 6 l. of her ancient Rent and Revenue and always when the Title of the King and of the Subject concur the Title of the King shall be preferred as 43 E. 3. The King Lord Mesne and Tenant The Tenant pays his Rent at the day to the Mesne before Noon and then the same day before Night the Mesne dieth his Heir within age the King shall be paid the Rent again for here the Title of the King and the Subject concur together at one time and in that the King shall be preferred and so he prayed Iudgment for the Defendant And afterwards at another day the Iustices declared their Opinions and by Wray Chief Iustice We all agree That the first Lease ought to be recited and the reason which hath been urged against that point hath reduced us to be of that Opinion scil That the second Lease was made to the first Patentee and the King doth not make the recital but the party ought to inform the King of all former Estates of the said Lands and that he might well do for he is well knowing of them and although that the Reversion after the first Lease made hath been conveyed to a Subject the same is not material here forasmuch as the second Estate is made to him who had the first Estate and might know whether the first Estate were determined or not Also by the re-purchase the King is in Statu quo prius Gawdy Iustice although that the former Term be drowned by the taking of the second Lease yet it was in being at the time of the taking of it as it is holden by Bromley in the Case of Fulmerston and Steward It is determined by the second Lease and yet it was in being at the time of the making of it Fenner Iustice to the same intent Clench Iustice If the Grant of the Queen shall enure to two intents then the Queen should lose 6 l. per annum of her ancient Revenue It was agreed by all the Iustices That the general words in as much as they are restrained to a certainty would pass the thing si caetera essent paria contrary if they had remained in the generalty and afterwards Iudgment was given Quod querens nihil Capiat per Billam CCCXXXVIII Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 4 Len. 233. A Man 30 Eliz. made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his Son and his Heirs The Father and the Feoffees before issue for Mony by Deed granted and enfeoffed J.S. and his Heirs who hath not notice of the first use The Tenant for life hath issue and dieth the issue entreth Glanvil the use limited to the first Son is destroyed for without regress of the Feoffees it cannot rise and it is gone by their Livery See the Case in Plowden 349. and also he vouched the Case of the Earl of Kent where by the Release of the surviving Feoffee 2 Roll. 797. Plow 347. a Sleeping-Vse was destroyed and could not after be revived Harris the use may rise without entries of the Feoffees and he put a difference between an
Eliz. Leon. 166. Lib. 1. was this Term adjudged upon the Devise That the Survivour shall be each others Heir It was holden That all the surviving Brothers are Ioynt-Tenants and although this word Survivour be in the singular number yet in sense upon the whole matter it shall be taken and construed as for the plural number Survivour shall be each others Heir i. e each Survivour i.e. every Survivour i.e. All the Survivours and then in this case The Plaintiff and the Defendant being Ioynt-Tenants cannot maintain an Action of Trespass one against the other CCCLIII Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. BY the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 37. The Executors of a Grantee of a Rent-Charge may distrain for the Arrearages of the said Rent in the life of the Testator so long as the Land charged doth continue in the seisin or possession of the Tenant in Demesne who ought immediately to have paid the said Rent or in the seisin of any other person or persons claiming the said Lands only by and from the said Tenant by purchase gift or descent in like manner as the Testator might or ought to have done in his life-time It was now moved If A. grant a Rent-charge to B. the Rent is behind B. dieth A. enfeoffeth C. in Fee who divers years after enfeoffeth D. who divers years after enfeoffeth E. It was holden in this Case by Walmesley Periam and Windham Iustices That E. should be chargeable with the Arrearages to the Executors Anderson Chief Iustice held the contrary But they all agreed That the Lord by Escheat Tenant in Dower or by the Curtesie should not be chargeable for they did not claim by the Party only but also by the Law. CCCLIV. Leverett and Townsend's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case for disturbing him of hs Common 3 Cro. 198. 2 Len. 184. The Plaintiff declared That he was seised in Fee of a Messuage and certain Lands And that he and all those whose Estate he hath have Common of Pasture in 16 Acres of Lands called D. from the time that the Corn is reaped until it be sowen again And also Common of Pasture in Land called R. omni tempore anni as appendant to the said Messuage and Land and that the Defendant had plowed the said Lands and so disturbed him of his Common It was moved in stay of Iudgment That it appeareth here that the Plaintiff was seised in Fee and so he ought to have an Assise and not an Action upon the Case But the Exception was disallowed by the Court. Vide inde Ante 13. 2 H. 4. 11. 8 Eliz. Dyer 250. 11 R. 2. Tit. Action upon the Case 36. CCCLV. The Chamberlain of London's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THE Chamberlain of London brought an Action of Debt in the Mayors Court in Guild-hall 5 Co. grounded upon an Act of Common Council See C. 5 Part The matter was removed into the Kings Bench by Corpus cum causa Fleetwood Recorder of London prayed a Procedendo It was Objected That they of London could not make Ordinances to bind the Subjects as an Act of Parliament To which It was said by Fleetwood That the Custom of the City is That the Mayor and Aldermen and four persons chosen out of each Ward by the Communalty may make Ordinances which they call Acts of Common Council and they shall bind every Citizen and Free-man and all their Customs are confirmed by Act of Parliament and by Magna Charta which hath been confirmed 52 times and also by the Statute of 7 R. 2. For that King seised their Liberties and drove them to pay for the Redemption of them 100000 Marks and then the said King confirmed them unto them for ever and therefore this Ordinance being made according to our Custom ought not to be impeached As in Case of matters of the Forrest If one be punished for offending against an Ordinance made for the governing of the Affairs of the Forrest you cannot remove the matter before you So is the Law called Lex Idumaea concerning Rivers and Fishing in which are divers Ordinances That none shall kill Salmons at certain Seasons of the year and so of other Fishes If one be punished by force of such Law he shall not be relieved here for the Law of the Land hath always allowed such particular Customs And see F. B. If two Merchants put their Stocks together and so Traffick together and the one dieth The Survivor shall not have the whole Stock as the Common Law is but the Executor of him that dieth shall have an Accompt against the other and that is per Legem mercatoriam Cook to the same intent This Act of Common Council is good and according to the Law that is of Common Right There are divers Statutes made for the true making of Cloth and to take away the abuses and deceit in the making of it and this Act of Common Council is for the well executing of the said Statutes and I conceive there is a difference in making of Laws by a Corporation A Corporation may make an Act for the better executing of any Law established at the Common Law but new Laws they cannot make As those of a Town who have used to have Common in certain Lands they cannot make a By-Law That such a one in such a Town shall not have Common there but that none shall use his Common but at such a time such a By-Law made is good See 15 H. 7. 21 H. 7. 40. See 8 E. 2. tit Assise 413. A Town had Common of Turbary in a Marsh and divers of the Inhabitants of the Town had made Trenches in the said Marsh and some had not a full Foot of Land in the Town and such persons by their Trenches which they had made there used to carry Turffs out of the said Marsh by Boats and sell them unto the value of 20 Marks per annum to their great private profit and to the great grievance of the others For which cause It was provided by common assent of the Freeholders of the Lord of the said Town That all the Trenches in the said Marsh should be stopped so as from thenceforth no Turffs be carried in Boats by the Trenches And there it was holden That if the greater part of the Commoners assent the same shall bind the others who have not assented for ubi major pars ibi totum And then if such Towns may make Laws a fortiori The City of London Secondly This Law is good by Custom for they have used to make such Acts and Ordinances time out of mind c. and these Customs are confirmed by Act of Parliament and also they may appoint a penalty for to what purpose otherwise should they make an Act Oderunt peccare mali formidine poenae Also this Action is maintainable for an Amercement in a Court Baron an Action of Debt lieth Gawdy Iustice 44 E. 3. 19.
Middlesex may inquire by inquest of Office of the Customs in London C. 127. Inrollments If a Lease enrolled be lost the Jur. is not of any effect A. 329. Where a Deed may operate both by the Statute of Inrollment and of Uses C. 16. What is a good Plea against a Deed enrolled A. 183 184 B. 121. How the time is accompted for the six Months A. 183 184. If it be enrolled non refert if it were acknowledged C. 84. How a Corporation must acknowledge a Deed C. 84. Intendment Where two several quantities of Acres shall not be intended all one A. 44. Where the intent of a Man is traversable ib. 50. Where issuable B. 215. Where and how the Law construes the Intent of one who enters in Land A. 127. Where mentioning a Rent of 8 l. and after saying 8 l. Rent is intended the same Rent without the word praedict ' A. 173. How far the Law takes matters by Intendment in Wills Deeds c. A. 204 210 211. St. Martins and St. Michaels day what Feasts by Intendment A. 241. Where want of an Averment is aided by Intendment A. 281. C. 42 43. Where Baron and Feme are vouched it is intended to be in right of the Feme A. 291. If a Service be reserved according to the value of the Land it is intended the then present value B. 117. C. 114. Seisin in Fee is intended to continue until the contrary appear C. 42 43 96. Intrusion Bar therein by Grant of the King A. 9. Into the Rectory and receiving the Tithes A. 48. Disceit is no Bar therein for nullum tempus occurrit Regi B. 31 32. The Information is prout patet per recorda If the Defendant plead a Title If he need to traverse nul tiel record B. 30 31. If every continuance is a new Intrusion where the first Entry was lawful B. 206 207. Joynt-Tenants and Tenants in Common One Joynt-Tenant of the next avoidance to a Church Ecclesia vacante releases to his Companion nihil operatur A. 167. Cannot sue one the other in Trespass for their Lands A. 174. C. 228 229. Where two shall be Joynt-Tenants or Tenants in Common of an Estate tail A. 213 214. Two Joynt-Tenants are disleised by two to one of whom one Joynt-Tenant releaseth the other enters he is Tenant in Common to the Relessee A. 264. One Joynt-Tenant cannot grant to or enfeoff his Companion A. 283. If a Joynt-Tenant and a Tenant in Common may joyn in debt for Rent and make a general Count where one is to have a greater share B. 112. Devise to two to be equally divided if it be an Estate in Common or a Joynt B. 129. C. 9. If one Joynt-Tenant accept a Lease of the Land from his Companion he is estopt to claim by Survivor B. 159. Pleading of Joynt-Tenancy in abatement by Fine or Deed Stat. 34 E. 1. 8. B. 161 162. Joynder en Action Action Plea. Three Tenants in a Praecipe cannot vouch severally A. 116. Two Defendants justifie severally and the Plaintiff says joyntly de injuriis suis propr ' c. and good A. 124. Tenant for life and he in remainder in tail joyn in prescription A. 177. Where two Joynt-Tenants or Tenants in Common shall joyn in one Formedon A. 213 214. In what real Actions who shall joyn or sever A. 293 294 317. In a Writ of Error the like A. 293 294. Who shall joyn in a Writ of Error or in Conspiracy or Attaint A. 317. Three joyn in Action upon the Statute of Hue-and-Cry and adjudged good Quod est mirum A. 12. Covenant to two quolibet eorum both must joyn B. 47. C. 161. If one is obliged to account to three he may do it to any one B. 75 76. Debt upon a Judgment against three cannot be brought against one only B. 220. Two Infants Joynt-Tenants cannot joyn in a Dum fuit infra aetatem C. 255. Ioynture What alienation of a Feme of her Joynture is within the Statute 11 H. 7. 20. A. 261 262. Iourneys Accompts If Error lies for the Heir upon death of his Ancestor by Journeys Accounts Quaere A. 22. Issues joyn One joynt replication de injuriis suis propriis to two justifications adjudged good A. 124. Is called in the Civil Law Lis contestata A. 278. If an Advowson be appendant or in gross A. 323. How it shall be joyned upon pleading Ancient Demesne A. 333. Upon special Bastardy A. 335. Issue in an Inferior Court triable out of their Jurisdiction not triable in the Courts at Westm B. 37. Mis-joyn for that the Plaintiff in Covenant altered a word from the Covenant B. 116. In Replevin upon absque hoc that he took them as Bailiff B. 215. Iudgment Upon the Defendant rendring himself in discharge of his Bail A. 58. The Defendant pleads a frivolous Plea which is found for the Plaintiff Judgment shall be entred as by Nihil dicit Nullo habito respectu c. A. 68. In a Sur cui in vita for part of the Messuage demanded A. 152. In Ejectment Quod quer recuperet possessionem is as good as Termin A. 175. Quod Capiatur well enough although pardoned by Act of Oblivion A. 167 300. Shall not be for the Plaintiff if by the Record it appears the Plaintiff hath no cause of Action or that the Action is brought before the Debt due A. 186 187. B. 99 100. C. 86 87. Entred as of a day past where the Defendant dies while after Verdict the Court takes time to consult of the Law A. 187. In what cases the Judges may give Judgment by sight of an Almanack A. 242. Judgment for the Plaintiff in Trespass although the Defendant died before the Writ of Inquiry returned A. 236. In Forcible Entry for treble Costs and Damages A. 282. Nihil de fine qui a pardonatur not good because the Defendant does not plead the Pardon A. 300 301. In Trespass or Case may be arrested after the first Judgment A. 309. Arrest of Judgment shewed in writing in the Exchequer B. 40. Judgment final upon a Verdict in a Counter-plea in Aid B. 52. Where it shall be reversed in part or in all B. 177 178. Against the Heir where his Plea is found against him is general against all Lands C. 3. Iurisdiction The Spiritual Court hath Jurisdiction where right of Tithes comes in question between two Parsons A. 59. In what Cases the Spiritual Court may have Jurisdiction for Slanders B. 53. If the Court hath not Jurisdiction of the Action all is void but other faults make the proceedings only voidable B. 89. One cannot plead to the Jurisdiction of the Court after Imparlance C. 214 215. Iour in Court dies Iuridicus What things may be done upon day extrajudicial B. 206 207. Iustices and Iudges Whether Justice of Peace in a Vill may be by Prescription A. 106. In what Inferior Courts who are Judges A. 217 228 242 316. B. 34. If a Judge may take