Tho. Henage Hungate's Case the Queen leased for years unto Hungate provided that he should not do Waste Waste is done the Queen granted the Reversion to Sir Tho. Henage Office is found the Grantee entred and his entry was adjudged lawfull and that the Queen should have the mean profits from the time of the Waste done untill the time of the Grant. Some say Sir Walter Mildmay's Case that that case was not adjudged but compounded And he vouched Sir Walter Mildmay's Case The Lord Sturton held Lands of the Queen in Knights-service and was attainted of Felony by which the Lands escheated to the Queen who granted those Lands and it was holden that the Queen should have the mean profits betwixt the time of the Felony committed and the Grant. And after in the principal Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff scil the Patentee of the Queen against the Lessee who cast in a Writ of Error and by his Council prayed That the Writ of Error be not broken open untill the Iudgment be entred Manwood The Iudgment hath reference and relation unto the first day of this Term and therefore do not doubt of that CLXXIX Sted 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer 3 Len. 259. STed of Great Melton in the County of Oxford was assessed to 7 s. for Fifteens and upon refusal to pay it the Collectors distrained the Beasts of Sted and sold them Sted brought Trespass thereupon in the King's-Bench and the Collector exhibited his Bill into this Court against Sted who shewed by his Council That the Statute of 29 Eliz. which enacted this Fifteen provideth That the said Fifteen shall be levyed of the movable Goods and Chattels and other things usual to such Fifteens and Tenths to be contributary and chargeable and shewed farther that the Cattel distrained were tempore districtionis upon the Gleab Land of a Parsonage presentative which he had in Lease which Gleab Land is not chargeable usually to Fifteens granted by the Temporalty nor the Chattels upon it But it was the Opinion of the whole Court Although that the Parson himself payeth Tenths to the King yet the Lay-Farmor shall pay Fifteens and his Cattel are distrainable for it even upon the Gleab Land of the Parsonage and therefore it was adjudged that in the principal Case the Distress and Sale were good and lawfull CLXXX The Dean and Chapter of Winsors Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer 3 Len. 258. IN this Case it was moved If one hath a Rectory impropriate and by the Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 3. is to pay an annual Rent for the same in the name of a Tenth and by that is discharged of Tenths and first fruits If he shall have the Privilege of the Exchequer for he is to pay the same sum yearly And the Barons were of Opinion that he should not for so every one who is to pay any Tenths or first fruits should draw another who sueth him into the Exchequer and so all Controversies concerning Tithes and Parsonages should be drawn hither which should be a great prejudice to the Spiritual Courts But Egerton Conier's Case Solicitor vouched a Case scil Conier's Case where the King gave a Parsonage to a Priory in Frankalmoign and the Tithes thereof being withdrawn the Prior impleaded him who withdrew his Tithes in the Exchequer and in that Case it was holden that the Prior should have the Privilege for the King is in danger to lose his Patronage or rather his Foundership if the Rectory be evicted Gent Baron The Tenant of the King in chief or he who pays first fruits or he who holds of the Queen in Fee-Farm shall not have in such respect the Privilege here Quaere CLXXXI Cony and Beveridge 's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 3 Len. 216. IN Debt upon a Bond the Case was That the Plaintiff leased unto the Defendant certain Lands lying in the County of Cambridge rendring Rent and afterwards the Defendant became bounden to the Plaintiff in a Bond for payment of the said Rent upon which Bond the Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt in the County of Northampton to which the Defendant pleaded payment of the Rent without shewing the place of payment and upon payment they were at issue and found for the Plaintiff by Nisi prius in the County of Northampton In Arrest of Iudgment it was moved that the issue was mis-tryed for here the payment of the Rent being pleaded without shewing the place of payment it shall be intended that the Rent was paid upon the Land which is in the County of Cambridge See 44 E. 3. 42. Anderson was of opinion that no Iudgment should be given for the cause aforesaid Rhodes and Windham contrary for it doth not appear that the issue is mis-tried because that no place of payment is pleaded and it might be for any thing is shewed that the Rent was paid in the County of Northampton CLXXXII Berry and Goodman 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Ejectione Firmae upon a special Verdict the point was Ow. 95 96. One intruded upon the possession of the Queen into Lands in Kisgrave in Suffolk and during this Intrusion the Queen granted these Lands to A. B. by her Letters Patents and the Patentee before any Entry made in the said Land granted the same over Some held that the Grant was good for the Intruder had gained nothing against the Queen and by the Grant of the Queen and the assignment over nothing accrued to him and where a man hath possession of Lands his continuance therein cannot gain to him any interest or increase his Estate without some other act done of later time If the Guardian do continue in possession after the full age of the Heir he is not a Disseisor nor hath any greater Estate in the Lands and upon the Book of 21 E. 3. 2. this Case was collected The Tenant of the King dieth his Heir within age a stranger intrudes the Heir at full age sueth his Livery out of the King's hands the Intruder dieth in possession the same descent shall not take away Entry Coke contrary The Intruder cannot be Tenant at sufferance for at first he enters by wrong and none can be Tenant at sufferance but he who comes in by Title And it is clear That the Intruder by his first Entry doth not gain any Estate in possession upon which he can have an Action of Trespass but after the Grant of the Queen he hath presently Fee by wrong 8 H. 4. 129. A stranger enters upon the King to which he hath right in the right of the Ward yet the Freehold doth remain in the Heir And he said that if A. levyeth a Fine to B. sur Conusans de droit c. now the Conusee hath possession in Law but not in fact and if before the entry of the Conusee W. entreth and dieth seised he hath no remedy for he had not possession
against a general Statute of which every one ought to take notice Periam When the Case was in the Common Pleas it was moved If of a sentence given by the high Commissioners an Appeal did lie and it was certified by Clark Doctor of the civil Law that it did for the Commissioners are as the Delegates of the Queen And as by the Canon Law one might appeal from the Delegates of the Pope unto the person of the Pope so now one may appeal from the high Commissioners to the person of the Queen See for that 24 H. 8. 12. Another Error was assigned because that the Commission gave authority to the Commissioners to adjudge upon confession of the party or upon the witnesses but here none of these two ways is found by the Verdict but sentence was given upon his Plea That he was sued in the Arches for the same cause and so they have not pursued their authority for the Act is That such Commissioners shall have authority by vertue of the said Act and of the said Letters Patents to exercise c. And they are directed by the Letters Patents that they shall proceed upon due proof had by confession or true witness to give sentence Periam Although they have not observed the due form prescribed unto them by the Letters Patents yet such sentence is not void Anderson If the party appeareth and will not answer it shall be taken pro confesso and he shall be condemned CCXVII Sir John Sand 's and Packsal Brocas 's Case Trin. 38 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. SIR John Sands brought an Action upon the Case against Packsal Brocas upon a Trover of goods and houshold-stuff The Defendant pleaded as to parcel that they were fixed to his Freehold in S. in Hampshire Absque hoc that he found them in other manner as to the part that the Plaintiff gave them to him at D. in Hampshire and as to the other part he pleaded Not guilty For the first part the Plaintiff caused it to be entred Non vult ulterius prosequi and took issue upon the two other and it was found for the Plaintiff by several Iuries in several Counties and damages and costs assessed by the Iuries and now the Defendant brought Error and assigned Error i. because the Plaintiff as to the first had entred Non vult ulterius prosequi which is a Non-suit and Non-suit in part is Non-suit in all Anderson It is a Question if this be a Non-suit The entry is Querens venit gratis concessit that as to the goods mentioned in the first Pleas Non vultulterius prosequi Ideo consideratum est quod nihil de iisdem versus the Defendant fiat est ille pleg in miseric the Defendant eat inde sine die Periam A Non-suit is when the Plaintiff is demanded and doth not appear but when he comes into Court and saith Quod non vult ulterius prosequi the same is a Retraxit Nelson Prothonotary Non-suit is upon default but here the Plaintiff appears and this is the usual form of entry of a Retraxit Another Error was assigned because both Iuries have assessed costs and Iudgment given according whereas the last Verdict ought to do it And where two Iuries are to try the issue the form of the entry after the first Verdict is Cesset executio untill the other issue be tryed Vid. 21 H. 6. 51. 36 H. 6. 13. Anderson Several issues cannot sever the costs although they may the damages for it is but one suit therefore but one costs and that is the reason that Iudgment shall not be given untill the last issue be tryed because that costs shall be but once assessed which was granted by the whole Court And by Periam The first Iury may assess costs for the whole suit Quod fuit concessum Coke Here are several Iudgments for the costs and although it be void for the later issue yet it is good for the first Periam How shall it appear unto us which Verdict was the first and which the last although that the one Verdict be entred of Record before the other the same doth not make that it was first given wherefore the whole shall be reversed CCXVIII Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 224. A Man 30 Eliz. made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his first son and his heirs The father and the Feoffees before issue for money by Deed give grant and enfeoff J. S. and his heirs who hath not notice of the use The Tenant for life hath issue and dieth the issue entreth Glanvile The use limited to the first son is destroyed for without regress of the Feoffees it cannot rise and that the same is gone by their Livery See Plowden's Com. 340. And also he vouched the case of the Earl of Kent whereby the release of the surviving Feoffee a sleeping use was destroyed and could not afterwards be revived Harris The use may rise without entry of the Feoffees And he put a difference between uses created before the Statute and uses created after for in the first case they ought to enter and if they be disabled by any Act as in the case betwixt Gascoign and the Earl of Kent they shall never rise but in the later case all the authority and confidence is by the Statute out of the Feoffees and the uses contingent shall rise without aid of the Feoffees by the operation of the Law for the land is bound to the uses and charged with them As upon a Recovery in a Warrantia Chartae the land of the Defendant is charged pro loco tempore and according to the common experience in Conveyances for the payment of the Debts of the King as in the case betwixt Breden and Dennis The Debtor of the King makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his heirs untill he makes default of payment of such a sum unto the King at such a day and upon default to the use of the King and his heirs Cooper There needs no entry of the Feoffees and he put the difference put before by Harris betwixt an use created before and an use created after the Statute And now the Feoffees have not any power to revive or destroy such cases but are onely as instruments to convey the uses for the use is created upon the Livery and is transferred by the Statute if the person to whom the use is limited be capable thereof at the time of the limitation thereof but if not the Law shall preserve the same and it cannot by any means be prevented And he put the case of Bro. Feoff to Uses 50. 30 H. 8. And there is a great difference betwixt an Vse limited before the Statute and after the Statute for now after the Statute the Feoffees have not any seisin whereof they may make a Feoffment And he put the case between Cheney and Oxenbridge Cheney leased to Oxenbridge for
B. for life and if A. before such a day shall pay 10 l. to the Feoffor then to the use of the said A. for life the same is a good use to begin upon the said condition and yet if it had been limited in possession it had been otherwise and that an Vse may begin upon a contingency see the case 27 H. 8. 5. A Covenant is made by Indenture betwixt A. and B. that the Son of A. shall marry the Daughter of B. upon which B. pays 100 l. to A. and the said A. doth covenant that if the said marriage doth not take effect that then the Feoffees of the said A. shall suffer the said B. his Executors and Assigns to have the issues and profits of certain Lands until B. his Executors and Assigns shall be contented and satisfied of the sum aforesaid by the said A. his Executors or Assigns there if the marriage doth not take effect upon such contingent the use shall rise to B. And see 30 H. 8. Br. Feoffs to Uses 50. A. covenants with B. that then B shall enfeoff A. of the Manor of D. then B. and his Heirs shall be seised of the Manor of D. to the use of the said A. and his Heirs Now if A. enfeoffeth B. ut supra then c. vide librum And here in our case the second Wife doth not hold joyntly with her Husband for their Estates do not begin together for the Husband is in of his ancient Estate which he had during the first marriage notwithstanding the words of limitation to the said Husband and his second Wife but she shall take by way of Remainder Harper Iustice Vses began about 18 E. 2. after which time there was such a general liking of them that they were anew used but they did not come into common practice before the time of King Henry the sixth when the great contention fell out betwixt the two great Houses of York and Lancaster at which time Vses were in great estimation for the safety of Inheritances Afterwards Vses by practices became mischievous and prejudicial to the publick Iustice of the Realm and to many particular persons for some timentes implacitari conveyed their Lands secretly to uses so as he who had right knew not against whom to bring his action and for that divers Statutes have been made to enable the Subject to implead the pernor of the profits 4 H. 4. 7. 11 H. 6. 4. 1 H. 7. And as to the making of the Statute of 27 H. 8. the truth is that the King was displeased for the loss of Wardships and other injuries done to him for which cause he complained to the Iudges of the defect of the Law in that case who therefore shewed unto the King the causes of those injuries and losses to the King and farther shewed to the King That if the possession might be joyned to the use all would go well and all the injuries wrong and loss which came to the King by reason of such Vses Wills and secret Feoffments would be avoided For which the King commanded his Council to frame a Bill to that purpose and present it to the House of Commons in the 24 year of his Reign but it was then rejected and the King at that time would have been contented that the fourth part of the Land onely should descend and from that time the King stayed farther proceedings in the said cause until 27 H. 8. at which time it took effect And their cure was to pen the Statute so precisely that nothing should be left in the Feoffees but that the whole Estate should be executed by the Statute so as the said Statute did utterly take out all from the Feoffees Whereas it hath been said That a Vse hath been as long as any Marriage hath been and so conceived upon the Writ Causa Matrimonii prolocuti the same is not any reason for in that Case there is not any Confidence or Trust for if the marriage doth not take effect the woman shall have her Writ de Causa Matrimonii prolocuti In Conveyances we are to respect two things the form and the effect of it and in all cases where the form and the effect cannot stand together the form shall be rejected and the effect shall stand A Lease for life is made to a Feme sole she takes Husband the Lessor confirms to both of them the Husband cannot take any Estate presently according to the words of the Confirmation but because the Will of the Lessor is that an estate shall accrue to the Husband he shall have it as the Law will by way of Remainder So Lands are given to an Abbat and a secular man the form of the words purport a joynt Estate but that by Law cannot be and therefore they shall take as the Law will rather than not at all In our case here The limitation of the Vse cannot be pursued precisely according to the words which are viz. If the Husband over-live his said first Wife then to the use of the said Husband and his Wife which shall be which in words is a joynt Estate and therefore the words shall be construed After the death of the first Wife unto the use of the Husband until he marrieth and afterwards to the use of him and his second Wife in which case they shall take joyntly Dyer chief Iustice As to the beginning of Vses See Bacon's Reading upon this Stat. he conceived that the same was immediately after the Statute of Mortmain at which time all their shifts then in practice were found out which see the Statute of Mortmain 7 E. 1. Stat. de Religiosis for which cause they were after driven to find out other shifts not provided for by the Statute which were espyed by the making of the Statute of 15 R. 2. cap. 5. and in that Statute these words Behoof and Use are used which is the first place those words have been used in our Law and yet long time before that Statute Uses had been in practice as appeareth in the Exchequer 34 E. 3. the which in the time of Queen Mary when the said Record was shewed in the Exchequer to the Iustices the effect of which Record was That Walter de Chirton who was Customer of the King became indebted to the King in the sum of 18000 l. and with that the King's money had purchased in the name of his friends to defraud the King many Lands and took the profits of them those Lands so purchased were extended to the use and for the King in payment of his Debt as well as if Walter de Chirton himself had been seised of them and that by the advice of the Chancellor and the chief Iustices Now Vses by tract of time have grown in credit so as Cestuy que use have been sworn in Inquests and by the Law they might justifie the maintaining of their Feoffees when they had been impleaded which they could not have done if they had not more
è contr 17 E. 3. 8. A man may make a Feoffment of a Manor by the name of a Knights Fee à fortiori in case of the Devise and in our case the Marquiss conceived That the Rent and Services reserved out of the Manor of Fremmington was the Manor of Fremmington and the Law shall give strength to that intention Walmsly conceived That the Rent did not pass by the name of Manor c. for this Rent nec in rei veritate nor in reputation was ever taken for a Manor Also the words Of the Manor and Hundred of Fremmington are put amongst others which are Manors in truth by which it seemeth That the Devisor did not intend to pass but one Manor and no other Hereditaments by that Manor of Fremmington It is a Rule in Law That in the construction of a Will a thing implyed shall not controul a thing expressed But here if by implication the Rent shall pass then the Manor of Camfield shall not pass which it was the intent of the Devisor to pass and that by express words See 16 Elizab. Dyer 330. Clatche's Case and see 16 Eliz. Dyer 333. Chapman's Case But in our Case here there are not any sufficient words to warrant any implication for neither in truth nor in reputation was it taken to be a Manor 22 H. 6. 2. Green Acre might pass by the name of a Manor although it were but one Acre of Land because known by the name of a Manor See accordingly 22 H. 6. 39. And see where before the Statute of Vses a man had Recoverors to his use and he wills by his Will That his Trustees should sell his Lands they may sell And he said That if a man seised of a Manor parcell in Demesne and parcell in service and he grants the Demesnes to one and his Heirs and afterwards deviseth his Manor peradventure the services shall pass but this Rent hath no resemblance to a Manor Gawdy This Rent shall pass by the name aforesaid Favourable construction is to be always given to Wills according to the intent of the Devisor and no part of a Will shall be holden void if by any means it may take effect then here it appeareth that his meaning was that upon these words every thing should pass to the Devisee concerning the said Manor of Fremmington for otherwise the words of the Manor of Fremmington should be void and frivolous which shall not be in a Will if any reasonable construction can be 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 Devisor the said Devisor had any thing in the said Manor of Fremmington but onely the said Rent of one hundred and thirty pounds And it may well be taken that the Devisor being ignorant what thing a Manor is though that the Rent was a Manor because that he had Rents and services out of the Manor For in construction of Wills the words shall serve the intent of the party 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 Testator naming the Vendors is sufficient And see Plowden 20 Eliz. 5. 24. L. after the Statute of 27 H. 8. deviseth that his Executors shall be seised to the use of A. and his Heirs in Fee whereas then there was no Feoffees to his use the same was holden a good Devise of the Lands of A. and the Iudges conceived that the Devisor was ignorant of the operation of the Statute in such case and therefore his ignorance was supplied See Br. Devises 44. 29 H. 8. A. had Feoffees to his use and afterwards after the Statute of 27 H. 8. 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 See 26 H. 6. Feoff 12. A Carve of Lands may pass by the name of a Manor Ergo à multo fortiori Rent for Rents and Services have more nearness and do more resemble a Manor than a Carve of Lands and it cannot be intended that the meaning of the Testator was to grant the Manor it self in which she had nothing especially by her Will for covin collusion or indirect dealing shall not be presumed in a Will Also the Marchioness for four years together before her death had the Rent and Services of the said Manor and she well knew that she had not any other thing in the said Manor but the said Rent and Services and therefore it shall be intended that that was her Manor of Fremmington A. seised of a Capital Messuage and great Demesnes lying to it leaseth the same for years rendring Rent and afterward deviseth to another all his Farm lying in such a place It was rated in that case that by that Devise the Rent and the Reversion should pass See the Case betwixt Worselie and Adams Plowd 1 Eliz. 195. by Anthony Brown and Dyer Periam Iustice was of opinion that this Rent might be divided well enough But by Anderson It is but Rent-seck but Periam said it was a Rent distrainable of common Right but all of them agreed that the Rent might be divided but there should not be two Tenures And the Lord Montjoy being advised that this Rent did not pass by the Grant but descended to the Heir being the full part of the whole entred into all the residue of the Lands and made a Lease of the Manor of Camfield unto the Plaintiff upon which entry the Ejectione firmae was brought and afterwards the Plaintiff seeing the opinion of the Court to be against him and for the Devisee of the Rent by the name aforesaid did afterward discontinue his suit c. LVIII Costard and Wingfield 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. Intrat T. 28 Eliz. Rot. 507. In the Common-Pleas 6 Co. 60. IN a Replevin the Defendant did avow for damage-feasant by the commandment of his Master the L. Cromwel The Plaintiff by way of Replication did justifie the putting in of his cattel into the Land where c. by reason that the Town of N. is an ancient Town and that it had been used time out of mind c. That every Inhabitant of the said Town had had common for all manner of cattel levant and couchant within the said Town and so justified The Defendant said that the house in which the Plaintiff did inhabit in the said Town and by reason of residency in which House he claimed common was a new house erected within 30 years and that before that time there had not been any house there upon which the Plaintiff did demurr Shuttleworth Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff That he should have common there by reason of resiancy in the said new house and he said that the Resiancy is the cause and not the Land nor the person thereof and thereupon he put the Case of
upon the floor there so as vi ponderis it fell down To which the Defendant hath said That the walls were ruinous in occultis partibus and doth not answer to the surcharging scil Absque hoc that he did surcharge it Clark Baron It is a general Rule That every material thing alledged in the pleading ought to be traversed confessed and avoided which the Defendant hath not done here but he would excuse himself through the default of another and answer nothing to that with which he himself is charged And afterwards Iudgment was given in the Court of Exchequer for the Plaintiff Whereupon afterwards the Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber where the Case was argued again But there the Iudgment given in the Court of Exchequer was affirmed See this Case reported short in Popham's Reports lately published CXVII Linacre and Rhode 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Co. Rep. Blomfield's Case 3 Len. 230. THE Case was That Linacre was bound in a Statute and his body taken in Execution and the Sheriff voluntarily set him at large and afterwards the Conusee sued Execution of the Lands of the Conusor who thereupon brought an Audita Querela It was moved by Yelverton Serjeant That by that voluntary discharge of him by the Sheriff the whole Execution was discharged for the Execution is intire See 15 E. 4. 5. Where the Conusee in a Statute Merchant hath the body and lands of the Conusor in Execution and afterwards the Conusee surrendreth his Estate which he hath by Extent now the Execution of his body is discharged and the Conusor shall have a Scire facias or Audita Querela to discharge his body So if three Conusors be in Execution and the Conusee doth discharge one of them the same is a discharge of them all and in the principal Case the body is the principal and therefore the discharge of the principal part of the Execution is the discharge of the whole Hammon Where the Conusee himself dischargeth the Execution in part it is good for the whole but where discharged by the Sheriff Nihil operatur Anderson If the Conusor dieth in Execution yet the Conusee shall have Execution against his Heir of his land for the having of the body in Execution is not any satisfaction to the party for his body is but a pledge untill the money be paid and there is no reason that the act of the Sheriff should discharge the Execution Windham to the same intent And if the Conusee sueth Execution and hath the body of the Conusor in Execution this day he may the next day sue Execution of the lands and the next day after of the goods and if the Conusee doth discharge the body the whole Execution is discharged and it is true That if A. recovereth against B. in an Action of Debt and B. is taken by a Capias ad satisfaciendum and afterwards the Sheriff permitteth B. voluntarily to escape here B. is discharged although it be not the act of the party for there the Plaintiff had a full Execution which is not here for in Case of Execution upon a Statute-Merchant the Execution by the body is not the full Execution and therefore although the Sheriff hath discharged the body yet the Conusee may have Execution of the goods and lands but not of the body and afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff That the Audita Querela did not lie and that Execution might be sued of the goods and lands but not of the body CXVIII Webbe and Mainard 's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Ejectione firmae The Case was Walter Goldsmith seised of certain lands made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life and after to the use of John his eldest son in Fee Proviso That after his death his said son shall pay unto his younger son William 30 l. by 3 l. per ann at the Feast of St. Michael untill the entire sum be paid and if he fail of payment then to the use of the said William and his heirs Will. Goldsmith the Feoffor dieth the money is not paid but afterwards the said younger son makes an Acquittance and thereby acknowledgeth the Receipt of the said money according to the Proviso John dieth Now if the younger son may enter And first if the younger son be concluded by that Acquittance to say that the 30 l. was not paid And if he be not concluded Then if because that the words are but words of limitation the younger brother hath Title of Entry and then if this Entry be bound by the descent from John to his Heir or if John by continuance of the possession after the breach of the Proviso be a Dissesor or not were Questions propounded to the Court which the Court took time to consider of yet it was then said That the use was settled in William and the possession executed unto it but not such a possession upon which an Assise or Trespass lieth CXIX Willis and Jermine 's Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the King's Bench. Rot. 647. IN Ejectione firmae It was found by special Verdict 1 Cro. 167. Roll Tit. Estate 830. That the Dean and Chapter of Exeter Leased the Land where c. to Jermine rendering Rent to be paid at their Chapter-house at Exeter and for default of payment that such Lease shall be void and cease and that the said Jermine conveyed his interest to the Defendant and afterward the Rent was demanded at the Chapter-house but not paid and afterwards The Dean and Chapter by the name of Dean and Chapter of St. Mary of Exeter where they are incorporate by the name of Dean and Chapter of St. Mary in Exeter make an Indenture of Lease for forty years in their Chapter-house to Willis and thereunto put their seal in the Chapter-house and made a Letter of Attorney to another to enter and to make Livery of the said Deed which was done accordingly it was moved by Harris Serjeant That this Lease made in manner c. is not good for the Corporation is misnamed i. of Exeter for in Exeter but the Court disallowed that Exception for there is not any material variance and so it was said it hath been ruled And he said that for another cause the Lease is not good for when the Dean and Chapter in their Chapter-house make this Indenture of Lease Davis Rep. 42. and set their Chapter-seal to it It was their Deed presently without other delivery and then Jermine being in possession at the time of the putting of the seal to it they were out of possession thereof and so the new Lease void because they were not in possession at the time of the making of it for no delivery is necessary to the Deed of a Corporation but the date of the sealing of it makes it a perfect Deed and then the delivery of the same by the Attorney is of no effect Wiat to the
meaning of the Obligee to have fine gold it was so taken 39 H. 6. 10. and 11. The word uterque id est quilibet pro parte sua See the Book so it was lately adjudged in the Court of Common-Pleas where three were bounden Et eorum uterque which was construed to be Quilibet for we ought always in construction of Deeds to have regard to the meaning of the parties and not to argue the aptness of the Latine word And I conceive That if a Lease be made for life the remainder puero of J. S. who hath a son and a daughter the son shall have the land c. for the most worthy shall be preferred and therefore if a Freeman marrieth a Neife she is enfranchised for ever according to the opinion of Fitzherbert which I hold to be good Law for the husband is the more worthy So if the Lease for life be made 〈◊〉 J. S. the remainder to the right heirs of A. B. who hath issue three daughters and dieth the eldest shall have the remainder and not the other with her because she is the more worthy and so a remainder upon an Estate for life of lands in Gavelkind limited to the right heirs of J. S. who hath issue two sons the eldest shall have it So here in the principal Case Puer shall be expounded son because he is the more worthy But here are other circumstances which give occasion of another construction for this doubtfull word Puer is explained by the English Indenture which the father W. Humphreston caused to be made Unto the use of the eldest Child which is a good exposition of the former Conveyance and I am of opinion that the same ought to be meant of the daughter for so soon as she is born the remainder vests in her and by the birth of the son after shall not be devested Land is leased to A. for life the remainder to T. son of A. who hath two sons of the same name the eldest shall have it because the more worthy but if afterwards the Donor declares his meaning to the contrary the same shall stand c. And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff and that the daughter should have the Lands CCLXXVI Pasch 16 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Poph. 182. Hughs Abr. Tit. Devise 657. Case 5. Savile 72 73. Dy. 371. b. Shep. Touch. 449. 15 H. 7. 12. Ante 43. Perk. 547. A Man devised his Lands to his Wife for life and because he was in doubt whether he should have issue or no he farther willed by his Will That if he should not have any issue by his Wife that then after the death of his Wife the lands should be sold and the money thereof coming distributed to three of his bloud and made his Wife and another his Executors and died The Executors proved the Will The other Executor died and the Wife sold the lands and it was the opinion of Wray and Southcote Iustices That the sale was good although it be not expressed in the Will by whom the Lands should be sold for the moneys coming of the sale are to be distributed by his Executors to persons certain as Legacies and it appertains to Executors to pay the Legacies and therefore they shall sell c. As if a man willeth That his lands shall be sold and that the moneys coming thereof shall be disposed of for the payment of his debts now the Executors shall sell the Lands for to them it belongs to pay debts Also they held 3 Cro. 278. 3. More 341. 1 Inst 113. a. 1 And. 145. that the Lands should be sold in the life of the Wife otherwise it could never be sold and also the surviving Executor shall sell the lands because the authority doth survive CCLXXVII Pasch 16 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THree men were bounden by Recognizance jointly and severally against all which the Conusee sued forth Execution by Scire facias and upon issue joined it was found for the Plaintiff in the King's-Bench and Execution awarded by Capias ad Satisfaciend And because the same erronicè emanavit being upon a Recognizance it was drawn off the File and now the Conusee brought an Action of debt upon the Iudgment against one of them and the opinion of the whole Court was that it would not lie because the Iudgment was joint against them all three CCLXXVIII Pasch 16 Eliz. In the King's-Bench A. Brought an Action upon the Case and declared That the Dean and Chapter of Westminster did lease unto him a house for years by Deed indented of which Indenture he was possessed and afterwards lost it and by Trover it came to the hands of the Defendant who sold it and converted the money thereof coming to his own use The Defendant pleaded Not guilty and the Plaintiff gave in evidence That the said Lease was made to him and to one B. and that the said Indenture was delivered to the said B. And that was agreed to be the possession of them both and afterwards B. died and afterwards A. the Plaintiff was the sole owner of it and that was holdden to be good Evidence on the part of the Plaintiff and if the Plaintiff can prove the other part of his Declaration i. e. that the Indenture came unto the hands of the Defendant and that he sold it that then he should recover But it was given in Evidence on the Defendants parts that the said B. sold to the said Defendant his part and interest in the said Lease and also the said indenture so as now he is become Tenant in common with the Plaintiff and then his sale doth not give any cause of Action to the Plaintiff and that was holden by the whole Court to be good evidence without pleading of it The Case went farther That A. being within age his father leased the lands for 20 years and afterwards the son at his full age upon the back of the Indenture did release to the Defendant all his right and it was holden by Wray Iustice That when the father leased he did it as Guardian to his son and it was not any Ejectment of the son but it was a Lease in the behalf of the son although the son might avoid it and then when the endorsment is ut supra the same is a good assignment and afterwards the Plaintiff was Nonsuit CCLXXIX Pasch 16 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That B. by his Will did devise to each of his daughters he having two daughters 200 l. and that the survivor should have the whole and shewed farther that one of his two daughters died and that B. made his Wife his Executrix and that the said wife took to husband the Defendant and farther declared That the Defendant in consideration of all that and that the Defendant should take the surviving daughter to wife and in consideration that the Defendant had Assets to pay all Debts and
Postea 82 83. IN Ejectione firmae It was found by special Verdict That Mr. Graunt was seised of the Lands c. and by his Will devised the same to Joan his Wife for life and farther he willed That when Richard his brother shall come to the age of 25 years he should have the Lands to him and the heirs of his body lawfully begotten Mr. Graunt died having issue of his body who is his heir Richard before he had attained the age of 25 years levied a Fine of the said Lands with Proclamations in the life and during the seisin of Joan to A. Sic ut partes ad finem nihil habuerunt and if this Fine should bind the Estate-tail was the Question And the Iustices cited the case of the Lord Zouch which was adjudged M. 29 and 30 Eliz. Tenant in tail discontinues to E. and afterwards levieth a Fine to B. although the partes ad finem nihil habuerunt yet the Fine shall bind the entail But the Serjeants at Bar argued That there is a great difference betwixt the Case cited and the Case at Bar for in that Case the said Fine was pleaded in Bar but here the Fine is not pleaded but found by special Verdict To which it was said by the Court that the same was not any difference For the Fine by the Statute is not any matter of Estoppel or conclusion but by the Statute doth bind and extinguish the Estate-tail and the right of it and Fines are as effectual to bind the right of the entail when they are found by especial Verdict as when they are pleaded in Bar And by Periam Collateral Warranty found by Verdict is of as great force as if it were pleaded in Bar And afterwards Iudgment was given That the Estate-tail by the Fine was utterly destroyed and extinct XLIX Jay 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas JAY brought an Action of Debt before the Mayor of Shrewsbury c. and declared upon an Obligation which was upon condition to pay money at London and issue was there joined upon the payment And it was moved how this issue should be tried viz. 4 Inst 205. If it may be removed by Certiorare into the Chancery and thence by Mittimus into the Common-Pleas and from thence sent into London to be tried and when it is tried to be remanded back to Shrewsbury to have Iudgment See 21 H. 7. 33. Vpon voucher in the County Palatine of Lancaster the Law is such in matters real for real actions cannot be sued but in the said County Palatine but in personal matters it is otherwise for such actions may be sued elsewhere at the pleasure of the party And thereunto agreed the whole Court and although such matters have been removed before yet the same were without motion to the Court or opposition of the other party and so not to be accounted Precedents See 3 H. 4. 46. abridg'd by Brook Cause de remover Plea 41. Where he saith That a Foreign Plea pleaded in London in Debt goes to the jurisdiction but upon a Foreign Voucher in a Plea real the Plea shall be removed in Bank by the Statute to try the Warranty and afterward shall be remanded L. Sands and Scagnard 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Case The Plaintiff declared that he was possessed of certain Chattels which came to the Defendant by Trover The Defendant pleaded That heretofore the Plaintiff brought Debt against the now Defendant and demanded certain moneys and declared that the Defendant bought of him the same goods whereof the Action is now brought for the summ then in demand to which the then Defendant waged his Law and had his Law by which Nihil Capiat per breve c. was entred And demanded Iudgment if c. And by Windham and Rodes Iustices The same is no bar in this Action for the waging of the Law and the doing of it utterly disproves the Contract supposed by the Declaration in the said Action of Debt and then the Plaintiff is not bound by the supposal of it but is at large to bring this Action and so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff LI. Spittle and Davie 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Owen Rep. 8 55. IN a Replevin the Case was That one Turk was seised of certain Lands in Fee and by his Will devised parcell of his said Lands to his eldest Son in tail and the residue of his Lands to his younger Son in Fee Provided that neither of my said Sons shall sell or make Leases of the Lands given or bequeathed unto them by this my Will or doe any Act with any of the said Lands to the hindrance of their children or mine by any devise or means before they come to the age of 30 years and if any of my Sons doe so then my other Son shall have the portion of my Lands so devised to his Brother the eldest Son before his age of 30 years leased the Lands to him devised ut supra for years against the intent of the said Proviso The younger Son entred 2 Cro. 398. and he leased the same Land for years before his age of 30 years Vpon which the eldest Son did re-enter and the opinion of the Court was that here is a Limitation and not a Condition and here the re-entry of the eldest Son was holden unlawfull for this Proviso did not extend but to the immediate Estate devised expresly to them and not to any new Estate which did arise upon the limitation and when the younger Son enters upon the eldest Son by the said Limitation he shall hold his Estate discharged of the Proviso or any limitation contained in it LII Martin Van Henbeck 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer AN Information was exhibited in the Exchequer against Martin Van Henbeck Merchant-stranger upon the Statute of 18 H. 6. Cap. 17. concerning the gaging of vessels of Wine and shewed That the Defendant had sold to such a one so many pipes of Wine and that none of them did contain as they ought 126. gallons and although they were so defective yet the Defendant had not defalked the price c. according to the want of measure for which he had forfeited to the Queen all the value of all the Wine so defective Exception was taken to the Information because there is not set down how much in every pipe was wanting as one or two gallons c. To as a ratable defalcation might be made according to the proportion of the want of measure But if the Informer had set forth in his Information that no defalcation was at all such general allegation of want of measure without other certainty had been good And the Case was cited 32 E. 4. 40. Lysle's Case Where the plea wants certainty or where he pleads that he was ready to shew to the Council of the Plaintiff his discharge of an Annuity c. and doth not shew
14. but contrary in a Writ of Habere facias seisinam or in a Liberate for in these Writs there are not such words and therefore although they be not retorned Execution done by virtue of them is good enough See 11 H. 4. 212. If the Sheriff by force of an Elegit doth deliver the moyety of the Land and doth not retorn the Writ if the Plaintiff will plead a new Action of Debt the Defendant may plead in Bar the Execution aforesaid although the Writ be not retorned nor doth remain upon Record and it is not like unto the Case of Partition made by the Sheriff for that must be retorned because that after the Retorn of it a secondary Iudgment is to be given scil Quod Partitio praedict firma stabilis remaneat in perpetuum firma stabilis in perpetuum tenetur says the Book of Entries 114. And Egerton the Solicitor-General cited a Case to be lately adjudged betwixt the Earl of Leicester and the Lady Tanfield Earl of Leicester and Tanfields case That such an Execution was well enough although the Liberate was not retorned The second point was Admitting that it be a good Execution If the Executors being in possession of the Manor and suffering the Conusor to hold a Court there and saying the words aforesaid in the presence of the Lord who is Conusor if the same do amount unto a Surrender or not And it was the Opinion of Wray chief Iustice That it was not a Surrender for that here the words are not addressed to the Conusor who was capable of a Surrender but to other persons And it is not like unto the Case of 40 E. 3. 23 24. Chamberlains Assise where Tenant for life saith to him in the Reversion That his Will is that he enter upon the Land the same is a good Surrender because here is a person certain who may take the Land But in our case it is but a general speech and therefore it shall not be a Surrender LXVI Baskervile and Bishop of Hereford 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit brought by Walter Baskervile against the Bishop of Hereford and others the Plaintiff counted That Sir Nicholas Arnold Knight was seised of the Advowson in gross and granted the same to the said Baskervile and others to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of Richard Arnold his Son in tail Proviso That if the said Nicholas died his Heir being within the age of twenty three years that then the Grantees and their Heirs should be seised to themselves and their Heirs until the said Richard had accomplished the said age Sir Nicholas died Richard being but of the age of fourteen years by force whereof the Grantees were possessed of the said Advowson c. and afterwards the Church became void and so it appertained to them to present Exception was taken to the Count by Serjeant Gawdy because the Plaintiff had not averred the life of Richard upon whose life the interest of the Plaintiff did depend and he compared the same to the Case of the Parson which had been adjudged where the Lessee of a Parson brought an Ejectione Firmae and it was found for him and in Arrest of Iudgment Exception was taken to the Declaration because the life of the Parson was not averred and for that cause the Iudgment was stayed Anderson Vpon the dying of Sir Nicholas Richard being but of the age of fourteen years an absolute Interest for nine years vested in the Grantees not determinable upon the death of Richard or rather they are seised of a Fee determinable upon the coming of Richard to the age of 23 years Rhodes and Windham Iustices contrary and that here is an Interest in the Grantees determinable upon the death of Richard within the term for if Richard dieth without issue within the term the Remainder is limited over to a stranger And as to the Exception to the Count it was argued by Puckering Serjeant That the Count was good enough for although the life of Richard be not expresly added yet such an averment is strongly implied and so supplyed For the Count is Quod dictus Nich. obiit dicto Richardo being of the age of fourteen years non amplius by force of which the Plaintiff was possessed of the said Advowson quo quidem Nich. sic possessionato existente the Church voided and possessed he could not be if not that the said Richard had then been alive and that is as strong as an Averment See 10 E. 4. 18. In Trespass for breaking of his Close the Defendant pleaded That A. was seised and did enfeoff him to which the Plaintiff said That long time before A. had any thing B. was seised and leased to the said A. at will who enfeoffed the Defendant upon whom B. re-entred and leased to the Plaintiff at will by force whereof he was possessed untill the Defendant did the Trespass and that was allowed to be a good Replication without averring the life of B. who leased to the Plaintiff at will for that is supplied by the words scil virtute cujus the Plaintiff was possessed untill the Defendant did the Trespass See also 10 H. 7. 12. In an Assise of Common The Defendant made Title that he was seised of a House and a Carve of Land to which he and all those whose Estate he hath c. had common appendant and doth not say That he is now seised of the House but the exception was disallowed for seisin shall be intended to continue untill the contrary be shewed LXVII Morgan and Chandler 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN Debt for Arrerages of Rent by Morgan against Chandler It was found by special Verdict That the Land out of which c. was assured by an Act of Parliament to the Marchioness of Northampton for the term of her life the remainder to the Lady Bourcher her daughter and the heirs males of her body the remainder to King H. 8. in Fee And it was ordained by the same Act Quod omnes concessiones dimissiones Anglice Grants and Leases factae vel in posterum fiendae by the said Marchioness of the Lands aforesaid per script Indentat dict Marchio bonae validae in Lege erunt durante termino c. The Marchioness made a Lease for 21 years to Kenelm Throgmorton rendring 10 l. Rent who assigned the same to the Defendant The Lady Bourcher died without Issue the Marchioness died and if the Lease should now bind the Queen was the Question And it was moved by Clark of Lincoln's-Inn That it should for the King was party to the Act of Parliament and those Estates for life in Tail and in Fee are all as one Estate and derived out of one Estate and the Estate of the King is bound with the Lease and it was moved by Broughton That the Lease should not bind the Queen and so by consequence not her Patentee and he
the Reign of King H. 8. And if the Common Law doth not warrant such Executions Truly the presidents cannot make such imprisonments lawfull without Act of Parliament It hath been said that Executions ought to be favoured that is true but also Liberty to which the Law hath special respect See the Statute of Magna Charta Nullus liber homo capiatur vel imprisonetur nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terrae and this is not Lex terrae but usage onely and Malus usus est abolendus 26 Eliz. Error was brought upon a Iudgment given in Curia de Woodstock which is a Court of Record and Error assigned for that they had awarded Execution secundum consuetudinem Villae against one who had bailed the Defendant without a Scire facias first sued forth against him i. the bailee and it was adjudged Error and the custome could not maintain it for the Bailee might have a release or other matter of discharge to plead And he cited the Case of 13 and 14 Eliz. Dyer 306. That upon a Scire facias out of a Recognizance in Chancery Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and the Warden of the Fleet was commanded to detain the Conusor in his custody in Execution for the Plaintiff and afterwards the Conusor escaped the Plaintiff not satisfied And it was holden no escape for his body was not liable in case of a Recognizance to the Execution and see also the book of Entries 500 there is a Rule put If the Recognizee will have execution within the year he may have a Fieri facias or Elegit but not a Capias ad satisfaciendum And he conceived that this Process is not onely erroneous but also utterly void As a Capias in a Formedon antea 77. contrary where in Debt a Capias is awarded after the year where it ought to be Scire facias the same is but erroneous for such Process lieth upon such Iudgment if he had not surceased his time Another matter he moved because this issue is not well tried for it was tried by Nisi prius out of the Exchequer and the Statute of West 2. cap. 30. Mar. 14 E. 3. cap. 1. do not give Nisi prius in Causes out of the Exchequer but onely out of both Benches but Causes out of the Exchequer are tried by Commission and here their Commission was insufficient for it was directed Chr. Wray and Williel Periam without saying Et eorum alteri so as it was joynt and not several and Wray at the time of the trial was as the Parliament at London and so the cause was tried before Periam onely and therefore coram non Judice At another day The Case was argued by the Barons of the Exchequer And Clark Baron conceived that the Plaintiff ought to recover and he said That upon the escape the Common Law gave an Action upon the Case against the Sheriff and the reason why the Sheriff shall be charged is that one cannot be in Execution but once and then if the Sheriff should not be charged the party Plaintiff should by negligence of the Sheriff lose his Suit and also his Debt And admit that a Capias doth not lie in the Case yet the Execution by force thereof is not void but voidable onely and Error may be assigned as well in the Execution as in the Iudgment which see 17 Ass 24. where the Recognizor in a Statute Merchant aliened the Land and afterwards the Conusee sued forth Execution so as the Land was extended supposing the payment i. Solvend 14 E. 3. whereas in truth it was 16 E. 3. and the Feoffee brought a Writ of Error thereupon and it was allowed but the Sheriff shall not take advantage of the same And truly the common course is That a Capias lieth upon a Recognizance and 7 H. 4. 101. upon a Recognizance acknowledged for the Peace a Capias lieth for the King and a Recognizance is but an Obligation of Record and wherefore should not a Capias lie thereupon as well as upon an Action brought upon an Obligation The Statute of West 2. cap. 45. Si recens sit Cognitio statim habeat Querens Breve de Executione illius Recognitionis and the Statute doth not speak in certain what manner of Writ or what manner of Execution therefore we ought to resort to the Common Law for it as that is a Capias Gent Baron argued and agreed in every point with Baron Clark. Manwood chief Baron argued That the Plaintiff should recover and he put the Case of Recognizance The Plaintiff sueth two Scire facias's upon which two Nichel's are retorned and afterwards a Levari facias and upon that also Nihil is retorned and then issueth a Capias ad satisfaciendum for to take the said Francis Woodhouse who then was in Prison for Felony upon which Capias the Sheriff did arrest him and he being afterwards convicted of Felony escaped upon this matter Debt is brought against the Sheriff A Recognizance taken in the Chancery is a thing upon Record in a Court of Record an Obligation of Record and a Debt upon Record It hath been objected where no Capias lieth in the Process upon the Original there no Capias lieth upon the Execution but it is good to examine the Reason thereof for Lex plus laudatur quando ratione probatur The Capias upon a Recognizance is not by 25 E. 3. but by the common Law for here is a Debt upon Record wherefore shall not this body be subject to it as well as in the case of a Debt upon a bare Obligation I do admit the Rule That where there is no Capias ad respondendum there is no Capias ad satisfaciendum but that ought to be intended in cases where there is an Original and Mesn Process before Iudgment but here is no Original nor Mesn Process before Iudgment ergo our Case is not within the same Rule But I will put a good Rule It is Debt upon Record ergo a Capias lieth In the King's Bench If the Defendant comes in by Latitat if the cause whereof the Action is brought be of importance he is to put in special Bail and those who bail him shall be bounden in a Recognizance c. The Defendant is condemned in the Action Now if the Defendant cannot be found so as Execution may be sued forth against him then a Scire facias shall issue forth against the Sureties which bailed him and upon that a Capias and that is very frequent therein use So also is the course of the Court of Common Pleas ergo it shall be so in the Chancery in case of a Recognizance If one be taken in Execution upon a Statute Staple and sueth an Audita Querela upon a Release or other matter and be bound with Sureties in the double value c. to the King and to the party If he be condemned in the Audita Querela c. and cannot be found a
And the Statute doth not respect the way of carriage but that altogether and to all intents it be the distance of four miles betwixt the place where c. and the said Town of Rye and here it is not material which is the common and usual way to Rye for carriages but the nearness of the place where c. Quomodocunque is the matter and therefore the Defendant ought to have pleaded That the place where c. is every way distant four miles from Rye and as to that that he hath answered four miles with 4000 paces the same is well enough for although he doth not answer the direct the words yet if he doth answer in effect it is well enough for 1000 paces and a mile are all one in substance Wray The distance shall be accounted the nearest way not as a Bird may fly CLII. Wellock and Hammon 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the King's-Bench 3 Co. 20. 1 Cro. 204 205. THis Case is reported by Sir Edw. Coke in his 3 Reports See the principal case there Here is a Limitation and not a Condition for if it should be a Condition it should descend to the Heir at the Common Law which is the Devisee and so shall be extinct in his person and then the restraint is of no effect for there shall be then no means to compell the Heir who hath the Land to pay the Legacies nor have the Legatories any remedy to compell the son to pay the Legacies which shall not have effect if it be not taken by way of Limitation and to that intent Scholasticas Case was cited 15 Eliz. Dyer 317. And this word paying in a Devise shall never be construed to be a Condition And it was holden by the Iustices That where a man deviseth lands to his younger son paying such a sum unto such the Devisee hath a Fee-simple and if he do not pay the monies accordingly his Estate shall determine by the same Limitation and shall go to the heir without any other limitation and the quantity of the monies be it great or small is not material And they were of opinion also that here the monies were not payable but upon request Coke 2 Cro. 56 57. 1 Roll 439. If a man be bound to perform Covenants and one Covenant is to pay Legacies there he needs not pay them without a demand But where one is expresly bounden to pay such a Legacy there he must pay it at his peril And he said That the Case 28 H. 8. Dyer 33. is not Law for there it is holden by Fitz-herbert and Baldwin That where land was devised unto the Prior and Convent of S. Barthol Ita quod reddant annuatim Decano Capitulo Sancti Pauli 5 l. and they fail of payment of it that their Estate shall cease and the Dean and Chapter c. shall have c. such conditions void And that upon one Fee-simple another Fee-simple cannot be limited For by Coke Common experience is otherwise That upon a Fee-simple determinable another Fee-simple may be limited which Gawdy Iustice granted And as to the principal Case Iudgment was given with the limitation CLIII Parker and Harrold 's Case Pasc 28 Eliz. Rot. 485. In the King 's Bench. 3 Len. 142. IN Debt upon an Obligation The Condition was That whereas the Plaintiff and Defendant be now joyntly seised of the Office of the Register of the Court of Admiralty If the Defendant shall permit the Plaintiff to use the said Office and take the profits of it wholly to his own use during his life without lett or interruption done by him that then c. The Defendant Pleaded That the custome of the Realm of England is That the Lord Admiral for the time being might grant the said Office and that such grant should be good but for the life of the Grantor antea 103. and shewed farther That the Lord Clinton Lord Admiral granted the said Office unto the Plaintiff and the Defendant and died and that the Lord Howard was appointed Lord Admiral and that he 27 Eliz. granted the said Office to one Wade who ousted and interrupted him before which time the Defendant did suffer the Plaintiff to enjoy the said Office and to take the profits of it upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law Coke argued for the Plaintiff That the Plea of the Defendant is not good for he hath not entitled the Lord Admiral to grant the Office for he hath said That the custome of the Realm of England is and that cannot be good for it cannot be tried for a Visne cannot be from the Realm of England Also if it lie through all the Realm then the same is Common Law and not custome which see Br. Custome 59. and see 4 5 Ph. Ma. 152 153. an express Case of the same Office and there he prescribed Per consuetudinem in Curia c. and also that such grant is good but during the life of the Admiral who granteth it Also he doth not answer to any time after the grant of the Admiral Howard for if we were lawfully put out by Wade yet the Defendant against his Bond shall not put us out or interrupt us As 5 E. 4. 115. In a Quare Impedit against an Abbat and the Incumbent who make default upon the distress upon which a Writ was awarded to the Bishop for the Plaintiff upon which the Bishop retorned That the Incumbent had resigned of which he hath given notice to the Prior and lapse incurred and the Bishop collates the former Incumbent and then this Writ came to him Now although the Incumbent be in by Title yet he is bound by the Iudgment So here although the Defendant hath another Title and the former Title of the Plaintiff be determined yet against his own Bond and Deed he shall not put out the Plaintiff c. And the Court was clear of opinion That Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff but afterwards the Cause was compounded by order of the Lord Chancellour CLIII Bedel's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THE Case was 3 Len. 159. That A. leased to B. certain Lands for 40 l. per ann and a stranger covenanted with A. that B. should pay unto him the 40 l. for the Farm and occupation of the said Lands A. brought an Action of Covenant the Defendant pleaded That before the day of payment the Plaintiff ousted B. of his Farm It was moved by Godfrey that it was no Plea because this is a collateral sum and not for Rent issuing out of Land Also the Defendant is a stranger to the Contract for the Farm But the opinion of the Court was to the contrary for the Defendant hath covenanted that the Lessee shall pay for the said Farm and occupation 40 l. so it is as a conditional Covenant and here is Quid pro Quo and here the consideration upon which the Covenant is conceived scil the Farm and the occupation
take effect by way of use in the Bargainee and after the Statute to draw the possession to the use But the Court utterly rejected that Exception was dangerous Note Pasch 30 Eliz. it was adjudged for the Plaintiff in the Replevin scil the Conveyance of the Prioress was not well pleaded for it ought to be plead as a Bargain and Sale and not as a grant and Judgment was given accordingly for such was the Conveyance of the greater part of the possessions of Monasteries And by Shuttleworth Serjeant Although such a Corporation cannot take an Estate to the use of another yet they may charge their possessions with an use to another CLXIX Venable 's and Serjeant Harris 's Case Mich. 28 29 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. Quaeries Hughs R. 13. 3 Len. 185. 4 Len. 112. THE Case was a Lease was made to A. and B. for their lives the Remainder to Thomas Venables in tail who 3 Eliz. was attainted of Felony 23 Eliz. was a general pardon Thomas Venables 24 Eliz. levied a Fine and suffered a common Recovery to the use of Harris Serjeant An Office is found Harris traverseth the Office and upon that there is a demurrer Leke argued That traverse doth not lie in this Case 4 H. 7. 7. where the King is entitled by double matter of Record the party shall not be admitted to traverse nor to his Monstrans de Droit but is put to his Petition which see 3 E. 4. 23. in the Case of the Earl of Northumberland 3 Len. 75. where the Tenant of the King is attainted of Treason and the same found by Office See also 11 H. 4. in the Case of the Duke of Suffolk and that is not helped by the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 8. For the words are untruly found by Office but here the Office is true By this Attainder Thomas Venables is utterly disabled to do any Act for by Bracton a person attaint shall forfeit Patriam Regnum Haereditatem suam 11 H. 4. one was attainted of Felony and before Office found the King granted over his Lands Also he is not helped by the general pardon for before the general pardon he had a special pardon so as the general pardon non operatur But the Iustices said The forfeiture did remain untill the general pardon Harris contrary And he put the case of Sir James Ormond 4 H. 7. 7. where the King is entitled by matter of Record and the subject confesseth the King's title and avoids it by matter of as high nature as that is for the King Traverse in that case lieth and if the King be entitled by double matter of Record if the party doth avoid one of the said Records by another Record he shall be admitted to his traverse and so here we have the pardon which is a Record and that shall avoid the Record of the King See 3 E. 4. 24. in the Earl of Northumberland's Case and here the pardon hath purged the forfeiture in respect of the offence and he said Tenant in tail being attainted of Felony shall not lose his lands but the profits onely for he hath his Estate by the Will of the Donor and there is a confidence reposed in him as in Walsingham's Case he cannot grant his Estate over and see Wrothe's Case An annuity granted pro Consilio impendendo cannot be granted over or forfeited for there is confidence And see Empson's Case and Dyer 2. 29 Ass 60. If the issue in tail be outlawed of Felony in the life of his father and getteth his Charter of pardon in the life of his father after the death of his father he may enter but by Thorp If the issue in tail getteth his Charter of pardon after the death of his father then the King shall have the profits of the lands during the life of the issue And the Case of Cardinal Pool was debated in the Parliament Cardinal Pool's Case 27 Eliz. That he being Dean of Exeter was seised of Lands in the right of his Church and was attainted of Treason It was holden That he should forfeit the profits of such Lands But admit that by this Attainder the Land be forfeited yet the party hath the Freehold until Office found See Nicols's Case on the Commentaries and see also the Case of the Dutchy in the first Commentaries And here the Pardon hath dispensed with the Forfeiture Tenant of the King alieneth in Mortmain before Office found the King pardons it this is good The Lord Poynings conveyed all his Lands to Sir Adrian Poynings who was an Alien and afterwards is made a Denizen and the King pardons him and releaseth unto him all his right in the said Lands without any words of Grant and it was adjudged the same shall bind the King. And he said that he had found a good precedent 14 H. 7. where a general pardon before seisure into the King's hands was allowed contrary after seisure without words of Grant. See Br. 29 H. 8. Charter of Pardon 52. If a man be attainted of Felony and the King pardons him all Felonies executiones eorundem the same shall not serve for life and Land if no Office be found but it shall serve for the Goods without words of Restitution and Grant for the King is entituled to them by Outlawry without Office but the King is not entituled to the Lands untill Office be found See ibid. 33 H. 8. 71. The Heir intrudes and before Office found the King pardons now the Heir is discharged as well of the issues and profits as of the Intrusion it self and also of Livery But a pardon given after Office is available for the Offence but not for the issues and profits And he cited the Case of Cole in the first Commentaries where a pardon was granted Mesne betwixt the stroke and the death See 35 H. 6. 1. 1 E. 4. 1. 8 Eliz. Dyer 249. Brereton's Case 11 Eliz. Dyer 284 285. Egerton Solicitor to the contrary This Traverse is not good for he that traverseth hath not made Title to himself as he ought upon which the Queen may take Issue for it is at the Election of the Queen to maintain her own Title or traverse the Title of the party At the Common Law no Traverse lay but where the Livery might be sued but that is helped by the Statute of 34 E. 3. cap. 14. but where the King is entituled by double matter of Record as in our case he is no Traverse is allowed until 2 E. 6. cap. 8. And in such case two things are requisite 1. That the Office be untruly found 2. That the party who is to be admitted to his Traverse have just Title or Interest of Estate of Freehold c. But in our case The Office is confessed by the Traverse to be true although that the Conveyance be not truly found Also Harris at the time of the Office found had not just Title but an interest came unto him long time after
to sue to the King by Petition if he will have his Land yet he conceived that before the Statute of 18 H. 6. the King might grant the Land before Office as it appeareth by Thirning 13 H. 4. 278. who was before the said Statute So if the King's Tenant makes a Lease for years the Remainder over to another in Fee who dieth without Heir the Remainder is in the King without Office because a common person in such case cannot enter but a claim is sufficient and therefore it shall be in the King without Office. As to the pardon he said That it doth not extend to this Estate for this is a Freehold ergo not within the pardon As if the King's Tenant be attainted of Felony and the King pardons him all offences and all things which he may pardon these words shall not go nor extend to Freeholds but onely unto personal matters and such punishments and peins which do concern Chattels But it may be objected That by this pardon Title of Quare Impedit and Re-entries for Conditions broken are excepted and therefore if they had not been excepted they had been remitted by the pardon and therefore this pardon shall extend to Inheritances and Freeholds As to that I say That such Exceptions were not in use in the time of H. 4. and yet Inheritances and Freeholds were not taken to be within such pardons and such Exceptions did begin 5 Eliz And he said he had been of Council in such Cases where it hath been taken that such pardons did not extend to Freeholds As an Abbat was disseised and afterwards during the Disseisin the Abby is dissolved the King makes such pardon the same doth not transfer the Right of the King and in that Pardon are divers Exceptions of Goods and Chattels in many cases and therefore it cannot be intended that the pardon doth extend to Freeholds And see the said Act of pardon The Queen grants all Goods Chattels Debts Fines Issues Profits Amercements Forfeitures Sums of Moneys which word Forfeiture shall be intended of a personal Forfeiture non aliter for it is coupled with things of such nature And as to the Traverse he said It did not lie in this Case for the Office is not untrue but true in substance although void in circumstance And also the King here is entituled by double matter of Record scil the Attainder and the Office and he said that the Statutes of 34 and 36 E. 3. which gave Traverse are to be intended of Offices found virtute Officii and not virtute Brevis for then Efcheators were very troublesome And the Statute of 2 E. 6. doth not give Traverse but where the Office is untruly found as if Tenant of the King be disseised and the Disseisor be attainted the Queen seiseth the Land Now the Disseisee hath not remedy by Traverse upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. but is put to his Monstrans de Droit for the Office is true But if I be Tenant of the King and seised of Land accordingly and it was found that J. S. was seised of my Land and attainted c. whereas in truth he had not any thing in my Land there Traverse lieth for the Office is false and so in our Case for the Traverse it is at the Common Law and it was true that Venables was seised Coke to the contrary and he said That by the Attainder the Queen hath gained but a Chattel and that notwithstanding this Forfeiture if Venables had been in possession a Praecipe should be brought against him And where it hath been said by Mr. Attorney That Writs set down in the Register are the best Expositours of our Law the same is not so for the Register saith That Waste lieth notwithstanding a Mesn Remainder which is not now Law but it hath been clearly ruled to the contrary and see accordingly 50 E. 3. the Register therefore and the Writs are subject to the Iudgment of our Law and the Writ of Diem clausit extremum is not to the contrary for I confess that in such case the Land shall be seised into the hands of the King but the King shall not have but a Chattel therein It hath been argued It may be granted Roll. Tit. Grant. 4 Len. 112. ac Godb. 351. a. therefore it may be forfeited Nego Consequentiam for a man seised in the right of his Wife may grant but not forfeit Gardian in Socage may grant but not forfeit the Husband may grant a term for years which he hath in the right of his Wife but he cannot forfeit it A woman Inheretrix taketh a Husband who afterwards is attainted of Felony the King pardons him they have issue the Husband shall be Tenant by the curtesie which proveth that the King hath not the Freehold by that Attainder Before the Statute of Westm 2. Tenant in tail post prolem suscitatam might forfeit his Lands but now the Statute hath so incorporated the Estate tail to the Tenant in tail that it cannot be devested even a Fine levied by him ipso jure nullus although as to the possession it be a Discontinuance and that is the reason wherefore Tenant in tail shall not be seised to another's use See Stamford 190. The Husband seised in the right of his Wife is attainted of Felony the King shall have the profits of the Lands of the Wife during the life of the Husband c. So if Tenant in tail be attainted of Felony and that is but a Chattel in the Lands of the Wife and also in the Lands of the Tenant in tail and if the possessions of a Bishop be seised into the Queen's hands for a Contempt in such case the Queen hath the possession and not the profits onely the same Law of the Lands of Tenant in tail or for life being attainted of Felony so of seisure for Alienation without license or of the possessions of Priors Aliens See Brook Reseiser 10. So where the Seisure is for Ideocy And he said That in the principal Case nothing is in the King until Office and as to the Case of 13 H. 4. 6. he confessed the same for at that time many and amongst them Lawyers and Iustices were attainted by Parliament and so was Sir John Salisbury whose Case it was and their Lands by Act of Parliament given expresly to the King and therefore I grant that their Lands were in the King before Office. Tenant in Fee of a common Lord is attainted of Felony his Lands remain in him during his life until the Entry of the Lord and where the King is Lord untill Office be found but in the Case of a common person after the death of the person attainted they are in the Lord before Entry and in the Case of the King before Office for the mischief of abeyances And see the Lord Lovel's Case 17 and 18 Eliz. 485 486. Plow where it is holden That upon Attainder of Treason by Act of Parliament the Lands were
not in the King without Office in the life of the party attainted upon the words of the Act shall forfeit See Stamford Prerogat 54 55. acc He said That this interest which came unto the King by this Attainder is but a Chattel and then it is remitted by the Pardon and so he conceived if it be a Freehold For the words of the general Pardon are large and liberal Pardon and release all manner of Treasons c. and all other things Causes c. and here Forfeitures are pardoned and this word things is a transcendent c. and although it be a general word yet by the direction of the Act of general Pardon it ought to be beneficially expounded and extended as if all things had been specially set down Also the words are Pardon them and their Heirs therefore the Pardon extends to Inheritance for otherwise there is no use of that And he conceived That by the first branch of this Act that the same extends to Inheritances and to acquit the Lands of all incumbrances for every Offence not excepted for there is the word Heirs and the third branch concerns onely Chattels and that is by the word Grant where the first is by words of acquittal See 33 H. 8. br Charter of Pardon 71. Tenant of the King dieth seised the Heir intrudes Office is found by Pardon of Parliament all Intrusions are pardoned in that case the Offence is pardoned but not the issues and profits of the Lands but by a Pardon before all is pardoned But here in our case the Office is not void for the Statute makes all Precepts Commissions c. void being awarded upon such forfeiture See also in the second branch Vexed or inquieted in Body Goods or Lands and see also among the Exceptions That persons standing indicted of wilfull Murther and Forfeiture of Goods Lands Tenements grown by any offence by such person By which he said that if such Exception had not been the Land of such person if he had been attainted upon such Indictment should be forfeited as to the Traverse he said That because the Office is true our Plea is in the nature of Monstrans de Droit although it concludes with a Traverse We vary from the Office in number of the persons and in the day of Feoffment and every circumstance in case of the King is to be traversed and our Plea in substance confesseth and avoideth the Offence Although that here the King be intituled by double matter of Record scil the Attainder and the Office yet one of the said Records scil the Attainder is discharged by another Record scil the Pardon and then but one Record remains scil the Office and therefore our Traverse well lieth And he said that by the common Law there was a Traverse as where it was found by Office that the Lessee of the King had committed Waste or had cessed for two years and that in such case the Lessee and Tenant in an Action brought against them may traverse the Offence therefore there was a Traverse at the common Law where the King was entitled by single matter of Record So upon Office finding Alienation without Licence there was a Traverse by the common Law See Traverse in such case in the Case of William de Herlington 43 Ass 28. See Br. Traverse of Office 54. Petition is by the common Law and Traverse by the Statute Frowick in his Reading See Stamf. Prerogat 60. That Traverse in case of Goods was at the common Law but for Lands by Office by 34 E. 3. 14. for before the remedy was by Petition See Co. 4. part the Sadler's Case 55 56. Traverse was at the common Law concerning Freehold and Inheritance but that was in special Cases scil when by the Office the Land is not in the King's hands nor the King by that is in possession but onely by the Office is entitled to an Action and cannot make a Seisure without Suit for there in a Scire facias brought by the King in the nature of such Action to which he is entitled the party may appear to the Scire facias and traverse the Office by the common Law. It was adjourned CLXX Scott and Scott 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. 1 Cro. 73. 3 Len. 225. 4 Len. 70. IN a Replevin betwixt Scott and Scott the Case was George Scott 2 H. 8. being Tenant in tail of certain lands suffered a common Recovery to the use of his last Will and 15 H. 8. made his Will by which he did declare That the Recoverors should make a good and favourable Lease to Hugh Scott his younger brother and 25 H. 8. they make a Lease of the same land to the said Hugh for 199 years according to the Will of the said George Scott rendring Rent 11 l. 6 s. 8 d. payable at the Feast of the Annunciation and S. Michael by equall portions and that to the Recoverors their Heirs and Assigns and there was a Covenant that after the death of the Recoverors the said Rent should be paid to Cestuy que use his Heirs and Assigns any thing in the said Indenture notwithstanding Proviso That if the Lesse make his Heir male his Assignee of that term that then he shall pay the said Rent to the Recoverors their Heirs and Assigns and the Lessee shall not pay the Rent to the Heirs of Cestuy que use upon which a Distress is taken and thereupon a Replevin brought Drew argued for the Plaintiff When a Condition is created the Law saith That it shall be taken and construed favourably in the behalf of him who is to perform it As if one be bounden to appropriate such a Church to such a house before such a day at his own costs and the Obligor grants a Pension out of the said Parsonage and afterwards appropriates the said Church it was holden that the Condition was well performed 3 H. 7. 4. A Lease for years upon condition to scowre the Ditches if the Lessee scowreth them once it is well enough And as to this word Proviso It is to see If here it be a word conditional In some Cases this word Pro makes a Condition as 45 E. 3. 8. Grant of a Ward pro bono servitio if the Grantee departeth out of his service the Grant is void So if an Annuity be granted unto a Physician pro consilio impendendo the same is a Condition 41 E. 3. 6. For the Grantor hath not means to compell the Grantee to give his Council but in some Cases this word Pro doth not make a Condition As if before the Statute of West 3. Land was given pro homagio suo there if the Homage be not done the Feoffor could not re-enter but he ought to distrain And I conceive that in our Case Proviso doth not make a Condition 7 H. 6. 44. A Feoffment in Fee with Warranty Proviso that the Feoffee shall not vouch So a Grant of a Rent-charge Proviso that the Grant shall not
the Case of making this Statute it was not to overthrow a foundation as it hath been said but it was rather a gratuity of the Subjects to the King for his bounty towards them for whereas by the Statute of Vses Vses were executed in possession so as the Subjects could not dispose of their Lands by their Wills as before the Vses Now by this Statute the King was pleased to give his Royal assent to an Act by which Lands might become devisable in respect of which the Subjects added to this Act the last clause to give him Wardship where it did not lie before by the Common Law and that as a recompence from the Subjects for the King's bounty and therefore it ought to be construed beneficially for the King. And to prevent covin and fraud was not the scope of this Statute For if three purchase Lands unto them and to the heirs of two of them now it is uncertain whose heirs shall inherit for non constat which of them shall survive and therefore no covin is averrable in such case and yet if the survivor of two to whom the Fee is limited dieth his heir within age such heir shall be in Ward So if such Lands be given to two and to the heirs of him of those two who shall first come to the Church of Paul Now it is uncertain which of them shall first come to the Church of Paul yet if he who first cometh to the Church of Paul dieth his heir within age he shall be in Ward which Cases prove that covin and fraud were not the cause of making this Statute but onely the thankfulness of the Subjects unto the King for his bounty as abovesaid for if this Act had not been made the Subjects should not have power to dispose of their Lands for the advancement of their children but all should descend So as now the King hath lost the Wardship and Primer seisin of two parts of the Lands of his Tenant and hath also lost the averment of covin which he had by the Common Law where Estates were made by the King's Tenant for advancement of their children In respect of which losses the Subjects gave unto the King Wardship in case where the Lands continue in jointure as to that which hath been said That this Statute shall not be taken by equity I conceive the contrary the words of the Statute are In every such case i. e. In every like case not onely where two or more persons hold jointly to them and the heirs of one of them but also in every the like Case as the Case now in question and in every Case where the life of him who hath the Freehold is the sole impediment quo minus the heir hath not the Land by descent in Demesne And it may be resembled unto the Statute of Marlbridge of Collusion which speaks of Leases for years Quas tradere voluerint ad terminum annorum and yet a Lease for life or Lease for years is within the said Statute for the Statute was made in restraint of an ill liberty that the Tenants had by the Common Law in prejudice of their Lords which see 4 E. 6. 53. Plow 59. And as to the word otherwise that may be construed for payment of his Legacies And as to equity enlarging the Statute speaks where many hold and to the heirs of one yet if two hold to them and the heirs of one of them the same is within the Statute And as to Equity restraining he puts this case Land is given to the Husband and Wife and the heirs of the body of the Wife who have issue the Wife dieth the issue within age he shall not be in Ward and yet he is within the Letter of the Statute but because that other matter That the Estate for life in the Husband is an impediment Quo minus he shall be in Ward It is a maxim of the Common Law That the father shall have the Wardship of the son and heir apparent therefore he shall not be within the meaning although he be within the Letter of the Statute So if Lands be given to my Villain and to another and to the heirs of my Villain who dieth seised his heir within age I seise the Villain and claim the remainder he shall not be in Ward and yet he is within the Letter of the Statute But I conceive in our Case the King shall have two Wards Simul semel the heir general of Wiseman and the issue in tail the heir general by the Common Law by reason that his father was the King's Tenant who disposed of his Lands for the advancement of his children and therefore the Queen shall have the third part in Ward And also the heir special shall be in Ward for that part of the Statute And it is no new thing to have two Wardships for one and the same Lands As 14 H. 8. of the heir of Cestuy quae use and also of the Feoffee and if the Tenant dieth seised having issue a daughter who is his heir the Lord seiseth the daughter and marrieth her and afterwards a son is born he shall have the Wardship also of him So of the heirs of the Disseisor and Disseisee and he said If Lands holden in chief be leased for life the remainder to A. in Fee A. dieth his heir within age he shall be in Ward and that by reason of these words in the Statute In every such case it is not the same Case but the like Case for if he who hath the Fee dieth so as the Freehold survives to the other now the Estate becomes as an Estate for life the remainder over It was adjourned CLXXXIV The Lord Howard and the Town of Walden 's Case 24 Eliz. In the Exchequer More Rep. 159. Post 162 163. BEtwixt the Lord Howard and the Town of Walden the Case was That the King made a Feoffment in Fee of Lands parcel of his Dutchy of Lancaster Tenend in feodi forma reddend inde sibi haeredibus suis aut illi cui de jure reddi debet 10 l. The question was How and of whom the Tenure should be It was argued by Plowden That it should be holden of the King as of his Dutchy he said The King is not bounden by the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum but here upon this Feoffment the Feoffee shall hold of the King as of his Dutchy All Grants of the King notwithstanding that they be of Lands yet they savour of the person of the King and his Prerogative being wrapt up in his person shall guide the disposition of the land and he said that this Tenure shall be implyed by reason and in respect of his person And the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum extends to Tenants onely Libere tenentes magnatum aliorum but the King is not Libere tenens alicujus magnat 32 H. 6. 21 22. The King hath an Advowson in the Right of his Dutchy to which
according to the custome of the Manor granted a Rent-charge to Sir William Cordel 2 Roll 157. Pro concilio impendendo for the term of his life and afterwards conveyed the Manor to Sir William Clifton in tail The Rent is behind 12 Brownl 208. Sir William Cordel dieth Sir William Clifton dieth the Manor descends to John Clifton who grants a Copihold to Hempston the Executors of Sir William Cordel distrain for the Rent It was agreed by the whole Court Antea 109. That the Copyholder should hold the land charged Windham Iustice It hath been adjudged that the wife of the Lord shall not be endowed against the Copyholder Dyer 270. which Periam granted but gave the reason of it for the Title of the Dower is not consummated before the death of the husband so as the Title of the Copyholder is compleated before the Title of Dower More 94. but the Title of the Grantee of the Rent is consummated before the Dower Fenner conceived That the Executors could not distrain upon the possession of the Copyholder and he argued that this case is not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Wills For by the preface of the said Statute he conceived That the said Statute did extend but to those cases for which by the Common Law no remedy was provided but in this case the Executors by the Common Law might have an Action of debt ergo But Periam and Windham contrary For this Statute doth intend a farther remedy for that mischief scil not onely an action of debt but also distress and avowry See the words of the Statute Distrain for the arrearages c. upon the lands c. which were charged with the payment of such rents and chargeable to the Distress of the Testator or in the seisin or possession of any other person or persons claiming the said lands onely by and from the same Tenant by purchase gift or descent in like manner and form as their Testator might or ought to have done in his life time And it was moved by Fenner That here the said land charged doth not continue in the seisin or possession of the Tenant and here Sir John Clifton was issue in tail and therefore he doth not claim onely by the father but per formam Doni and therefore he is not liable therefore neither his Copyholder Shuttleworth Serjeant contrary That Sir John Clifton was chargeable and he claims onely from them who immediately ought to have paid the Rent and the Copyholder claims by purchase from Sir John Clifton so he claims from Sir William Clifton the Tenant c. although he doth not claim immediately from him For if the Tenant ought to have paid it and dieth and the land descendeth to his heir and the Heir maketh a Feoffment in Fee the Feoffee shall be charged within this Statute although he doth not claim immediately so where land descends from the Tenant which ought to have paid it and so from Heir to Heir The Statute of 1 R. 3. wills that all grants c. shall be good against the Donor his Heirs c. claiming onely as Heirs to Cestuy que use c. Yet if Cestuy que use granteth a Rent-charge and the Feoffees are disseised the Grant shall be good against the Disseisor and yet he doth not claim onely by Cestuy que use And although Sir John Clifton be Tenant in tail and claims per formam Doni Yet because the Estate tail cometh under the Estate of him who grants the Rent he shall be subject to the charge And this Statute extends not onely to him who claims by the Tenant but also to the Heir of him who grants c. And by Windham and Rhodes The Copyholder doth not claim onely by the Lord but he claims also by the custome but the custome is not any part of his Title but onely appoints the manner how he shall hold c. The possession continues here in Sir John Clifton for the possession of his Copyholder is his possession so as if the Copyholder be ousted Sir John Clifton shall have an Assise And so the strict words of the Statute are observed for the seisin and possession continues in Sir John Clifton who claims onely by Sir William Clifton who was the Tenant in demean who ought to pay the Rent But Fenner said to that that the seisin and possession intended in the Statute is the very actual possession scil Pedis dispositio and such a possession in which the distress may be taken and that cannot be taken in a Freehold without an actual possession CLXXXVI 19 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas 3 Len. 65. A. Seised of land in Fee by his Will in writing granted a Rent-charge of 5. l. per an out of it to his younger son towards his Education and bringing up in Learning and if in pleading the Devisee ought to aver that he was brought up in Learning was the Question And it was holden by Dyer Manwood and Mounson that such averment needs not for the Devise is not conditional and therefore although he be not brought up in Learning yet he shall have the Rent and the words of the Devise are Towards his bringing up and he well knew that 5 l. per an would not nor could extend to maintain a Scholar in Learning Dy. 329. a. in diet apparel books c. and this Rent although it be not sufficient to such purpose yet he shall have it And Dyer said That such a case was here Two were bound to stand to the award of certain persons who awarded that the one of them should pay unto the other 20 s. per an during the term of six years towards the education and bringing up of such a one an Infant and within the two first years of the said term the Infant died so as now there needed not any supply towards his education yet it was adjudged that the yearly sum ought to be paid for the whole term after for the words toward his education are but to shew the intent and consideration of the payment of that sum and no word of condition c. CLXXXVII West and Stowel 's Case Mich. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Cro. 870. Townsend 17. 1 Roll 28. More 549. Sty 353. a. IN an Action upon the Case by Thomas West against Sir John Stowell The Plaintiff Declared That the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff promised to the Defendant that if the Defendant shall win a certain match at shooting made between the Lord of Effingham and the Defendant then the Plaintiff should pay to the Defendant 10 l. and promised to the Plaintiff That if the said L. Effingham shall win the same match of the Defendant that then the Defendant would pay to the Plaintiff 10 l. And farther declared That the Lord Effingham won the match for which the Action is brought It was moved that here is not any sufficient consideration for the promise of the Plaintiff to
the Defendant Non parit actionem for there is not any consideration upon which it is conceived but is onely Nudum pactum upon which the Defendant could not have an Action against the Plaintiff And then here is not any sufficient consideration for the promise of the Defendant Mounson Iustice conceived that here the consideration is sufficient for here this counter promise is a reciprocal promise and so a good consideration for all the communication ought to be taken together Manwood Such a reciprocal promise betwixt the parties themselves at the match is sufficient for there is consideration good enough to each as the preparing of the Bows and Arrows the riding or coming to the place appointed to shoot the labour in shooting the travel in going up and down between the marks But for the Bettors by there is not any consideration if the Bettor doth not give aim Mounson A cast at Dice alters the property if the Dice be not false wherefore then is there not here a reciprocal Action Manwood At Dice the parties set down their monies and speak words which do amount to a conditional gift scil If that the other party cast such a cast he shall have the money CLXXXVIII Dunne 's Case 19 Eliz. In the King's-Bench DUnne possessed of divers goods in divers Dioceses died intestate at Bristow The Bishop of Bristow committed administration to Jones and his Wife who administred and afterwards the Bishop of Canterbury by reason of his Prerogative committed administration to Austen and Dunne and they brought an Action of Trespass against Jones and his Wife for taking of the goods of the intestate It was holden by Wray and Southcote 5 Co. 2 30. 1 Cro. 283. 457. that the Letters of administration granted by the Bishop of Bristow were void Gawdy and Jeofreys contrary for the granting of Letters of Administration de mero jure doth belong to the Ordinary and it might be that neither the Ordinary nor the parties to whom he granted the Letters of Administration had notice that the Intestate had bona notabilia in another Diocese and therefore it should be hard to make the Defendants Trespassors Exception was taken to the Declaration because it is shewed that the Archbishop of Canterbury by reason of his Prerogative committed Administration c. without shewing that the Intestate had bona notabilia c. but the Exception was not allowed for so are all the precedents as the Declaration is here which all the Clerks in Court did affirm and afterwards Exception was taken to the Bar because it is there pleaded that the Defendant had paid a certain sum of Money to one A. to whom the Intestate was indebted by Bond and did not shew how the Bond was discharged as by Release Acquittance cancelling of the Bond c. And that was holden to be a material Exception For the Defendants in such case ought to shew such discharge which is sufficient and by which the Plaintiffs may be discharged and for that cause the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover CLXXXIX Kingwell and Chapman 's Case 19 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Action of Debt upon a Bond by Kingwell against Chapman 1 Cro. 10. The Defendant pleaded that it was endorsed upon condition That where divers debates were betwixt the Plaintiff and one J. Brother of the Defendant the said Plaintiff and J. put themselves to the award of one Copston and the Defendant was bound by Bond to the Plaintiff that his brother should perform the award of the said Copston And the award was That the said J. should pay to the Plaintiff 30 l. viz. at the Feast of the Annunciation 20 l. and at Michaelmas after 10 l. and shewed that the said J. had paid the said 20 l. at the Annunciation and as to the 10 l. he pleaded That the said J. died before the said Feast of Michaelmas upon which there was a demurrer And by Wray Southcote and Gawdy Iustices the Bond is forfeit First because the sum awarded by the Arbitrament is now become a duty as if the condition of the Bond had been for the payment of it Secondly day is appointed for the payment of it 10 H. 7. 18. Thirdly the Executors cannot perform the condition But if I be bound by Bond to enfeoff the Obligee at such a day and before the said day I die my Executors shall not be charged with it for the Condition is become impossible by the Act of God for the Land is descended to the heir CXC Lodge 's Case 20 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Syderf Rep. 362. LOdge an Attorney of the Common-Pleas was indebted unto Booth in 34 l. payable at a day to come and Booth was indebted to Diggs in 40 l. Diggs according to the custome of London attached in the hands of Lodge 34 l. to be paid to him at the day as part of his debt of 40 l. Lodge brought a Bill of Privilege directed to the Mayor and Sheriff of London and that every person who had cause of Action against Lodge Sequatur ad Com. Legem c. Si sibi videbitur expedire c. At the retorn of which Writ Bendloes prayed a Procedendo And by Harper Iustice the privilege shall not be allowed because that this Attachment is by custome and not allowable here and if Lodge should have the privilege then is the other party without remedy And if an Attorney of this place be impleaded in London upon a Concessit solvere debit alterius he shall not have the privilege Manwood contrary For according to the Common Law Lodge owed nothing to Diggs but is his Debtor by a custome And as to the Case of Concessit solvere there the promise was to the party himself who brought the Action and he hath no other remedy but in the Case at Bar Diggs who is a stranger vexes Lodge who ows him nothing having remedy against his proper Debtor which Dyer granted and farther said That the privilege of this Court ought not to be impeached by any custome And the Prothonotaries cited a Case adjudged in the point That such a privilege was allowed in the Case of one Underhil and afterwards in the principal Case the privilege was allowed CXCI. Segar and Bainton 's Case 21 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas 3 Len. 74. IN an Action of Trespass the Case was That King Hen. 8. an 27. of his reign gave the Manor of D. to Sir Edw. Bainton Knight and to the heirs males of his body Sir Edw. Bainton had issue Andrew his eldest son and the now Defendant his younger son and died Andrew Bainton covenanted by Indenture with the Lord Seymore That the said Andrew Bainton would assure the said Manor to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the use of the said Lord and his heirs and the said Lord in recompense thereof should assure other Lands to the use of himself for life the remainder to the use of the said Andrew Bainton in tail
for the abatement of a Writ As in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant acknowledgeth himself to be Villein to a stranger the Writ shall abate without any averment if Frank and of Frank Estate for the Law presumes that the Tenant would not enthral his condition Wray to the same intent But the Demandant may confess and avoid the Fine as to say That he that levyed the Fine was his disseisor upon whom he had before entred c. And if Tenant in Fee-simple be impleaded and he saith that he is Tenant for life the remainder over to A. in Fee and prayes in aid of A. the Demandant shall not take averment that the Tenant the day of the Writ purchased was seised in Fee. Note that in this fine Ioynt-tenancy was pleaded but to parcel It was holden by Wray and Southcot that the whole Writ should abate As in a Writ the misnosmer of one shall 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 one intire thing it shall abate the whole Writ In this Case the Demandant ought to have in his Writ de Forsprise of the land in demand whereof the Ioynt-tenancy by Fine is pleaded per availe and under the gift of which the Formedon is conceived and therefore in respect of the title of the Demandant it remains in right parcel of the Manor and therefore ought to be demanded accordingly with an Exception But if A. give to B. a Manor except ten acres in tail there if after upon any discontinuance the issue in tail have a Formedon in such case there needs no exception for the said ten acres were never after the gift parcel of the Manor which was given in tail for they were severed from the Manor upon the gift but if land in demand was several as twenty acres except two an exception is not good for he might demand eight acres See E. 1. F. N. B. 866. Praecipe unam bovat terrae except a Seleon and the Writ was abated for every demand ought to be certain but a Seleon is a parcel of land uncertain as to quantity in some places an acre in some more in some less Another point was That because the Tenant hath admitted and accepted this averment scil sole Tenant as the Writ doth suppose If the Court notwithstanding the admittance of the Tenant ought without exception of the party Ex officio to abate the Writ and Wray conceived that they should for it is a positive Law as if a woman brings an appeal of murther upon the death of her brother and the Defendant doth admit it without challenge or exception yet the Court shall abate the appeal 10 E. 4. 7. And see the principal Case there Non ideo puniatur Dominus and if an Action be brought against an Hostler upon the common custome of the Realm and in the Writ he is not named common Hostler and the Defendant doth accept of such Writ without exception to it yet the Court shall abate the Writ Ex officio 11 H. 4. 198. and 38 H. 6. 30. CXCVII 24 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. Antea 150. More Rep. Saffron Walden's Case THE Case was this King Henry the 8. seised of certain lands in the right of his Dutchy of Lancaster Granted them unto another Tenend in Fee-farm Reddend dicto Dom. Regi haeredibus suis aut illi cui de jure reddi debet 10 l. And if this land should be holden of the King in Capite or holden of the Dutchy was the question Egerton Solicitor general argued much upon the Statute of 1 H. 4. by which the Dutchy and possessions thereof were severed from the Crown See Plowden in the Case of the Dutchy of Lancaster 213. And see ibid. the Statute of 1 H. 4. Entituled Charta Regis Hen. 4. 1. De separatione Ducatus Lancastr à Corona by which it is enacted That the Dutchy of Lancaster taliter tali modo deducatur gubernetur pertractetur c. ac si ad culmen dignitatis Regiae assumpti minime fuissemus So as by that Act the Dutchy is dis-joined from the Crown and in such point as to possession as it was in a common person But the possession of the Dutchy doth not bind the person of the King as 10 H. 4. 7. The King brings an Action for certain Lands to him descended from his Vncle the Duke of Lancaster and the Writ was Non omittas propter aliquam libertatem and exception was taken to the Writ because that such clause ought not to be in the King 's Writ but where the King sueth as King but that Writ he sueth as Duke of Lancaster but the exception was not allowed The King cannot sue otherwise but as King for the person of the King ought not to be measured according to his possession so as it was a severance in order survey government and process and not in respect of the person But after the Statute of 1 H. 4. The said Act of Separation was repealed and farther enacted that the said King should hold the said Dutchy to him and his heirs Kings of England so as thereby the Dutchy is settled in the politick Body of the King afterwards came the Statute of 1 H. 7. by which it is enacted That the King shall hold the said Dutchy and the possessions thereof in such manner and form and so separated from the Crown as King Henry the fourth and King Henry the fifth did hold the same so as the Dutchy was devested out of the Body politick of the King where it was setled 1 H. 4. and vested in the Body natural of the King so as the possession of the Dutchy as to their government c. are in the King as they were in the Duke of Lancaster before he was King and if the Duke of Lancaster had made a Feoffment c. the Feoffee should not hold of him but of the King So if the King himself maketh a Feoffment of Lands of the Dutchy the Feoffee shall hold of the King c. which see in the Dutchy of Lancaster's Case in the end of it And he conceived That notwithstanding the union of the Crown and the Dutchy yet the privity of the Tenure doth remain being preserved by the said Act of 1 H. 4. Another matter was That here the Tenure reserved is Tenend in feodi firma Reddend 10 l. c. And he said that this Rent is not parcel of the Tenure but rather a Rent-charge collateral to the Tenure For in all Cases where there is a Tenure expressed in suit or implied in Law before there Reddendo following shall not make the thing rendred parcel of the Tenure 3 Cro. 210 211. but it shall be a Rent in gross and here Tenend in feodi firma makes the Tenure c. and the Reddendo after shall not make the Rent reserved parcel of the Tenure See the
Case 33 E. 3. Annuity 52. before the Statute of Quia Emptores terrarum a man makes a Feoffment in Fee Tenend de Dom. Capital Feod c. Reddend 10 s. Rent here because that the Tenure was reserved Capital Dom. feodi illius this Rent reserved is not parcell of the Tenure but a Rent in gross King Edward the sixth gave certain Lands to Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury Tenend by the fifth part of a Knight's Fee Reddend inde 6 l. per ann Cranmer made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his eldest son in tail the remainder to the right heirs of Cranmer who is attainted of Treason by which the remainder in Fee escheated to the King by which the Seignory is gone But it was adjudged that notwithstanding that escheat the Rent did remain for the Rent was not parcel of the Seignory Now this Rent being a thing newly created and not parcel of the possessions of the Dutchy in 1 H. 4. nor ever descended from any Ancestor of the King being Duke of Lancaster shall be accounted to be in the King in the right of his Crown and so cannot pass by the Dutchy-seal See the said Statute of 1 H. 4. and the King cannot enlarge the said Dutchy nor the possessions thereof beyond the possessions which were of the Dutchy at the time of the making of the said Acts As if J. S. seised in Fee is impleaded and he saith that he holds the Lands in demand for life the remainder to the King in the right of his said Dutchy now the said remainder is vested in the King not in the right of the said Dutchy but in the right of his Crown The Villain of the King in the right of his Dutchy of Lancaster purchaseth Lands the King seizeth he shall be seised thereof in the right of his Crown and not of the Dutchy The King grants Common out of certain Lands parcel of his said Dutchy and afterwards makes a Feoffment of the said Lands to another the Grantee of the Common dieth without heir so as the Common escheats to him now he shall have the Common in the right of the Crown and not of the Dutchy so although it is said That the Rent shall follow the nature of the Land out of which c. yet the same is but to some intents and not to every intent See the Statute of 2 and 3 Phil. Ma. cap. 20. by which it is enacted That all the Lands which have been granted or severed from the Dutchy to any person or persons and after such grant have come or reverted to the King in possession reversion or remainder or otherwise by attainder escheat forfeiture c. shall for ever be united to the said Dutchy and shall be adjudged and esteemed as part and member of the same which proves that such Lands were not holden of the King as Duke of Lancaster but as King for if they had been holden of the Dutchy upon the escheat they should be parcel of the Dutchy again without help of that Statute See the special Reservation Reddendo Domino Regi haeredibus suis aut illi cui de jure reddi debet c. Now when the King grants the Seignory to the Lord Audley it was in the Election of the Ter-tenant to whom he would pay the Rent if it had been in the Case of a common person but it is otherwise in the Case of the King As if A. holdeth of two several Lords by owel Feoffment and dieth his heir within age the Lord which first gets the Ward shall have him but in the Case of the King it is otherwise Plowden The King is not bound by the Statute of West 3. But in this Case in the making of this Feoffment with this Tenend Reddend the Feoffee shall hold of the King as of his Dutchy for all grants of the King savour of the person of the King and then his Prerogative wrapt in the person shall guide the same and see the Statute of West 3. extends to all who make Feoffments Tenend de Feoffatoribus but the King is not Tenant to any one And if the King be seised of an Advowson in the right of his Dutchy and the same becomes void and the King presents to the same he may repeal his presentation and he vouched divers precedents of Patents made to many great Lords to hold of the Dutchy and also to hold of others And the King by his Dutchy-seal may give Lands in Mortmain And he argued That this Rent although newly created yet in so much as it came and accrued in respect of the Land which was parcell of the Dutchy it should be accounted also parcel of the Dutchy as if before the Statute of West 3. A. seised of Lands in Fee of the part of his father makes a Feoffment in Fee Tenend by such services c. the same Seignory shall go to the heirs of the part of the father in lieu of which the Seignory is come Tenant in tail after the Statute of 32 H. 8. makes a Lease for years according to the said Act rendring Rent to him and his heirs it shall be intended heirs in tail It was adjourned CXCVIII. Forster and Walker 's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Ejectione firmae by Foster against Walker the Case was 3 Cro. 106. Shepherd's Touch-stonâ— of Conveâ—…ances 416. That Richard Meager was seised of a house in London and 6 E. 6. he devised the same to his Wife for life the remainder to John his son in tail the remainder to the Master and Wardens of the Cordwaynors in London and died the Wife entred and died John died The Master Wardens and Commonalty of the Cordwaynors entred and leased the Plaintiff upon whom the heir general of the Devisor did enter The onely question was inasmuch as the Cordwaynors of London are incorporated by the name of Master and Wardens and Commonalty of Cordwaynors If this devise made to them by the name of Master and Wardens of the Cordwaynors of London be good or not It was argued by Daniel that the Devise by the manner was good enough and he insisted much upon the favour which the Law gives to Wills and to Legatees in the Devises and construction of them even in Devises and Grants to Corporations and as to Grants to Corporations he cited the Case of the Dean and Chapter of Norwich Decanus Capitulum sanctae individuae Trinit and they make a Lease leaving out these words sanctae individuae and yet held the Lease was good notwithstanding that for the words left out are not words of substance of the name but for the beauty and ornament of it But in the Case of Devise if the name be mistaken in matter of substance yet if upon the Devise the intent of the Devisor sufficiently appeareth it is good enough for the intent of the Devisor shall guide the Devise and
Statute and it was moved If it should not be a good Indictment for the assault so as he might be fined for it and by Sands Clerk of the Crown and the whole Court The Indictment is void for the whole for the conclusion of the Indictment is contra formam Statuti and there the Iury cannot enquire at the Common Law. CCXXXV Mead and Cheney 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench MEad brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond against Cheney Executor of one Skipwith and recovered and upon a Fieri facias the Sheriff did retorn Devastavit and it was moved to have an Elegit and the Iustices would advise of it and afterwards at another day a Precedent was shewed to the Court of 17 Eliz. and thereupon the Elegit was granted CCXXXVI Tompson and Trafford 's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Rot. 910. Poph. 8 9. IN an Ejectione firmae the Case was That the Warden and Fellows of New College in Oxford 8 Eliz. leased a Mansion house in the Burrough of Southwark to one Standish for 21 years and afterwards 25 Octob. 21 Eliz. they demised the same Mansion house to the said Standish for 21 years to commence the Michaelmas after And the Stat. of 14 Eliz. cap. 11. and 18 Eliz. cap. 11. were also found And if this second Lease shall be said a Lease in Reversion and so be void by the Statute of 14 Eliz. was the Question Foster moved That it is a Lease in Reversion for the first Lease doth continue untill Michaelmas and so was the opinion of the Iustices of Assise at the trial Towse contrary For when Standish accepteth the second Lease the same is presently a surrender of the former Lease for he giveth power unto the Lessor for to contract for the house presently and to that purpose he cited Corbet's Case 8 Eliz. Coke It is a surrender presently for you cannot apportion the Term. It was adjourned CCXXXVII Wood and Avery 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench DEBT upon a Bond by Wood against Avery the Condition was That where the Plaintiff had demised to the Defendant for term of years two Messuages c. If the Defendant at all times during the term shall maintain sustain and repair the said two Messuages with good and sufficient reparations that then c. And the Defendant pleaded That he had performed the Conditions in all but as to one Kitchin which was so ruinous at the time of the Demise that he could not maintain or repair and therefore he took it down and rebuilt it again in so short a time as he could possible in the same place so large and so sufficient in breadth length and heighth as the other Kitchin was and that the said Kitchin all times after the re-edifying of it he had sustained and maintained and well repaired and demanded Iudgment c. upon which Plea the Plaintiff did demurr in Law and by the Court the Plea were a good Plea if it were in an Action of Waste but here where he hath by his own Act tied himself to an inconvenience he ought at his perill to provide for it And here it was said That if the Condition be impossible the Bond is single contrary where a man is charged by an Act in Law. CCXXXVIII Bostwick and Bostwick 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas DOrothy Bostwick brought Dower against Bostwick an Infant Ante 59. and the Case was That the Husband of the Demandant was seised of certain Lands holden by Knight's-service of M. C. and by his last Will devised two parts of the Premisses to his Executors during the non-age of his heir and died his heir within age after whose death M. C. entred into the third part descended as Guardian in Knight's-service and the Executors into the other two parts upon which the Demandant brought one Writ of Dower against the Guardian to be endowed of the third part and another Writ of Dower against the heir within age in whom the Freehold of the two parts was The heir appearing by Attorney pleaded to issue which was found for the Demandant but the Iudgment was afterwards reversed because the heir being within age did not appear by Guardian but by Attorney for which cause she again brought a Writ of Dower against the heir and the Sheriff did retorn him summoned but the heir made default for which cause the Court was moved in the behalf of the Demandant to have the aid of the Court in this Case for if upon default of the Tenant a Grand Cape should issue forth and so a Recovery by default should follow the same would be Error which see 6 H. 8. Br. Liver Defaul 50. And therefore it was prayed that some person be appointed Guardian to the heir who may appear and plead for him for otherwise the Demandant is at great mischief for the Guardian now will not suffer the heir to appear in person And if the Widow now Demandant should stay for her Dower untill the heir should come of full age it would be a great mischief But by Walmesley Periam and Windham We cannot appoint a Guardian to the heir for his appearance here unless the heir be here in person in Court before us and he was appointed to be brought in person into Court. CCXXXIX Sir Anthony Denny 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas SIR Anthony Denny seised in Fee of the Manor of Chessam extending into Chessam and in the Town of Hertford and also of other Lands in Hertford by his last Will devised the Manor of Chessam to Henry Denny his son and heir in tail and his Lands in Hertford to Edward Denny his younger son c. It was holden by Walmsley Periam and Windham absent Anderson That the younger son should have that part of the Manor of Chessam which lieth in the Town of Hertford Another point in the Case was That upon the death of Sir Anthony and Office was found without any mention of this Devise for which cause the Queen seised and leased all the Lands so devised to a stranger during the minority of the heir The heir comes of full age and hath Livery of the whole and without any express entry leaseth the Lands for years rendring Rent the Lessee entreth and payeth the Rent to the heir the heir dieth the Lessee assigns over his term and the Rent is yearly paid to the right heir of Sir Anthony And how Edward Denny entred and per Curiam his entry is lawfull for if the heir entreth in this Case and many descents follow yet the Devisee may enter at any time for his entry doth not make any abatement or wrong but may well stand with the Devise for if the Devise be waved or the Devise doth defer the execution of the Devisee 1 Inst 111. a. 240. b. 3 Cro. 145. Ow. 86 87. it is reason that the heir enter and take the profits untill the Devisee entreth But if
in which was parcel demised and demiseable according to the custome of the said Manor by Copy in Fee whereof Langley was a Copiholder in Fee c. and the said Earl so seised enfeoffed divers persons of the said Manor unto the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of the Lord Lumley and Elizabeth his wife daughter of the said Earl and the heirs of their two bodies begotten who made a Lease of the said Customary lands by Indenture unto the Plaintiff for 100 years and the question was If by this Lease the lands be so severed from the Manor that the Copihold is extinct Walmesly took exception to the pleading for that Langley pleads That the custome within the Manor is That if any Copiholder seised of Customary lands of the said Manor dieth thereof seised having many sons That the youngest son shall inherit and he sheweth That the Lord of the said Manor granted to his father and his mother the said customary lands by Copy to have to his said father and mother and the heirs of his father c. And that his father died and that his mother survived him and died and he as youngest son according to the custome entred and he said That this custome set forth by the Defendant doth not maintain his entry For the custome intendeth but a general and immediate descent upon a Copy made unto a man and to his heirs but such is not the descent here for the wife surviveth during whose life the heir cannot enter nor is there here such Estate in the father of the Defendant unto whom the custome set forth in the Avowry can extend For the custome is alledged Where a Copyholder hath a Copyhold Estate to him and his heirs And here the Title of the Defendant is That a customary Estate was granted to the father and the mother and the heirs of the father so as this Estate is not within the Letter of the custome And to that purpose he cited the Case of Sir John Savage Sir John Savage's Case ante 109. late adjudged Where one entitled himself to a Copihold in this manner That within the Manor there is such a custome that if one taketh to wife any customary Tenant of the said Manor in Fee and hath issue by her he if he over-live such wife should be Tenant by the Curtesie and the Case in truth was That he married a woman who at the time of the marriage had not any Copihold but afterwards during the coverture a Copihold descended to her In that Case it was holden That no Tenancy by the Curtesie did accrue by that custome which did not extend but where the wife is a Copiholder at the marriage and a custome shall be in construction taken strictly and shall not be extended beyond the words of it And as to the matter in Law he said That by this Lease the custome was gone and then by consequence the customary Tenancy as to that land is determined for the Estate of the Copiholder is Secundum consuetudinem Manerii ad voluntatem Dom. And now by the Lease Langley cannot hold Secundum consuetudinem Manerii for now the services reserved upon the Copy and the advantages of Waste and other forfeitures are extinct so that if notwithstanding the Lease the customary interest should endure then such a Copiholder should hold this land discharged of all services c. in better Estate than any Freeholder at the Common Law and because the services in Law are discharge and cannot be recovered for that cause the customary interest is determined For the Case is 7 E. 4. 19. by Danby That the Copiholder shall have remedy against his Lord if he put him out for he payes a Fine when he enters but here during this Lease no Fine can be paid upon any descent c. and the Fine is the cause for which the Copiholder shall maintain his possession against the Lord But here no descent or surrender can be presented for there is not any Tenant who can do it See 21 E. 4. 80. by Brian As long as the Copiholder payeth unto the Lord the customs and services If the Lord putteth him out he shall have an Action of Trespass 42 E. 3. 25. If the Copiholder will not do his services the Lord shall seize the lands Dyer 100. 1 Cro. 35. And he resembled this Case to the case where the King grants lands probis hominibus de D. the same is a good Grant and that onely in respect of the Rent and for the reason of that it is a good Corporation But if the King releaseth the Rent the Corporation is dissolved and the Grant is become void Fenner Serjeant contrary and he said That by this Lease being the act of the Lord himself the customary interest is not determined c. And the whole Court was of clear opinion with Fenner That the Copihold did remain for otherwise by such practices of the Lords all the Copiholders in England might be defeated and if any prejudice be grown to the Lord by this act it is of his own doing and against his own act he shall not be relieved And by Periam Iustice The Lord by his act i. e. the making of the Lease hath destroyed his Seignory and lost the services as to this land And Windham Iustice said That the Lord himself had destroyed the custome as to the services but not as to the customary interest of the Tenant but the Lord Anderson was of opinion That the Rents and services do remain and if the Copiholder after such Lease committeth Waste that it is a forfeiture to the Lord and that will fall in evidence upon a trial although such Waste cannot be found by an ordinary presentment and the same Law which alloweth the Copiholder his Copihold interest against this Lease will allow unto the Lord his Rents and services and he said That the Lord shall have the Rents and services and not the Lessee Quod mirum against his own Lease See 33 Eliz. between Murrel and Smith now reported by the Lord Coke in his 4 Report fol. 20. CCLVIII. Russel and Broker 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. RUssel brought Trespass against Broker 3 Len. 218. for cutting down of four Oakes The Defendant pleaded That the place where c. and that he is seised of a Messuage in D. And that he and all those whose Estate he hath c. Habere consuerunt rationabile estoverium suum for fuel ad libitum suum capiendum in boscis subboscis arboribus ibidem crescentibus and that in quolibet tempore anni but in fawning time The Plaintiff by Replication said That the place where is within the Forrest of c. and that the Defendant and all those whose Estate c. Habere consueverunt rationabile estoverium suum de boscis c. per liberationem Forrestarii vel ejus Deputati prout boscus pati potest non ad exigentiam