him and his heirs for ever if B. shall have issue of his body and if he die without heirs of his body that the Land shall revert to the Donor and his heirs B. had issue which died without issue and it was adjudged that B. had but an Estate in tail and because he died without heirs of his body it was adjudged that the Donor should recover against the collaterall heire of B. And if the Law be so in Deeds or Grants executed in the life of the Donor a fortiori in a Devise which is to be taken more favourably then an estate made by Deed and therefore it is sufficient in a Devise to have the intention of the Devisor understood either to make an estate in fee or in tail although proper words to make such an estate be not used and the intent of the Devisor cannot be more manifest to have an estate in tail then in this case As to the second Point the question will be whether the younger Son hath an estate in Tail or in Fee determinable by this limitation and it seemed to them that he shall have but an Estate in tail In which the question is to which estate these words of limitation to wit living the elder Son shall be referred viz. Whether to the Estate made to the younger Son or to the Estate given to the elder for if they be referred to the Estate made to the younger there is no question but these words do abridge restrain the estate but if to the elder then they make no restraint or restriction as to the estate of the younger Son but onely limit the remainder to the elder Son on this contingency only viz. If he be alive at the time of the death of the youngest Son without issue And to prove that these words shall be referred to the estate devised to the elder brother They said That if the land had been devised to the younger Son and the heirs of his body and if he dyed without issue living the elder that the elder should have the estate to him and his heirs it is clear that the younger hath an absolute estate tail and that then the remainder to the elder shall be on this contingency viz. If he be living when the younger dies without issue And so is Frenchmans Case 1 2. Eliz. who demised land to his wife for life the remainder to Charles Frenchman and the heirs males of his body and if he died without heirs males of his body the remainder to Arthur Frenchman and the heires males of his body Charles had issue a Daughter and died without issue male and it was adjudged that the Daughter should not have the land for this contingency does not alter the Estatetail that was first limited to Charles and although the Devise in the case at Bar be to the youngest Son and his Heirs without any limitation of his body yet the limitation afterwards to wit if he die without issue does explain well enough that the heires of his body are intended and then the subsequent words living the Eldest Son cannot alter the estate first given to the younger Son And Hil. 40. Eliz. in the Kings Bench by Walmesly If one deviseth land to his Son and his heirs and further deviseth that if he die without issue that the land shall be sold yet the Son shall have an estate in fee and not in tail but otherwise if he devised that if he died without issue that the lands should remain over for in the first case he disposeth of no more of the estate by the last words then he did at the first but in the last case he disposeth of the estate it self in remainder And this was agreed by Owen 18 19. Eliz. Rot. 354. and 15. 16. Eliz. Rot. 330. where the case was That one Edward Clark being seised in fee of two houses had issue Henry and two Daughters Alice and Thomasin Henry dyed before the two daughters living the Father the Father devised one house to his daughter Alice and her heirs for ever and the other to Thomasin who was at that time but eight years of age and her heirs for ever and if she died before the age of sixteen years Alice then living Alice should have it to her and heirs and if Alice should die having no issue living Thomasin Thomasin should have the house of Alice to her and her heirs and if both of them died without issue he devised the two houses to the two Daughters of his Son Henry and their heirs and if they died without issue he devised the remainder to a stranger Proviso That if Alice should marry I. S. that Thomasin should have her part to her and her heirs and if Thomasin should dye having no Child that the daughters of Henry should have all and if they died having no Child the remainder to a stranger as aforesaid The Devisor dies then Alice marries N. but not I. S. and enters into her house Thomasin after sixteen years of age dies without issue And if Alice or the daughters of Henry should have the estate of Thomasin was the question And it was holden by three Iustices that the daughters of Henry should have it because that Thomasin did not die within the age of sixteen years and that it being objected that there was no estate tail to any of the daughters but a fee simple conditionall upon a contingent it was at last adjudged 14. Eliz. Rot. 340. that they were Tenants in tail by this Devise in Mich. 37 38. Eliz. 42. Mich. 14 15. Eliz. And Michaelmas 18. Jacobi Judgment This Case was argued by Montague cheif Iustice Doderidge Haughton and Chamberlain who all agreed that by this Devise the youngest Son had not an Estate-tail but a limited see so that by his dying without issue living the elder Son his estate was quite determined and all except Doderidge agreed that the Recovery could not hurt the future Devise But Doderidge was much against this opinion by reason of great mischeif that might ensue by making of Perpetuities in Devises and cited Archers Case and Capels Case but notwithstanding Iudgment was affirmed as aforesaid De Termin Trinitat 18 Jacob. Rot. 1198. Dawtree against Dee and others IN an Action on the Case wherein the Plaintiff Declared That he the fifth of July 16 Jacobi was and is seised in Fee of a Capital Messuage called Moor-place with the appurtenances and of 600 Acres of Land meadow and pasture in Petworth with the said Messuage used of the annual value of 100 l. which Messuage he and those whose Estate he hath in the said Messuage and Tenements therein Farmors and Tenants have time out of minde used to keep good hospitality for the relieving of the Poor in Petworth aforesaid and that in the Church of Petworth aforesaid on the said fifth of July and also time out of minde there hath been and is a little Chancel on the North part of
tenth of August next following at the said City did use the art and trade of Starch-making and that he the 21 of September 15 Jacobi did get into his hands by buying and not by Devise Grant or Lease twenty Quarters of Wheat residue of the said 400 Quarters to the intent to convert the same into Starch and the 20 October in the same year did convert the same into Starch and the 26 of October did sell the same to several persons and that every one of the said Quarters at the 21 of September was of price 36 s. But whether the Defendant were guilty of the Ingrossing aforesaid according to the form of the Statute the Iury knew not and therefore desired the Opinion of the Court but if otherwise c. And this Record was removed into the Kings-Bench by a Certiorare Judicium And Iudgment was given against the King and the Informer Moor against Sir George Reynel Marshal of the Marshalsee IN an Action of the Case wherein the Plaintiff declares That he the 15 Jacobi did recover in the Common-Pleas 240 l. Debt against one Gilbert Alsop and 20 l. damages and that the Plaintiff in execution of the said Debt did prosecute the said Gilbert by several Iudicial Writs issuing out of the said Court. And that he by a Writ of Exigi Facias issuing out of the said Court the next Term after the said Iudgment directed to the Sheriff of the City of Exceter and Returnable before the said Iustices Quindena Martini that the said Gilbert the 28 Octob. 15 Jacobi was Out-lawed in the said City at the Suit of the Plaintiff in the Plea of Debt aforesaid unde tunc convictus fuit c. That Michaelmas 15 Jacobi the Plaintiff took out of the said Court a Capias ut lagatum against the Defendant then to the said Sheriff directed returnable Octabis Purificationis That the 8 Octob. 15 Jacobi the said Writ was delivered to the said Sheriff That the 20 January 15 Jacobi the Sheriff took the said Gilbert and held him in his Custody That the 23 Januarii 15 Jacobi a Habeas Corpus was awarded to have the Dâ—â—â—ndâ—nt cum causa c. Lunae proxim post crastinam purificationis At which day he came to the said Court in the Custody of the said Sheriff who returned the said Writ That the twelfth of February the Defendant was committed by the said Court to the Marshalsey the Defendant then and yet being Marshall nevertheless the Defendant the thirteenth of April 18. Jacobi at Westminster did suffer the said Gilbert to escape against the will of the Plaintiff he being unsatisfied his said Debt and damages whereupon the said Plaintiff hath lost his said Debt and damages ad damnum 300 l. The Defendant pleaded that the said Gilbert was committed to him by vertue of the said Writ but said further that he remained in his Custody from the aforesaid twelfth of Febr. untill the twenty seventh of Febr. the 16. Jac. during all which time the Plaintiff never prayed to have the said Gilbert in execution neither was the said Gilbert ever committed at the request of the Plaintiff to the Marshalsey in execution for the said debt and damages And pleaded further that the twenty seventh of Febr. 16. Jac. the said Gilbert did escape against the will of the Defendant which is the same escape whereon the Plaintiff doth declare Upon which Plea the Plaintiff did demur Bridgman for the Plaintiff I conceive Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff for when the Defendant Alsop in the first Action was taken by the Capias utlagatum after Iudgment he was in execution for the Plaintiff Vide Cokes Rep. Vernons Case for in asmuch as the King by the originall Suit of the party is entitled to have all the Goods and Chattels and the Profits of the Land with his body also by reason of the Outlawry it is good reason that if the Defendant be taken at the Suit of the King that as the King shal have benefit by the suit of the party so the party should have some benefit by the suit of the King Resolved by the Court that when he was taken by the Capias utlagatum issuing out of the Kings Bench he shall be in execution for the Plaintiff presently after the Arrest if the Plaintiff will although his body was never brought into the Court and although the Court did not commit him in execution for the party Note that in all Cases when the Defendant may have a Capias ad satisfaciendum and the party Defendant is taken by a Capias pro fine there the Defendant is in execution presently if the Plaintiff wil without any Prayer of the party but when the Plaintiff hath Iudgment and le ts pass his time so that he cannot presently neither by Capias nor by Fieri facias but is driven to his Scire facias there if the Defendant be taken by a Capias pro fine the Plaintiff must pray that he may remain in execution for him but this cannot be done without such Prayer Vide 5. Rep. Frosts Case 22. Assise 74. If one condemned for a Disseisin with force or fees be taken for the Fine yet he shall not go at large if the party prayes that he may remain for his execution and in 11. H. 7. 15 when the party may have execution without a Scire facias the execution for the King shall be prayed for the party and it is not materiall whether there were a Capias in the Originall but otherwise if it be after a year 2. Rich. 3. If one be taken for a fine to the King within the year and the King pardons him yet he may remain for the party And so in this Case I conceive that Gilbert was in execution for the party and if he was not yet the Plaintiff hath proved him in execution from whence he escaped by the default of the Defendant so this Action doth well lye Also the Plaintiff doth charge the Defendant with an escape 13. April 18. Jacobi and the Defendant pleads an escape the 27. Febr. 16. Jacobi which was a year and two daies before the escape alledged by the Plaintiff to which the Defendant hath made no answer and although he concludes that it was the same escape which makes the plea good where the time is not materiall yet it is not in this case for here it is admitted by the Defendant that the Plaintiff might have prayed him in execution so long as he remained in prison but it may be he made his prayer afterwards viz. between the 27. Febr. 16. Jac. and the 13. April 18. Jac. as it may very well be in this case and then the averment of the Defendant is nothing to the purpose Also the Defendant saith that he remained in Prison from the twelfth of February 15. untill the seven and twentieth of February 16. Jacobi during which time the Plaintiff did not pray him in execution in which case
anothers land hath nothing at all to do with the Land any more then a meer stranger but only to put therein his Cattel and to let them feed there with their mouths and it is not his own Common until his Cattel have fed there 14 H. 8. 10. The Owner of a Common cannot grant the Common to anothers use Et 27 H. 8. 12. A Praecipe does not lye of a Common for it is not my Common untill my Cattell have eaten of it and therefore that which another hath is not mine therefore I cannot have a Praecipe against him who hath not that which I demand and in the 22. Assise 48. and 12. H. 8. 2. If a man hath Common in another mans Soile and a stranger puts in his Cattell there the Commoner shall not have an Action of Trespasse for although he hath Common yet the Herbage doth not belong to him neither can a Commoner do any thing upon the Soile which tends to the melioration or improving of the Common as to cut Bushes Ferne or such things which do much impaire the Common neither can he make a Fence or Ditch to let out the water which spoiles the Common But if he be utterly disturbed of his Common he may have an Assise or a Quod permittat and if any damage or annoyance be made upon the Land whereby he loseth his Common he may have an Assise And as the Commoner may not meddle with the Soile so cannot he meddle with any thing arising out of the Land or that doth grow or is nourished by the same otherwise then to have his Cattell to feed there and therefore it is adjudged Mich. 5. Jac. that a Commoner cannot kill Conies there but may bring his Action on the Case But I agree that a Commoner may distrain Cattell Damage feasant because their being there is a damage not onely to the Owner but also to the Commoner and a Commoner may abate a Hedge or a Gate that hinders him from comming to his Common wherefore I conclude this first matter that the plea as to that is utterly insufficient by the Law if there were not a speciall custome alledged by the Defendant And therefore it is to be considered whether this prescription alledged by the Defendant to hunt and kill Conies there for preservation of his Common be good or no. And I conceive it is unreasonable and not good because it is to the prejudice of the Owner of the Soile without any consideration And it is unreasonable for two causes first because it is too generall for the Defendant may hunt and kill as many Conies as he will for he doth not claim to kill a certain number that do surcharge the Common but generally the Conies there Secondly as this plea is the Defendant makes himself his own Iudge to kill the Conies as often and when he pleases Also it is against Law for it is to the destruction of the Inheritance of another which no person can justifie by custome or prescription unlesse for the benefit of the Common-weal 13 H. 8. 16. It is Law to pull down a House if the next house to it be on fire and so the Suburbs of a Town may be pulled down in time of War and if Enemies be on the Coast it is good Law to come upon another mans Land and make Bulwarks there for the publick good is preferred before any mans private benefit But when it is only for the private benefit of a man it is otherwise 43. Ed. 3. a. The Abbot said that he was Lord of the Town of A. and did prescribe that when the Tenant ceased for two yeares that he might enter untill he be satisfied his arreares And it was held by the Court to be an ill custome to put a man out of his Inheritance yet is that more reasonable then this case for the time when the Lord shall enter is certaine and the time that he shall hold the Land is also certaine and 19. Elizab. Dyer 357. A custome that all Tythes let or granted for more then six yeares of Land in such a Towne was held void by the Court because it is contrary to reason and to the liberty of the estate of him that hath a Fee And 9 H. 6. 44. B. Custome in a Leet that if the petit Iury do make a false Presentment and this found by the grand Inquest they shall be amended and it was held by the Court to be no good custome and against common right but if the custome were that if the petit Iury concealed any thing they ought to present them to be amerced this may be a custome And to prove that Conies are part of the Inheritance see Coke Rep. 7. in the case of Swans But it may be objected that this usage may have a legall beginning viz. That it was so agreed at the time of the grant or creation of the Common I answer That then it ought to have been specially pleaded for else it shall not be so intended as it is proved in the 35 H. 6. 28. Simon Eyres case where a Custome was pleaded in London that if the goods of any man be pawned to a Citizen for a debt due to him that he may detain them untill he be payed his debt and it was urged because that it may be good to bind the Debtor because it may be intended it began by his own grant but it was ruled that it shall not be so intended unlesse it be specially alledged And that a man shall not be Iudge in his own case is proved by 22. Edw. 5. 13. B. The Defendant pleaded that at another time he accounted to the Plaintiff in the presence of A. B. was found in arrear wherefore he was committed to prison there it was adjudged that the party himself could not commit him to Prison and that an Action of false Imprisonment did lie against the Plaintiff And Cook R. 8. Dr. Bonhams Case And in the 5 H. 7. 9. B. If one prescribes that if any Cattel be taken upon his Land damage feasant that he may distreyn them and put them into the Pownd until amends be made according to his own will this was held not good because then he should be his own Iudg which is against reason And in the 19 Edw. 2. gard 127. A Custom was alledged in Ipswich that when an Infant could count and measure that he should be out of Ward and holden to be voyd 13 Edw. the 3. where a Custom was alledged that when one could count 12 d. and measure a yard of cloth he may alien his Land and did aver that the Demandant was of such age but because he did not alledg the age in certain it was adjudged against the Demandant And Dyer 91. a. One grants to another all his Trees which may be reasonably spared agreed that this was a voyd Grant for the incertainty And in the 20 H. 7 8. B. If Cestuy que use of a Mannor does
been granted with a fee of five marks from time to time by the Bishop grantor and his Predecessors to whom they pleased Cooks 9 Rep. Earl of Shrewsburies Case The Earl of Rutland was made Steward of a Mannor for life without any words to make a Deputy yet it was resolved that he might make a Deputy because it was not convenient for him to exercise such an Office So if an Office doth descend to an Infant he must of necessity make a Deputy And so if a Bishop be seised of a Mannor he may ordain a Steward of the said Mannor and may grant to the Steward a fee for the execution of the said Office according to the resolution in the said Case of the Bishop of Chester Object But it may be objected that here is a greater Fee granted then was before viz. Pasture for two Horses and therefore the Grant is not good to bind the Successor Respons And I do agree that the Grant of the said Pasture is void yet that shall not at all prejudice the Grant of the said Office with the ancient Fee for they are severall and distinct Grants so that the one viz. The Grant of the Office with the ancient Fee is good by the Law against the Successor and the other void against the Successor but it cannot hurt the grant of the Office and ancient Fee no more then if a Bishop should grant an old Office with an ancient fee and also a new Office which was never granted before and all this by one Deed of Grant and this is duely confirmed although this be void against the Successor as to the new Office yet it is good for the ancient Office and the ancient see for although these fees are contained in one Deed yet are they severall and distinct so that one may be good and the other void 33. H. 8. Dyer 48. One seised of a Mannor to which a Villain was reguardant did grant one acre and also the Villain the Villain did pass in gross and the reason there given is because there be severall Gifts contained in one Deed. Also the Averment of the Plaintiff is insufficient viz. That the pasture was never granted by any of the Predecessors of the Grantor so that it may be that they were granted by himself being Bishop many times before the said Statute and then the Successor may well grant it and in the said case of the Bishop of Salisbury it is averred that the Grant was not by the Bishop Grantor nor any of his Predecessors William Whitton Clerk Plaintiff Sir Richard Weston Defendant in an Action of Debt The Case THe Pryor of S. Johns of Jerusalem did hold certain Lands discharged of Tythes by reason of their order Quandiu propriis manibus excolebant the Statute of 31. of H. 8. for discharging of Tythes is made the 32. of H. 8. it was enacted that the King should have to him his Heirs and Successors all the Lands Priviledges and Hereditaments of the said Pryory the King dies and the Lands by Mesne descents doe come to Queen Elizabeth who grants the Land to Sir Henry Weston Grandfather to the Defendant who died seised and the same descended to Sir Richard Weston Father to the Defendant and so from him to the Defendant And If the Land should be held discharged of Tythes as the Pryor held it was the question And I conceive that the Defendant shall hold the land discharged of Tythes in the same manner as the Pryor held the same For the argument of which two things are to be considered 1. Whether the King or his Patentee shall have the same priviledge which the Pryor had by the Statute of the 32. H. 8. or not 2. Admitting that they shall not have this priviledge by generall words of this Statute then Whether they be discharged by the clause of the Statute of 31. of H. 8. of Monasteries or not And I conceive that by each of these Statutes or at least by one of them the King and his Patentees shall hold this Land discharged of Tithes Quamdiu propriis manibus c. And as to the first point I conceive that the Statute of the 32. of H. 8. hath sufficient words to give this priviledge to the King for it gives to the King not only all their Mannors Lands and Tenements but also all their Priviledges belonging to them or to their Religion or Order and this discharge of Tythes is a Priviledge belonging to their Religion or Order for whereas Pope Pascall did order that no Monk or religious Order should pay Tithes afterwards Pope Adrian did grant this priviledge Solis Hierosolimariis Hospitulariis Cistersiensibus Templaribus and did take away that priviledge from all other Orders And I conceive it will not be denied but that the Pryor himself hath this priviledge and if he had it then it will follow that the King and his Patentee hath it also for all their priviledges are given to the King But it may be objected Object that these priviledges are given in respect only of their Order and the Order bring gone the priviledge is gone also I do agree that all personall priviledges concerning their Order are gone by reason of their dissolution Respons but such priviledges as concern the Land and will make the Land most profitable to the King are remaining and are given to the King for the intent of the Statute was to give it to the King in as ample and beneficiall manner and with all such priviledges concerning the Land as they themselves had And although Tythes are not issuing out of the Land nor shall be extended for unity of possession of the land as in the 42. Ed. 3.13 Where a Pryor having Tythes did purchase the Land and made a Feoffment yet shall he have the Tythes and so if a Parson makes a Lease for yeares of his Glebe-land yet he shall have Tythes thereof yet the priviledge to hold the Land discharged of Tythes is a priviledge concerning the land and is not like to the case of the appropriation of a Rectory to the Templars which was disappropriate by the dissolution of their Order for the reason there is because the appropriation was made to a body corporate which body being dissolved it is impossible they should retain the same and no body else can have it without a new appropriation or an Act of Parliament and for Appropriations to Abbeys c. the clause in the 31. of H. 8. was necessary for otherwise the Patentees of the King being Lay-people and not capable of an Appropriation they cannot have it but by speciall provision by Act of Parliament but any man may hold Land discharged of Tythes But it may be again objected that in the same Parliament an Act was made to revive temporall Liberties Priviledges and Franchises Object 2 of Monasteries and therefore all those had been lost if it had not been for this Statute and Sprituall priviledges are not revived by
conceive that the request is made in good time enough Answer for two Reasons The Estate here is to be made by the Defendant and although he be not bound to do it without request yet may he do it or at least he may offer to do it without any request and therefore if there be any loss in the not doing of it it is his own fault because he did not offer to make the Estate and is not the Plaintiffs fault and if he had offered to make the Estate and the Plaintiff had refused he had been excused And therefore the rule is given in the Lord Cromwels Case aforesaid that when a woman or a Grantee upon condition is to make an Estate to the Grantor and no time is limited he hath time for his life unless the party who is to have the Estate do hasten it by request but if an advowson be granted on such condition the Regrant ought to to be before the Church becomes voyd so if the condition be to grant Rent payable at certain days the Grant ought to be before any day of payment for otherwise he shall lose the Presentation and the Rent which will incur before the Grant made And in the 14 Ed. 3. Debt 138. In a Debt upon a Bond the Defendant pleaded the Condition viz. That if he granted twelve marks Rent the Bond should be voyd and demanded Iudgment c. because no time was limited so that he might do it when he would and said that he was always ready to grant the twelve marks Rent and because he demurred not issue was joyned c. If this not making request shall be any damage to the Plaintiff it must be because the Defendant suffers loss by it as in the cases above cited but in this case the Defendant hath the same remedy for the 20 l. although no Estate be made as he should have had if the Estate had been made for by the fourth Article it is agreed that if there be no Estate made of the Land the Plaintiff shall enter at the Anunciation 1612. And I conceive that this payment ought to be made at the time limited for the entry for it is a mutual agreement that doth binde both parties and therefore it lies not in the power of the Plaintiff for his want of entry to defeat the Defendant of his 20 l. agreed to be payd to him but when he enters it shall be intended that he entered when it was agreed he should enter viz. at the Anunciation 1612. And if he payd it not then the Defendant might have had his Action of Covenant whether any Lease were made or not And in Sir Andrew Corbets Case Cook Rep. 4. 81. certain Land is devised to A. B. until 800 l. pound be levyed that is until it may be levyed and so in case of a Lease or limitation of a use for otherwise it should be in their power to hold out the Lessor for ever and so in case of an Elegit upon the Statute of Westm the 2d. cap. 18. and of Retinue for the double value of a Marriage by the Statute of Merton cap. 6. Opinion of the Court. And the whole Court was of Opinion that the request came too late whereupon they were of Opinion to give Iudgment against the Plaintiff but I prayed that the Plaintiff might discontinue his Suit which was granted Rot. 609. Michaelmas 13 Jacob. Smalman Plaintiff against John Agborrow and Edmund Agborrow Defendants IN an Action of Trespass for that the Defendants the 13 Maii 13 Iacob six Heifers of the Plaintiff of the price of 20 l. at Dodenham in a place called Well-Marsh did take chase and drive away to the damage of 10 l. c. The Defendants to all except the chasing did plead Not guilty And as to the chasing they said that the place where c. is and at the time wherein c. was the Freehold of one Francis Agborrow and so did justifie as his servants for damage feasant c. Replication The Plaintiff replyed that before the said Francis Agborrow had any thing c. the Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral of St. Mary the Virgin in Worcester were seised in fee of the Mannor of Aukerden and Dodenham whereof the place where c. is and at the time whereof c. was parcel c. And that the 25 of November 10 Elizab. the said Dean and Chapter by their Indenture did Demise the said Mannor to William Agborrow and Jane his Wife and to the said Francis Agborrow for their lives And that the 20 Febru 39 Elizab. William Agborrow dyed seised and that the 21. of Decemb. 39. Eliz. Jane did marry with Robert Hawkins And that the 25. Febr. 40. Eliz. Robert Hawkins and the said Jane by their Indenture did demise the said Mannor to William Hawkins and William Heaven for sixty years from the date c. if the said Jane and Francis Agborrow or either of them should so long live rendring twenty pounds rent and that the 25. of Mar. 13. Jac. William Hawkins and William Heaven did grant their Estate to the Plaintiff whereby he was possessed and put in his Cattel there to grase which were there untill the Defendant took them away c. And did aver the life of Francis Agborrow The Defendants rejoyn and say that the said Jane did die the 14. Rejoynder of Mar. 12. Jac. and that Francis Agborrow did hold himself in c. Per jus accresendi Vpon which the Plaintiff demurred in Law A man and a woman are Ioynt-tenants for life the woman marries The Case the Husband and Wife by Indenture do let their moyety for years rendring Rent and after the woman dies And the question was whether the surviving Ioynt-tenant could avoid this Lease And I conceive he cannot And for the Argument of this Case I shall observe these two things thereof That if the woman who made this Lease had been sole at the time of the making this Lease had been good during her life and the life of her Companion the other Ioynt-tenant That this Lease being made by the Husband and Wife is not void but voidable And as to the first Point Littleton fol. 63. and 64. saies that if two Part. 1 Ioynt-tenants in Fee be and one grants a Rent-charge and dies the Survivor shall hold the Land discharged but if one makes a Lease for years and dies the Lease is good against the Survivor and in Hales Case in the Comment If two Ioynt-tenants be for years and one of them does grant to I.S. that if he payes twenty pounds at Michaelmas he shall have his moyety and the Grantor dies and I. S. does pay the money yet shall not he have the Land because the Condition precedes the Estate but if he make a Lease for yeares to commence at a day to come and dies before the day yet is the Lease good against the Survivor and so in Trin. 37. Eli. Harbury and
infeoff another of all the Lands whereof my Father died seised in an Action agâ—inst me I ought to set forth the certainty of the Land whereof he died seised And although the Executor does represent the person of the Testator yet the Act of the Executor is not the Act of the Testator not like to the Case of an Attorney 32. Ed. 3. Bar 264. If one be bound to enfeoff another it is sufficient if the Attorney be ready to make the Feoffment and so in the 19. H. 6. the same Law to confesse an Action but when an Executor does an Aâ—â— for the Testâ—tor it is otherwise as if the Executor sell Land it must be so pleaded for a dead person cannot sell Land And afterwards the Plaintiff discontinued his Suit Hillar 13. Jac. Norris Plaintiff against Henry Baker and Elizabeth Baker Defendants IN an Action of Trespasse for that the Defendants the 28. Octob. 13. Jac. by force and armes c. upon one Thomas Davis and Nicholas James Servants and Workmen of the Plaintiff did make an assaâ—â—t and them there labouring in the service of the Plaintiff did wound c. whereby the Plaintiffs lost their Service to his damage of forty pounds c. The Defendants as to the forme and according did plead not guilty whereupon issue was joyned And as to the residue of the Trespasse they say that at the time of the Trespasse the said Henry was and yet is possessed of an ancient House with the appurtenances in Worcester for divers years to come the which house doth joyn to a void peice of land in Worcester against the South and that at the time wherein c. and also time out of mind there were ancient Windows or Lights in and upon the South-side of the aforesaid house against the said peice of land through which the light did enter into the said house and the said Henry did enjoy great and necessary Easements and Commodities by reason of the open Ayre and light shining and entring into the said house by reason of the said Windows and Lights aforesaid and the said Thomas Davis and Nicholas Jones maliciously plotting and intending to deprive the said Henry of all the Easement and commodity of the aforesaid Windows and Lights Et Messuagium illud horrida tenebritate obscurare the said day and year did intend to build a house upon the said peice of land and did there then erect divers peices of Timber for the building of the said house which house if it had been built the said Henry should have lost the said easements and commodities wherefore the said Henry and the other Defendant who was his Servant by his commandment the said time wherein c. being in the said house did hinder the said Thomas Davis and Nicholas Jones from building the said house and the Defendants with a Staff did thrust down the said peices of Timber wherewith the said Thomas Davis and Nicholas Jones would have built the said house and did thrust and put away the said Thomas Davis and Nicholas Jones least they should build the said new house Prout eis bene licuit which is the same Assault and Battery of the said Thomas Davis and Nicholas Jones whereof the Plaintiffs complain Vpon which Plea the Plaintiffs demurred in Law And I conceive the Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff Because the Defendants have made no answer to the first matter of the Action which is the losing of the Service for it is not shewne throughout the Bar that the said Davis and Jones did make the building as Servants to the Plaintiff or by his commandment and 2. H. 6. 13. In a Trespasse for cutting of Trees where the Defendant pleaded that the place where c. was the Freehold of I. S. who let the same to the Defendant at Will and adjudged no plea by the Court unlesse he had said by which he entred and cut the Trees and so justified the Action 3. H. 6. 54. In a Trespasse for beating of his Tenant the Defendant said he was his Servant and the Issue was whether he was his Servant or not 31. H. 6. 12. B. 5. H. 7. 3. 20. H. 7. 4. and 20. H. 7. 5. A Master shall not have an Action for beating of his Servant unlesse he saies Per quod servitium amisit The cause of Iustification is because the Servants did endeavour to erect a Building which is not issuable There is no cause of Iustification for how can the Defendant know that the building will be to his hurt or nusance to him untill the building be erected and if it be to his nusance he may abate the same by Law The Plea is double for first they set forth that they had Lights c. and then they alledge that the new house was built for the word if is wanting and 33. H. 6. 26. In an Action on the Case the Writ was good Cum ipse habeat quoddam Cheminum ratione tenurae c. the Defendant levavit murum per quod querens Cheminum habere non potest c. It was holden by Prisoit that the Writ was not good by reason of the Repugnancy And this Case was argued again by Barcley for the Defendant and by me for the Plaintiff Judgment Tr. 14. Jac. And all the Court held the Plea in Bar to be insufficient for which Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Rot. 256. Hillar 13. Jacob. Edward Smith for the King and himself against Stephen Bointon IN an Information because the Defendant between the twentieth of June 12. Jac. and the fourth of July next after at Westminster in the County of Middlesex did buy ingrosse and obtain into his hands by buying and contracting of divers persons unknown three hundred quarters of Barley of the value each quarter of twenty pounds a hundred quarters of Beans of the value of twenty pounds every quarter Ad revendendum contra formam statuti c. whereupon an Action accrued to the King and the Informer to have of the Defendant foure hundred pounds viz. the value of the Barley and Beans whereof the Informer prayed a moyety c. The Defendant as to the Ingrosment between the twenty second of May 13. Jac. and the said fourth of July next after pleaded not guilty And as to the Ingrosment between the said twentieth day of July 12. Jac. and the said twenty second of May next after The Defendant saith that before the exhibiting of the said Information sc the twenty second of May 13. Jac. one Robert Beadow did exhibite an Information in the Exchequer for the King and himself against the Defendant because the Defendant between the first of June last and the day of the said Information did ingrosse five hundred quarters of Wheat of price every quarter thirty pounds five hundred quarters of Barley of price every quarter twenty pounds five hundred quarters of Oates of price every quarter twenty shillings and five hundred quarters of Beans and Pease
bargain and sell 10 l. Land parcel of the Mannor no use is changed for the incertainty Trinit 18 Jacob. Ponesley against Blackman IN an Ejectment upon a Lease made by Richard Perriam the 19 of May 18 Jacobi of a Messuage and Land in Thacham and Colthrop in the Parish of Thacham Habendum from the Annunciation last past for three years whereupon the Plaintiff entered and was possest until the Defendant the 20 of May in the same year did Eject him ad dampnum c. The Defendant pleaded Not guilty The Iury gave an Especial Verdict viz. That before the Ejectment John Curre was seised in fee of the said Lands and the seventh of January 10 Jac. for 300 l. did bargain and sell the same to William Perriam and his Heirs upon Condition that if the said John Curre his Heirs Executors or Assignes should pay to the said William his Heirs or Assignes at the house of C. B. in Westminster 300 l. in manner following viz. 10 l. the 9 of July then next coming 10 l. the 9 of January next after which shall be in the year 1613. 10 l. the 9 of July 1614 10 l. the 9 of January next after 10 l. the 9 of July 1615. 10 l. the ninth of January next after 10 l. the ninth of July 1616. 10 l. the 9 of January next after 10 l. the 9 of July 1617. and 210 l. the 9 of January next after that then the Indenture should be voyd Proviso semper And it was agreed by the said Indenture and the said parties that the said William Perriam his Heirs and Assigns shall not take and intermeddle with the actual possession of the said Tenements or with the receit of the Rents issues or profits thereof until default were made of the payment of the said 300 l. or any part thereof contrary to the limitation in the said Indenture And they found likewise that the said William Perriam did not enter into the said Tenements And that afterwards and before the first day of the payment the said Curre did demise the said Tenements to William Dibley and Richard Carter by two several Demises habendum for six years and an half rendering Rent That the said Dibley and Carter by vertue of the said several Demises did enter and take the profits during the said term claiming nothing but by the said several Demises and that they payd the Rents during all that time to Curre and that at the end of the said term they surrendered the Estate to Curre That 11 Octob. 16 Jacobi William Perriam made his Will in writing and thereby did Demise the said Tenements c. to Richard Perriam and dyed That the said Richard Perriam the 19 Maii 18 Jac. did enter and made the Lease to the Plaintiff who entered and was possest until the Defendant did Eject him That the said Richard Perriam was yet living But whether the Defendant were guilty or not they prayed the advice of the Court and if it seemed to the Court that he was guilty then c. It was argued on behalf of the Plaintiff That this agreement by Indenture that the Bargainee shall not meddle with the possession is a Lease for years to the Bargainor Admitting it to be no Lease for years yet is the Bargainor Tenant at will and when he makes a Lease for years and the Tenant enters he is a Disseisor and then when the Bargainor enters he is Tenant at will again and so the Bargainee may very well Demise the Land And as to the first point to make a Lease the Law does require but the agreement of the parties that the Lessee shall enjoy the Land and take the profits and it is not necessary to have any precise words of a Demise or Grant as in 5 H. 7.1 by Frieux If I make one Bayliff of my Mannor for certain years and that he shall have the profits without interruption this is a Lease for years But it was objected that there is no express words that the Bargainor Object 1 shall have the Land or the profit but onely that the Bargainee shall not have it But it was answered that the words did amount to so much Respons for when the Land is sold to the Bargainee by the Law he ought to have the possession and profits but when by the same Deed it is agreed that he shall not intermeddle with the Land it follows that the Bargainor shall have it for he had it before and there was nothing to exclude him but onely this Deed and although by the Deed the Land is conveyed to the Bargainee yet when by the same Deed it is agreed that he shall not have the possession it follows that the possession shall remain in the Bargainor in whom it was before the making of the said Deed for no alteration is made thereof as to the possession As in the 8 Assis 34. one made a Feoffment on condition that if such an act were not done that the Land should return c. and the Feoffor re-entered for the condition broken and there it was objected that his entry was not congeable because he must recover the Land by Action but it was adjudged that his entry was good and the same Law if the words were that for not performing the Feoffor should retake the Land But it was objected That it could be no Lease for the intertainty Object 2 of the time It was answered that notwithstanding it was a good Lease Respons for first it is certain to continue until the time limited for the first payment and if that be done then it is a good Lease until the second payment and is like to the Case where one lets Land for a year and so from year to year as long as both parties shall please this is a good Lease for one year and for every year after when he hath entered before any disagreement And as to the second Point it is clear that the Bargainor is in at the will of the Bargainee because he enters by his agreement and then when the Tenant at will makes a Lease for years and the Lessee enters he is the onely Disseisor but if the Tenant at will infeoffs a stranger then both are Disseisors by the Statute of Westm 2. Cap. 25. And in the 12 Ed. 4. 12 B. If Tenant at will makes a Lease for years this is a Disseisin And the reason hereof is apparent for the Tenant at will hath no Estate in the Land and therefore he hath nothing to transfer to another And in the 23 H. 8. B. If I let anothers Land for years and the Lessee enters he is a Disseisor And 21 H. 7. 26. a. If Tenant at will makes a Lease for years and the Lessee enters this is a Disseisin to the first Lessor And if the Tenant at will be outed by the Disseisor and re-enters he hath reduced the Estate to the Lessor as in the Lord Abergevenies Case reported briefly by the Lord Dyer
the Statute and therefore they are gone The reason of making of this Act was Answer because divers priviledges which they had as Bona Catalla Fellonum c. were extinct by the accession to the Crown and therefore it was necessary to revive them but if the Statute had not been made yet shall the King have all those Priviledges which were not extinct as Parks Chases Warrens Markets Fairs c. And that this priviledge is given to the King may be proved by a Proviso in the Statute whereby it is provided that all priviledges of Sanctuaries before used or claimed in houses or other places commonly called S. Johns Hold and all other Sanctuaries before used and appertaining to the said Hospitall shall be void and of none effect whereby it appears that if that Proviso had not been made the priviledge of Sanctuaries had been in the King and his Patentees in the same Mannor as had been used before the dissolution and that by force of this word Priviledge and yet this priviledge of Sanctuary does not concern the Land as discharge of payment of Tythes doth Object 3 But it may be again objected that the Statute of the 31. H. 8. hath an expresse clause for discharge of the payment of Tythes which needed not to have been if the generall words would have served Answer I answer that there were two reasons to put this Clause into the said Statute 1. To induce purchasers to buy the said Land and at a greater price 2. For the infinite manners and means of discharge which the Abbots had so that it would be very hard for Purchasers to know them and this appears in Coke Rep. 2. Bishop of Canterburies Case but in our Case the means is very well known and therefore such clause was not necessary And as to the second point I conceive that the clause for discharge of the payment of Tythes doth extend to the possession of this Pryory and yet I do agree that their Lands are given to the King not by the Statute of 31. of H. 8. but by the 32. of H. 8. And to prove this the Statute of 31. H. 8. does extend to all Abbies Pryories Hospitalls and other Religious and Ecclesiasticall houses and this Pryory was Religions and Ecclesiasticall for they vowed Obedience and Chastity and the case in the 27. H. 8. 16. in the case of Martin Dockwray where it is holden that Fryers are dead persons in the Law be they of an Abby or any other Pryory and that appeares by the Statute of 32. of H. 8. of their dissolution by which it is enacted that the Fryers shall sue and be sued by their proper names and that they shall have such capacities liberties and freedomes as were given to other Religious persons in an Aâ—â— at the first Session of this Parliament And in further proof hereof divers Rectories were appropriate to them and Tythes given to them and they enjoyed them and the Statute gives them to the King by which it does appear that they were Religious and Ecclesiasticall Object 4 But it may be likewise objected that the Statute of the 31. of H. 8. does not discharge Chanteries or Colledge lands given to King Edward the sixth of Tythes Answer I answer That the reason of that is that because Colledges although they were Ecclesiasticall yet they were not regular And Coke 2. Rep. 48. B. but the Fryers of S. John of Jerusalem were Ecclesiasticall and Regular And it is not inconvenient that the King and his Patentees should have the benefit of the clause of the Statute of 31. of H. 8. in those lands given to the King by the Statute of the 32. of H. 8. as the Statute of Acton Burnell does provide that if the Extender upon a Statute Merchant does extend the Lands too high they shall answer this to the Conusee and the Statute of 23. H. 8. does order a new form of Recognizance to be taken before any of the cheif Iustices yet the Conusee shall have the said benefit of the Statute of Acton Burnell although it was made two hundred years before the other Statute And for Authority in this point Dyer 277. The Pryor of S Johns of Jerusalem with the Fryers two or three years before the dissolution did make a Lease of a Mannor for years which Lessee did pay Tythes to the Church of Rochester proprietary and after the dissolution the King did grant the reversion of the Mannor to one Stathome and to his Heirs in such ample manner as the Pryor had the same c. the Lease does expire If he and his heirs having the Mannor in their own possession shal be discharged of Tythes or not was the question in Chancery and on consideration had of the Statute of the 31. of H. 8. cap. 13. it seemed by the Lord Keeper Sanders Southcott and Dyer that they be discharged untill they let the same out to others to Farm And Pascha 11. Jac. in the Common Pleas in the case of Weney this case did come into question and argued by Coke Warburton Winch and Nicholls and they were divided in their Opinions Saturday the sixth day of June in the ninth year of the Reign of King Charles Between Francis Townley Esquire Plaintiff Edward Sherborne Executor of Richard Mountford deceased Executor of Thomas Challoner deceased Defendant Vpon hearing and debating of the matter as well on the fifteenth as the eighteenth of June last the Court being assisted with Mr. Iustice Hutton and Mr. Iustice Jones upon the Plaintiffs Bill of Review for the reviving and reversall of a Decree made in a Cause wherein the said Richard Mountford deceased Executor of Thomas Challoner was Plaintiff against the now Plaintiff and Thomas Foster Esquire concerning the summe of one thousand seven hundred pounds raised out of the Rents and Profits of certain Lands and Tenements in Linsted Ardingley and Worth in the County of Sussex in trust for the said Thomas Challoner during his Minority and which the now Plaintiff by the Decree of this Court was to pay in case the said Foster should fail to pay the same severall matters were offered by the Plaintiffs Councell for the reversall of the said Decree as namely that the now Plaintiff was decreed to pay the summe of one thousand seven hundred pounds as raised out of the profits of the Infants Lands settled upon an account made up by the said Forster with the said Thomas Challoner the Infant after he came to age whereto the Plaintiff Townley was neither party nor privy nor ever consented nor ought to be bound thereby And secondly that the said Plaintiff is by the said Decree made lyable to the payment of all the profits raised out of the said Infants Estate whereas he never received any profits at all and although he gave some Acquittances yet the same were onely for the three first half yeares and no more and were but to ballance an account the monies disbursed amounting to as much as
himself his boy and his horse Item The Defendant is to deliver the said house to the Plaintiff with all the appurtenances thereto belonging or in any wise appertaining Tenantable and in good repair Item The Defendant is to make as good a Lease as can be devised by Councel unto the Plaintiff and his Assigns And the Defendant pleaded performance of these Articles Plea Replication The Plaintiff did reply that the said 23 of April 1610. there was not any Demise made by the said John Sowdley of the said Mannor-house and of the houses called Sowdley Hall and of the Land lately in the Tenure of the aforesaid Reynold Sowdley and that the Plaintiff since the making of the said Articles viz. 9 Maii 10 Jacob. at great Sowdley aforesaid did require the Defendant to make a Lease of the said Mannor-house and houses with the aforesaid Land late in the Tenure of the said Reynold Sowdley scituate in great Sowdley aforesaid in the Parish aforesaid and in the County aforesaid to one Walter Welden Thomas Welden and John Welden for their lives according to the effect of the said Articles and that the said Walter Thomas and John were there and then ready to accept of the said Demise of the premisses of the Defendant and yet the Defendant did refuse to make the said Demise of the premisses to the said Walter Thomas and John Demurrer Vpon which the Defendant demurred in Law And I conceive that the Plaintiff ought to have Iudgment And fist to answer the Objections that are made against the Plaintiff upon the Articles Object 1 That the Lease ought to have been made to the Plaintiff himself for three lives and not to any other Answer I answer The words are plain That the Lease shall be made to the Plaintiff or his Assigns in the disjunctive and therefore it is in his election either to take the Lease to himself for three lives or to take it to his Assigns for three lives and so should it be if the words were to the Plaintiff and his Assigns as it is resolved in the Comment fol. 288. Chapman against Dalton where a man did let Land to another and did covenant at the end of the term to make such another Lease to the Lessee and his Assigns the Lessee made his Executor and dyes and the Executor does make his Executor and dyes and there it was adjudged that the Lease ought to be made to the Executor of the Executor for he is the Assignee in Law to the first Testator and the word and shall be taken for the word or and there it is clearly agreed that if the Lessee had named any in his life-time to take the said Lease it ought to be made to him and so as it is there said if I be obliged to make a feoffment to you or your Assigns such as you name to take the feoffment are your Assigns indeed and so in our Case these three persons named by the Plaintiff are his Assigns to whom the Lease ought to be made 21 Ed. 3. 29. Object 2 The other Objection is that the Lessee named by the Plaintiff ought to be ready upon the Land to take the Lease for a Lease for life cannot be made off the Land Answer I answer That when a man is bound to infeoff the Obligee and no time is limited he ought to do this upon request 27 H. 8. 6. B. and the same Law of a feoffment upon condition to re-infeoff him 44 Ed. 3. 9. 14 H. 8. 21. 18 Assis 18. 17 Assis 20. but yet the Obligor at his peril ought to do it during his life otherwise the condition is broken So in our Case the Plaintiff ought first to require the Defendant to make the Lease and this of necessity ought to be done where he can finde the Defendant for it is impossible to do it on the Land unless the Defendant be there and the Plaintiff cannot compel him to be there But when the Plaintiff hath made his request the next action is then to be done by the Defendant and therefore he ought to go to the Land and to be ready there to make the Lease And in the 22 Ed. 4. 43. A. is bound to B. on condition that C. shall infeoff B. by such a day and did shew that C. was there ready on the Land and B was not there to receive the Feoffment and there it was argued whether the issue should be upon the being of C. upon the Land who ought to make the Lease or of B. who was to take the Lease and in fine it was adjudged that the issue should be whether C. were there or not for he ought to be there or else the Bond was forfeit So that the Defendant upon request ought to go to the Land and there to attend a convenient time to make the Estate and then if the persons named do not come thither he is excused but when he goes not to the Land but does utterly refuse to make the Estate it is to no purpose for the Assigns to come to the Land and admitting the Law would enforce them to attend there then I demand how long they ought to attend for in all places where the attendance of one is required in a place certain by the Law the time of his attendance is limited 18 and 19 Eliz. Dyer 354. The third Objection is that the Article for making of the Lease Object 3 is to make a Lease of the said Mannor whereas no Mannor is mentioned before and the request is to make a Lease of the houses and of the Land late in the Tenure of Randolph Sowdley To this I answer That the Demise in the first Article Answer is of the Mannor-house and all the Lands which were in the Tenure of Randolph Sowdley with all the appurtenances thereto belonging then when he agrees to make a Lease of the said Mannor it shall be intended the Mannor mentioned before and although it be not in verity a Mannor yet in reputation it may be a Mannor and that is enough to make it to be put in the agreement 22 H. 6. 39. a. where one pleaded a Feoffment of eight Acres of Land by the name of the Mannor of D. and adjudged by the Court to be a good Feoffment although the acres were not set forth and in the 27 of H. 6. 2. a Plough-land may pass by the name of a Mannor The request is made too late for the time limited to enter is the Object 4 Anunciation 1612. and the request is not until the ninth of June next after and that is too late for the Lessor ought to have 20 l. fine upon the entry and making of the Lease and therefore the request ought to be made at the time that the entry was to be made and for that purpose Andrews Case and the Lord Cromwels Case in L. Cooks Rep. were cited To which Objection Cook and all the Court did seem to incline But I
years not expired at the time of her marriage she should have the Messuage then in his tenure being his Mansion-house which house now is in the tenure of the Plaintiff and an Annuity of 20 l. out of all his other Lands Tenements and Houses of the Devisor in the said Parish with a clause of distress and to detain the same until the said Annuity were payd to the said Ellinor and if Ellinor did marry he did devise all his said Lands except the said Mansion-house to the said Thomas Butler and his Children and made the said Ellinor his Executrix and dyed possessed And the said Ellinor entered claiming the Devise and the 16 of January 1606. marryed the Plaintiff and the 30 of April 1606. the Plaintiff and his Wife did agree to have the said Mansion-house and the said Annuity and Thomas Butler by their assent did enter into the residue And the 12 Jan. 1606. Elianor dyed And at our Lady-day 12 Jacob. 10 l. of the said Annuity was behinde wherefore the Plaintiff the 26 of May 12 Jacob. did enter and take certain goods for the said 10 l. and would have deteined them in the name of a Distress and the Defendants rescued them ad damnum 40 l. The Defendants pleaded Not guilty The Iury found the Lease made by the Bishop and the confirmation with the several Assignments and the Devise as in the Declaration is set forth saving the Devise to the said Thomas Butler from the day of the death of the said Ellinor which clause was not found and they found also that John Butler the 3 Novemb. 3 Jacob. dyed and that Ellinor did enter claiming by the Devise and that she married the Plaintiff and also their agreement to have the Mansion-house and Rent as a Legacy and the entry of Thomas Butler in the residue by the assent of the Executor and the death of Ellinor and that the 10 l. was behinde and that the Plaintiff took the goods and would have detained them as a Distress and that the Defendants rescued them And if the Defendants were guilty they found for the Plaintiff if not they found for the Defendant c. And I conceive Iudgment ought to be given for the Defendants For first I conceive that the Wife of John Butler had not any Rent at all out of the house in which the Distress was taken If she had any Rent yet it is determined by her death And I conceive the Case to be thus Lessee for years of two houses does devise them to his Wife for 28 years which is all the term if she live so long unmarryed and after her death to Thomas Butler and if the woman marries that she shall have one Messuage for the residue of the term and 20 l. Rent ex omnibus aliis terris suis with a clause of Distress and then Thomas Butler shall have the other Messuage The Devisor makes his Wife Executrix and dyes and the Wife enters claiming by the Devise and then marries the Plaintiff and then they agree to have the house that was devised to her after her marriage with the Rent and Thomas Butler by their assent does enter into the residue the Wife dyes and the Plaintiff distrains for Rent behinde after her death and the Defendants rescue the Distress whereupon the Plaintiff brings his Action And as to the first I conceive that the Wife can have no Rent by this Devise and that for three Reasons Because the Wife did take the entire term as Executrix and therefore she cannot have a Rent out of the same term and therefore I conceive it will not be denyed that if Lessee for years deviseth a Rent to I. S. and makes him his Executor and dyes I. S. shall have no Rent for in as much as he hath the term as Executor he shall have no Rent as Legated for it is extinct in the term and although he hath one in his own right and the other as Executor yet cannot he have both together 4 Ed. 6. B. Surrend 52. If one hath a term as Executor and purchase the Reversion the Lease is extinct And although the term in our case is devised to a stranger yet by the Law it does first vest in the Executor and the Devisee cannot have it without the delivery or consent of the Executor And if a Devisee does enter into a term or takes goods without the delivery of the Executor the Executor may have an Action of Trespass against him 20 Ed. 49. 2 H. 6. 16. 11 H. 4. 84. 37 H. 6. 30. although in the 27 of Henry the 6. 8. a. diversity is taken between a thing certain and uncertain for it is there said that if the thing devised be certain and a stranger takes it the Executor shall have an Action of Trespass but in old Nat. Bre. 87. there is no diversity So that it is clear that the term first vesteth in the Executor and so the Rent which the Executor had is extinguished by unity of possession Object And whereas it hath been objected That although the term does first vest in the Executor yet when he assents to the Devise he is then immediately in by the Devisor and therefore the Rent is not extinct Answer I answer That there the agreement does divest all the Estate that the Devisor had gained by his entry but in our case the woman hath as high and right an Estate in the Land as she hath in the Rent and although there be a possibility of severing the Land from the Rent yet that cannot revive the Rent being extinct as if one hath Land of the part of his Father and hath a Rent out of the said Land of the part of his Mother the Rent is extinct and cannot be divided although he dye without issue And that the Wife hath as high Estate in the Land as she hath in the Rent appears in Cook 6 Rep. Sanders Case where if an Executor commits waste before he assent to the Legacy an Action of waste lies against him which proves that the Executor hath the term And although the Devisee after his assent is in by relation by the Devisor yet this will not ayd the Rent no more then if a Son having Rent out of his Fathers Land and the Father dyes and the Son endows his Wife this shall not revive the Rent which was extinct before yet is the Wife in as of the Estate of her Husband and the Estate and possession of the Son is utterly defeated But admit that the Rent be not extinct yet here is no agreement to have the Rent for here are two Devises 1. Of the Land to the Wife if she continue unmarryed the remainder to Thomas Butler and the other of twenty pounds Rent to commence after her marriage wherefore the assent of the Executrix to the Devise of the Land is no execution of the Devise of the Rent Comment 5. 21. B. Welden and Elkingtons Case If a Termor deviseth a Rent or a
of age or not 29 Assise 67. In an Assise against Husband and Wife the Husband did answer as Tenant and the Wife would not but the Husband said that his Wife was within age and that she was taken away but did not say by whom and he did appear for himself and his Wife as her Guardian and pleaded in Bar and one of the Counsell said that the Wife had made default which is the default of the Husband and because that he answered as Guardian without Warranty by Record in this Court to do the same Iudgment c. And there Thoâ—â— said that he ought to have a Warranty in such case wherefore the Assise was awarded 35 H. 8. 56. In a Writ of Right by the Husband and Wife the wife being within age and she appeared by her next of Kin and was admitted by the Court. New Book of Entries 256. In a writ of Error to reverse a Fine by Maurice Pierce and Joane his wife and John Pierce and Elizab. his wife the three first appeared in person and Elizabeth being within age by one Laurence Gibson her Guardian and admitted by the Court. And so in this Case forasmuch as the Land is the Inheritance of the wife which is demanded which she will lose by this Recovery she ought to appear by her Guardian notwithstanding the full age of the husband who is joyned only for form sake with his wife 30 31 Eli. Morseby against Charnock The husband and wife levied a Fine and after this was reversed by Error because that the wife was within age the husband shall not have the Land for all the Estate passeth from the wife and the husband joyned only for conformity Coke 2. Rep. Cromwels and Beckwiths Case But it may be objected also Object that this Error concerning the nonage of the wife is so appropriated to her person in privity that no stranger can take any advantage thereof I conceive not so Answer for the constituting of an Attorney is utterly void as to the wife and therefore every stranger shall take advantage there as is not like the Case where an Infant makes a Feoffment which is but voidable and therefore the Lord by escheat nor any stranger shall not avoid it 22 H. 6. 31. The Plaintiffs within age did sue by an Attorney and there it was ruled that the Defendants might have a Writ of Error and placit 37. Eliz. Rot. 253. Bartholomew brought a Writ of Error against Dighton for that Dighton recovered against him in an Action of false Imprisonment in which he being within age did sue by an Attorney and adjudged that Iudgment should be reversed And this Case is not to be resembled to the Case of a Fine levied by an Infant which cannot be reversed by any but by the Infant himself and the same Law is of a Recognizance by an Infant and the reason of these Cases is because it is the Act of the Court to admit him to levy a Fine or to acknowledge a Recognizance and therefore this ought to be reformed by the Court and that must be by inspection of the Infant and therefore it ought to be done during nonage But the nonage in this Case ought to be tryed per pais as it was adjudged in the said cases of Bartholomew and Dighton and the case of Hobbs in which case the Infant was brought to the Bar to be inspected but adjudged by the Court that it should not be so because the matter was tryable per pais and 10. Rep Mary Portingtons case A common Recovery against an Infant although he appears by his Guardian shall not bind him for an Infant hath not such a disposing power of his Land as the Husbands wife have but is utterly disabled by the Law to transfer or convey his Inheritance or Freehold to others during his minority And of late daies a common Recovery does appear to be a common conveyance and assurance of Land The third part of the Case is If the two matters pleaded in Bar of Part. 3 the Writ of Error or any of them be sufficient or not I conceive not And first as to the Fine with Proclamations levied before the Recovery had which is the Plea of Mary Taylor one of the Ter-tenants I conceive that it is utterly insufficient as well for the manner as the matter of the Plea for she hath disabled her self to plead this Plea for she sets forth that the twentieth of May 31 Eliz. Thomas Leigh and Katherine his wife did let to the said Mary a Cottage and three acres of Land parcell of the Tenements expressed in the Fine and Recovery for life but doth not shew in what Town the said Cottage and three acres do lye wherefore the Plea is altogether uncertaine and insufficient for the Tenements in the Recovery do lye in two Towns viz. In Alkington and Prestwick and it doth not appear by this Plea in which of these the Cottage and three acres do lye 5 Ed. 4. 116. b. In a Formedon in Discender of a house and forty acres of Land and six of Wood in three Towns and the Issue being to be tryed the Tenant said that the Demandant had entred into the house and thirty acres of Land and three of wood And by the Court the Plea was naught because it did not appear in which Town the Entry was And in Moore and Hoskins case in the Exchequer 8 Jacob. In an Ejectment of Land in Overkiddington and Netherkiddington the Defendant pleaded not guilty and when the Issue came to be tryed by Nisi prius in the County of Oxon the Defendant pleaded an Entry of the Plaintiff in three acres of the Land contained in the Declaration since the last Declaration whereupon the Plaintiff demurred and adjudged that the Plea was insufficient and thereupon the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover Secondly for the matter this Fine being precedent to the Recovery whereby the cause of this Action is given cannot extinguish it for it is a Rule in Law that one cannot give or grant that which one hath not 22 H. 7. Kelway 84. If the eldest Son in the life-time of his Father infeoffs another it is void as to bind the Land and Littleton Releases 106. These words in a Release Quae quo vis modo in futuro habere potero are void in Law for no Right doth passe but only the Right which the Releasor had at the time of the Release as if the Son release to the Disseisor of his Father all the right which he hath or may have and the Father dye the Son may enter because that he had no right in the life of his Father but only a descent to him after the Release by the death of his Father 13 Ed. 1. 10 Ed. 2. and 4 H. 7. cap. 24. It is enacted that Fines with Proclamations shall conclude as well Privies as Strangers saving to the strangers such right claim and interest as they had at the time ingrossed so as they
an Action of Debt for forty pounds upon the Statute of 2 Edw. 6. For that the Plaintiff is and was for two years past Rector of Bifeild and the Defendant the first of October 12 Jacob. was Occupier of eighteen acres of Land and thirty of Pasture in Bifeild aforesaid and did continue the occupation thereof for a yeare after and the first of Septemb. the 13 Jacob. did mow and reap the Hay growing upon the Meadow and the Grain viz. Barley Wheat Pease Beans and Oates growing upon the Land and the same day did take and carry them away without setting out the Tithes or agreeing with the Plaintiff for them and did aver the value of the Tithes to be thirteen pounds six shillings eight pence The Defendant pleaded Non debet The Iury found that King Henry the eighth was seised in Fee of the Advowson of Bifeild and the five and twentieth of April 34 H. 8. the King granted the same to Sir Edward Knightly and Ursula his wife and to the Heirs Males of the body of Sir Edmund the remainder to Valentine Knightley his brother and the heires males of his body the Remainder to the right heires of Sir Richard Knightley then dead Father of the said Sir Edmund Sir Edmund died seised without Issue Ursula did surrender to Valentine and the fifth of September 4 5 Phil. Mar. Valentine did give and grant the Advowson to Sir John Spencer and others and their heires to the use of himself for the life of Ursula and after the decease of which of them should first die to the use of Richard Knightley his Son and Mary his wife and the heires males of the body of Richard the Remainder to the right heires of Sir Richard Father of Valentine That the twentieth of Febr. 6 Eliz. William Briggs Rector of Bifeild by Indenture did let the Rectory to the said Richard Knightley habendum from the next Annunciation for sixty one yeares rendring 28. pounds Rent And that the twenty fourth of Febr. 6 Eliz. Valentine Knightley did confirm the Lease and the last day of February in the same year the Bishop of Peterborow being ordinary did confirm it That the thirtieth of July in the same year Richard Knightley did grant the Lease to Edward Knightley his second Son and afterwards recovered the profits to the use of Edward being within age That the eighth of May 8 Eliz. Valentine died seised of the Advowson having Issue the said Richard his eldest Son William Briggs did recover the Rent during his life and dies whereby Richard Knightley does present William Reynolds who was admitted instituted and inducted Reynolds did resigne whereupon Richard Knightley did present Richard Burdsale who was admitted c. and Burdsale did resigne wherefore Richard Knightley did present Simon Rogers who was admitted c. And they found that all these persons did accept the Rent And that the first of Septemb. 21 Eliz. Richard Knightley did take the profits to the use of Edward and did devise the Rectory to Rogers the Parson for forty years if he should be so long Parson there That the thirteenth of Novemb. 27 Eliz. Sir Richard Knightley did grant the Advowson to Valentine his Son in Fee That the 34 of Eliz. A Fine was levied between Bartholomew Tate and Henry Yelverton Esquires Plaintiffs and Valentine Knightley Esquire Deforceator of the said Advowson Sur conusans de droit come ceo with Warranty to the use of the Conusees and their heirs Rogers did resigne whereupon the said Valentine did present Jonas Challoner who afterwards died and the Ordinary did present the Plaintiff by Laps who did accept the Rent for divers years And they found the carrying away of the Tithes and to the value of ten pounds And prayed the opinion of the Court upon the whole matter whether the Defendant owed the thirty pound to the Plaintiff or not Vpon which Verdict the case is this Valentine Knightley seised of an Advowson in Taile to him and the Heirs males of his body the Remainder to the right Heirs of Sir Richard Knightley his Father then dead the 4 5 of Philip and Mary did give and grant the Advowson in Fee to the use of himself for the life of Ursula Knightley the Remainder to Richard his Son and Mary his wife and the heirs males of the body of Richard the Remainder to the right heirs of the said Sir Richard the Father The twentieth of February 6 Eliz. William Briggs the Incumbent does make a Lease of the Rectory by Indenture to Richard the Son for sixty one years from the Annunciation next c. rendring twenty eight pounds Rent And the twenty fourth of Febr. 6 Eliz. Valentine Knightley does confirm the Lease and the last of February in the same year the Ordinary confirms it The thirtieth of July in the same year Richard the Lessee grants the Term to Edward Knightley his second Son within age and takes the profits to his use And the 8. of Eliz. Valentine dies Richard being his eldest Son William Briggs dies whereby Sir Richard does present William Reynolds who was admitted c. And he did resigne whereby Sir Richard did present Burdsale c. who did resigne c. whereby he presented Rogers and all these persons did receive the Rent And the 21 Eliz. Sir Richard did make a Lease of the Rectory to Rogers the Parson for forty yeares if he shall be there Parson so long 27 Eliz. Sir Richard grants the Advowson to Valentine his Son in fee and 34 Eliz. A Fine was levied of the Advowson between Bartholomew Tate and Henry Yelverton Plaintiffs and Valentine Knightley Deforceator to the use of the Conusees and their heirs Rogers did resigne whereby the said Valentine did present John Challoner c. who died and the Ordinary collated the Plaintiff by Laps who for many years accepted the Rent and the Defendant did take and carry the Tithes to the value of ten pounds And whether this Lease be good to bind the Plaintiff or not is the question and I conceive it is not And for the arguing of this Case I will consider these three things The Validity of the Lease without any confirmation If here be any confirmation of this Lease and if it continues in force against the now Plaintiff Admitting here be not any sufficient confirmation of it self if the Fine levied by Valentine Knightley hath given any force and strength to it And as to the first I conceive without any doubt that this Lease without any confirmation is determined by the death of the person who made it and is so determined as no acceptance of Rent by the Successor can make it good and therefore the difference is between a Lease for life and a Lease for years made by a person rendring Rent for the Lease for life is only voidable and not void by the death of the Lessor so that if the Successor does accept the Rent and Fealty he shall be bound for his
a Lease for four years the Lessee entred and the Lessor did grant the Land habendum from Midsomer next for life the Lesses after Midsomer did attorn and adjudged that the Grant was void and in Barkwicks Case 5 Rep. the reason thereof is given because that if the Grant should be good the Grantor should have a particular Estate scil during the first day of the date or in the mean time untill the Grant did begin to take effect without any Donor or Lessor which is against the Rules of Law And although this Grant of the Reversion be but for years yet is it all one for the diversity is between a Lease for years made Tenant in Fee or for life to commence in future and a grant of a Reversion for in the first Case it is but a future Charge upon the Land so that the Lessor hath his former Estate untill the Lease doth begin and the Lessee hath no Term but only interesse termin and therefore Hil. 38. Eliz in the Common Pleas between Row and White it was agreed that if the Lessor be disseised before the Lease begins the Lessee after the day of the Commencement may grant the term otherwise where a Lessee for yeares in possession is outed by an estranger for there his Term is turned into a Right but in the first Case he hath not any Term in esse and therefore it cannot be turned into a Right nor any wrong done thereunto And for direct Authorities in this Case 29 Eliz. in the Common Pleas the Countesse of Kents Case Where one having a Reversion in Fee does grant this Habendum after the death of I. S. for years and it was adjudged a void Grant And Trin. 39 Eliz. Johnson and Somerset in the Common Pleas Lessee for life grants the Reversion Habendum a die dat for ten years and adjudged a void Grant And in the Comment 155. by Brown If one having a Reversion does grant it habendum after a day to come for years this is a void Grant for if it may be granted from a day to come the Grantor shall have a particular Estate in the mean time by his own making which cannot be that one may be Lessor to himself or diminish his own Estate and there it is taken for a Rule that when there is a Rent in Esse or a Reversion c. a man cannot make this to be in esse for a time and to cease for another time or to grant it to another after the death of any or from a day to come relinquishing to himself an Estate in the mean time And in the Comment 197. b. Adams against Wortesbey agreed there that a Reversion cannot passe as a Reversion according to the common understanding thereof from a day to come But Haughton conceived that this Case being a bargain and sale whereby the use doth passe first this may well passe from a day to come Quod nullus dedixit Thirdly It is not averred that the twenty acres in which the Distresse was taken was not part of the Closes excepted so that it may be part of them and then no Distresse for the Rent can be taken there And although it may be gathered by some words in the Bar to the Avowry that the place where c. was parcell of the Land devised to Wiseman yet this shall not help the Conusans as in Cokes 7. Rep. fol. 24 25. where one having Land in Fee and another Land for years did grant a Rent for life out of both the Grantee distrained for the Rent and avowed that the Rent was granted out of the Lease land amongst other lands whereas he ought to have alledged the Rent to be granted out of the Land in Fee only and although the Plaintiff in his Bar to the Avowry hath shewed the truth of the Case yet this will not make the Avowry which wants substance to be good Judgment And all the Court did agree the Avowry to be naught for this exception Wherefore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff in the Replevin Mich. 14 Jac. Webb and Jucks Case against Worfeild Rot. 266. IN a Writ of Error to reverse a Iudgment given in the Common Pleas for the now Defendant against the now Plaintiffs In which the Plaintiff did declare that the Defendants the fourteenth of Febr. 9 Jac. at Ponick in a place called Brancefords Court did take an Oxe from the Plaintiff ad damnum forty pounds The Defendants did acknowledge the taking of the said Oxe as Bayliffs to Elizabeth Ligon Widow for that the place where c. contained two acres of Land and that one Anne Ligon was seised in Fee of the Scite of the Mannor of Bransford and of seven Messuages three Gardens and a hundred and fifty acres of Land forty two of Meadow sixty six of Pasture five of Wood and seventy of Furzes and Heath in Ponick aforesaid Bransford Leigh Newland and Wick whereof the place where c. is parcell That the sixth of September the twenty fourth of H 8. Anne Ligon did devise this to John Parsons and Anne his Daughter for seventy years after the death of Elizabeth his wife if they or either of them shall so long live rendring five pounds four shillings eight pence Rent at the Annunciation Christmas Midsummer and Michaelmas That the eleventh of August 1554. Elizabeth Parsons died whereupon John and Anne Parsons entred And Ligon dies whereby the Reversion descended to Sir Rich. Ligon her Son and Heir and Sir Richard died wherby the same descended to William Ligon his Son and Heir who died also whereby the same descended to Richard Ligon his Son and Heir who died also and the same descended to Sir Richard Ligon his Son and heire who Hil. 33 Eliz. did levy a Fine Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c. to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the said Elizabeth Ligon then his Wife for life the Remainder to the Heirs of the body of Sir William the Remainder to the right Heires of Sir William 10 May 4. Jac. John Parsons died Pasch 6 Jac. Sir William Ligon and Elizabeth his wife did levy a Fine to the Plaintiff to the use of the Plaintiff for the life of Sir William the Remainder to the said Elizabeth for her life the Remainder to the Plaintiff in Fee Sir William dies whereby the Reversion does remain to Elizabeth his Wife And for seventy eight pounds six pence of the said Rent for three quarters of a year ending at Christmas 9 Jacob. they did acknowledge c. and they averred the lives of the said Elizabeth Ligon and the said Anne Parsons Bar. The Plaintiff said that the Fine levied by Sir William and Elizabeth his wife was to the use of the Plaintiff and his Heirs and justified the putting in of the said Oxe by the license of the said Anne Parsons Absque hoc that the said Fine was to the use of the Plaintiff for the life of
Leases of the Recusant but the woman here being married hath no Lands or Goods and therefore the King cannot have any thing and the Goods or Lands of her Husband cannot be taken for his wifes offence she being convicted by Indictment only to which the husband is no party Object But it may be objected that the wife may perhaps survive the husband and then she may have Goods and Lands and the King may seise them I answer that first it may be also that the husband may survive and then the King shall never have any thing Answer as it is resolved in Dr. Fosters Case 2. This Objection is upon two possibilities 1. That the husband may first dye 2. That the wife then shall have Lands and Goods And I have alwaies taken it for a Rule that a possibility shall never take away a present Action or Suit as is proved by divers Cases as in 5. Rep. Harisons Case and 9. Rep. fol. 108. 109. And as it is said in Elmers Case 5. Rep. that two possibilities cannot maintain hospitality or repair a Churche so I say in this case that one such possibility to recover this penalty for the King cannot hinder the Informer of his Suit nor oppose the good reformation of Recusants intended by the Statute for then all marryed women addicted to Popery will be Recusants upon confidence that if they be once convicted by Indictment the which they themselves may procure to be done then they shall not be subject to any penalty during the lives of their husbands who peradventure may survive them and as it was well observed in Dr. Fosters Case that married women are the most dangerous Recusants because that they have the education of their Children and the government of their Servants But it may be objected Object that if the Informer may sue and recover against the husband and wife then if the wife does survive the King shall have these Lands and goods according to the 28 Eliz. or may sue the husband and wife according to the 35 Eliz. for these penalties and so shall be two waies punished for the same offence No such inconvenience can happen Answer for as it is resolved in Dr. Fosters Case the recovery of the Informer being legall shall bar the King as in the 19 Ed. 2. where the Testator was bound in a Recognizance for performing of Covenants this was no bar in debt upon an Obligation but that the Plaintiff may recover and if after such recovery the Statute be forfeited and execution thereupon the Executor shall have an Audita Querela for that he had lawfully administred the goods before for payment of the Bonds And after viz. Mich. 17 Jac. I moved the Court that the Plea of the Defendants was insufficient for that the Statute did ordain that upon every Indictment of Recusancy proclamation should be made and that the body of the Offender should be rendred to the Sheriff of the County before the next Assises or Gaol-delivery and if such Offender so proclaimed does not appear but makes default that he shall be convicted c. And the Defendants have pleaded that Proclamation was made that the body of the said Katherine should be rendred at the next Assises or Gaol-delivery c. and therefore she is not convict at all because she was not proclaimed according to the Statute for this Proclamation differs in two materiall circumstances from the form prescribed by the Statute first in omission of the Sheriff to whom the body is to be rendred 2. In the time for the Statute limits it to be done before the next Assises c. but this Proclamation gives a larger time scil at the Assises Whereupon all the Court agreed that the Plea was insufficient for the causes aforesaid and that now the wife was not convicted by proclamation Wherefore Iudgment Judgment was given for the King and the Informer John Mitton Administrator of George Mitton of Goods not Administred by Alice Mitton against John By. IN an Action of Debt for twenty five pounds for that William Marquess of Winchester the twentieth of October 30 Eliz by Indenture did devise to John By the Father of the Defendant three parts of the Mannor of Newnham in the County of Southampton excepting all Fines Reliefs Amerciaments Courts Woods Copies Fishings and Royalties Habendum from Michaelmas next for one and twenty years rendring six shillings ten pence Rent at the Annunciation and Michaelmas The twentieth of January 1. Jac. John By the Father made his Will and made the Defendant his Executor and died possessed The fourteenth of Novemb. 2 Jacob. the Defendant granted the Term to the Intestate The sixteenth of Novemb. 2 Jac. The Intestate did grant all the Term by Indenture to the Defendant rendring fifty nine pounds Rent at the Annunciation and Michaelmas whereby be entred and had possession of the Land and twenty five pounds of the said Rent for half a year ending at Michaelmas 15 Jacob. was behinde to the Plaintiff after the death of the Intestate which yet the Defendant doth not pay ad damnum c. The Defendant says that the Intestate the twenty sixth of June 5 Jac. did release by Deed to the Defendant all Actions Suits Debts Duties from the begining of the world until the day of the date of the said writing Whereupon the Plaintiff demurred in Law And I conceive that Judgment ought to be given against the Plaintiff For that in Littleton 118. If one doth release to another all Demands this is the best Release that may be and shall enure to the most advantage of him to whom it is made For by such Release all Actions Reals and Personals and Appeals and Executions are gone and extinct and if a man hath title to enter into any Land by such Release his title is gone and 20 Assis 5. where in an Assise for Rent a Release of all Demands was pleaded and the common Opinion was that it was good wherefore the Plaintiff was non-suited and 5 Edw. 4.42 by Danby A Release of all Demands by a Lord to his Tenant is a good bar and extinguishment of his Seigniory for although no Rent was behinde at the making of the Release yet is the Rent always in Demand and 6 H. 7. 15. If the King releaseth all Demands yet as to him the Inheritance shall not be included But in case of Rent or right of Entry by a common person and every thing therein implyed is gone by such Release And 14 H. 8. 9. by Pollard By Release of all Demands the Rent is extinct for Rent is to be had by Demand and if one doth determine the means he hath to come by a thing he doth determine the thing it self And Litt. 118. If a man hath a Rent-service or Rent-charge or Common of Pasture by such Release of all Demands all is gone from the Land from whence the Service or Rent is issuing or the Common of Pasture But if one lets Land to another
of the most and the rest of all my Land there which is Freehold I give to Henry and Michael upon condition that if they sell it to any but to Matthew my Son then he to enter as of my Gift and then he declares That of all these Bequests his Sons shall bear part and part-like out of all his Copyhold Lands and Free to pay to Elizabeth his wife for her Dowry 40 l. a year during her life and that Son which shall refuse to bear his part shall not enjoy any part of his Bequest but it shall be to the residue c. Sir William Lock dyes Henry and Michael enter and pay their parts of the 40 l. Henry dyes and then Michael dyes And now the Question is Whether the Defendants being Heirs of Michael shall have the Land or the Plaintiffs who claim under the Devisor And for the better arguing of this Case I will first observe that here is not any express words of limitation of an Estate to make any greater Estate to pass then an Estate for life and then I will shew that here are no words in any part of this Will to signifie any certain intention in the Devisor to make an Estate of Inheritance to pass by this Devise And as to the first the Devise is onely to his two sons viz. The rest of all my Houses and Lands there which is Freehold I give to Henry and Michael Lock and these are all the words of limitation of the Estate and these without question in a Deed or Feoffment will not make a greater Estate then for life And so is Littleton 1. If one purchase Land in perpetuum or to him and his Assigns in perpetuum this is but an Estate for life because it wants these words his Heirs which words make the Inheritance in all Feoffments and Grants and this is an infallible Rule in Grants unless it be in some special Cases as in Frankmarriage or Frankalmoine which being words of art do pass an Inheritance with these words Heirs And in Cases of Grants no intention of the Grantor although it be apparent in the Grant will make an estate of Inheritance to pass as in 19 H. 6. 73. 20 H. 6. 36. A Gift to B. and C. haeredibus with Warranty to them and their Heirs is no Fee-simple because the words of limitation are incertain to whom haeredibus shall be referred and so all one as if it were omitted and then the clause of Warranty although it does declare a certain intent to give an Estate in Fee will not amend the matter in a Grant And so in the 1 Rep. Shelleys Case if one gives Land to one liberis or eitibus suis or semini suo it is but an Estate for life and not an Estate in Tayl yet there is an apparent intent but that will not suffice in a Grant But I agree that in Case of a Devise although the apt words to make an Estate of Inheritance to pass are omitted yet if the intent of the Devisor does appear by any express matter contained in the Will an Estate of Inheritance shall pass for it is sufficient to pass the Inheritance And so Litt. 133. 6. 19 H. 8. 9. 6. If one deviseth Land to another in perpetuum the Devise by these words shall bar an Estate in Fee so if one devise Land to another to give dispose or sell at his pleasure this is an Estate in Fee-simple 19 H. 8. 9. 6. 7 Edw. 6. B. But yet the Law hath restrained such intent For first it ought to be agreeable to Law and not repugnant to it for although in Scholasticas Case in the Comment it is said that a Will is like to an Act of Parliament yet a Will cannot alter the Law or make a new form of an Estate which is not allowed by the Rules of Law as an Act of Parliament is and so adjudged in the Common Bench Hillar 37 Eliz. between Jermin and Ascot Cooks 1 Rep. 85. in Corbets Case That by a Devise a man cannot give an Estate and determine part thereof by a condition and make the residue to continue And if Land be devised to one in Tayl he cannot determine the Estate as to the Devisee himself and yet preserve the Estate to the issue as was endeavoured in this Case And 28 and 29 H. 8. Dyer 33. If Land be devised to one in Fee and if he does not perform such an Act the Land shall remain to another the remainder is voyd for no such remainder can be limited by the Rules of Law This intent ought to be exprest in the Will and collected out of the words of the Will and cannot be averred or supplyed by any forreign matter as in Matthew Mannings Case 8 Rep. 95. 6. Always the intention of the Devisor expressed in his Will is the best Expositor Director and Disposer of his words And Lord Cheyreys Case 5 Rep. 68. Sir Thomas Cheyrey devised certain Land to Henry his Son and the Heirs males of his body the remainder to Thomas Cheyrey of Woodley and the Heirs males of his body upon condition That he or they or any of them shall not alien and the Question was whether there could be an averment that the intent of the Devisor was to restrain H. and his Heirs from aliening and resolved that no such averment could be received for construction of Wills ought to be collected out of the words of the Will The intent of the Devisor ought to be manifest and certain and not dubious as in a Devise of Land to one for ever here the intent is to give an Estate in Fee-simple for no other Estate can continue for ever so if the devise be to one and his Heirs and if he dyes without Heir that it shall remain to another his intent â—y tâ—ars that the word His in the first Devise shall be taken for the Heirs of his body for the Law will sooner presume him to be dead without issue then to be dead without Heir And now to examine our Case with the Rules of Law There are three clauses in this Will as I conceive upon which the pretences of the Defendants are founded to have an Estate in Fee pass by this Devise to which I shall make answer severally The precedent clause to the Devise And as touching my Lands at T. my Son Matthew is joyned Purchaser with me of the most and the rest of all my Houses and Lands there which is Freehold I give to Henry and Michael Lock c. And as to this I conceive that here is no colour to enlarge the Estate to the Devisees but this clause is onely a description of Land which he does not intend to devise and which in truth he cannot devise because that Matthew ought to have it by survivor and is principally named therein because of preventing any question between Matthew and the two Devisees after his death for otherwise they might perhaps have pretended that all
173. Judicium And after many arguments in this Case Hillar 20 Jacob. the Court agreed that the Demise was good and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Periman against Pierce and Margaret his Wife TEnant in Socage had issue by his first Wife Joan Elizabeth and Agnes and Alice and Elizabeth by his second Wife Katherine Mary William and Joan by his third Wife and by his Will did Devise his Land to Joan the younger for her life rendering 13 s. 4 d. Rent to William the remainder to William in Tayl the remainder to Elizabeth and Mary for life the remainder propinquo sanguinitatis of the Devisor for ever William dyes without issue Joan the younger dyes without issue Elizabeth had issue William Stokes and dyes Mary had issue William Pierce and dyes Joan the elder dyes having issue John Periman and William Periman Agnes and Alice dye without issue John Periman had issue John Periman the Lessor and dyes Elizabeth and Mary dye Katherine dyes without issue Elizabeth had issue George Dean and John Dean Elizabeth deviseth her Land to John Dean and his Heirs and dyes John Dean hath issue John Dean and dyes the Lessor enters and makes a Lease to the Plaintiff who enters and is ejected by the Defendants by commandment of the said John Dean the son upon which the Plaintiff brought an Ejectment And it seemeth to me that judgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff for all the Land or at least for part thereof And therefore in the first place I conceive that when William the son dyed without issue the remainder in fee did vest in John Perriman who was the eldest son of Joan the elder who was the eldest daughter of the Devisor for although the Devisor had many daughters yet his intent appeared in the Will to a single person and not to divers also it appears that he doth not intend that this remainder should vest in William his son for he deviseth to him a Rent during the life of Joan the younger and afterwards an Estate Tail cannot be in Joan the younger or any of her issues because that an express Estate for life is limited to her nor in Elizabeth or Mary for he deviseth a remainder to them for life nor in any other of his daughters for then he would have named them either by their proper names or as his daughters and not by such circumlocution as is pretended in this Case Also the words of Remainder in fee cannot extend to those daughters for they are proximae consanguinitatis which does clearly exclude his own sons and daughters for they cannot properly be termed to be of consanguinity of the blood of the father as it is said in Sir William Herberts Case Cooks Rep. 3. that filius est pars patris and this is proved by the usual pleading of a Descent for if the Plea be by any except son or daughter the form is to say That the Land descends to him as Cosin and Heir and shall shew how but if by the son or daughter then to plead as before And 30 Assis 47. Land was devised to one for life the remainder to another for life the remainder propinquioribus haeredibus de sanguine puerorum of the Devisor there it is agreed that the sons and daughters are excluded by that Devise And so here in this Case neither William the son nor any of the daughters of the Devisor can take any thing by this Devise for they cannot be said de Consanguinitate de sanguine of the Devisor but the Issues of the Children of the Devisor are comprized within these words And then I conceive that the limitation being in the singular number viz. proximo consanguinitat all the issues of those Children shall not take but one onely and that as I conceive shall be the eldest son of the eldest daughter of the Devisor which was John Periman father of the Lessor of the Plaintiff as in the 20 H. 6. 23. In an Account supposing the Defendant to be his Receivor from the Feast of St. Michael it shall be taken to be the principal Feast of St. Michael the Archangel and not the Feast of St. Michael in Monte Teneb And 13 H 4. 4. 21 H. 68. 37 H. 6. 29. If father and son be of one name scil of J. S. If J. S. be named generally in a Writ Recovery or Deed it shall be intended the father for that he is most worthy And so Pladwels Case in this Court Mich. 38 and 39 Eliz. If a woman hath a Bastard and two legal issues and Land be given to one for life the remainder to the eldest issue of the woman the eldest legal issue shall take and not the bastard although he be the eldest issue for general words shall always be taken in the most worthy sence And so here the Devisor did dispose of his Estate to Joan the younger rendering Rent to William his son the remainder to William in Tail the remainder to two of his daughters scil to Elizabeth and Mary for life the remainder proxim consanguin c. in fee By which words it is apparent that the Devisor intended that for the default of the issues of William and after the death of Elizabeth and Mary the Estate should remain to one who was next of blood to him and that is John Periman the eldest son of his eldest daughter But admitting that all the issues of the daughters shall be in equal degree to take by this remainder as well as the eldest son of Joan the eldest daughter yet I conceive that those daughters who had an Estate devised to them by Will are excluded Cooks 8 Rep. 95. B. Always the intention of the Devisor expressed in his Will is the best Expositor and Director of his words and therefore if Land be devised to one in perpetuum this shall pass a fee although it be otherwise in a Grant So if one deviseth Land to another to dispose of or sell at his pleasure this is a fee to the Devisee Litt. 133. 19 H. 8 9. B. And so in our Case the intent of the Devisor appears to dispose of his Land among his Children and their issues as in Trin. 38 Eliz. Ewre and Heydons Case Heydon was seised of a Messuage in D and of three houses and certain Land in Watford did devise his Messuage in D and all his Land in Watford it was judged the houses in Watford did not pass in regard of the express mentioning the houses in D. and this was affirmed in a Writ of Error Edmund Meskin against John Hickford Administrator of Henry Machin IN an Audita Querela because that the 11 Ed. 1. it was Enacted That in regard that Merchants which heretofore had lent their goods to divers persons were fallen into poverty because they had not such speedy remedy provided for them for the Recovery of their Debts Ac ratione inde multi Mercatores desistebant venire in hanc terram cum Merchandizis
and after dyeth or decayeth in his Estate his Co-trustees shall not be charged or be compelled in this Court to answer for the receits of him so dying or decayed unless some purchase fraud or evil dealing appear to have been in them to prejudice their trust for they being by Law Ioyntenants or Tenants in common every one by Law may receive either all or as much of the profits as he can come by And it being the case of most men in these days that their personal Estates do not suffice to pay their debts prefer their children and perform their Wills they are enforced to trust their friends with some part of their real Estate to make up the same either by the sale or perception of profits and if such of these friends who carry themselves without fraud should be chargeable out of their own Estates for the faults and deficiencies of their Co-trustees who were not nominated by them few men would undertake any such trust And if two Executors be and one of them waste all or any part of the Estate the Devastavit shall by Law charge him onely and not his Co-executor and in that case Equitas sequitur Legem there having been many presidents resolved in this Court that one Executor shall not answer nor be charged for the act or default of his companion And it is no breach of trust to permit one of the trustees to receive all or the most part of the profits it falling out many times that some of the Trustees live far from the Lands and are put in trust out of other respects then to be troubled with the receit of the profits But his Lordship and the said Iudges were of opinion that if two Trustees were and one of them without warrant of the party that trusteth him or of a Court of Equity assigneth his Estate and the Assignee doth receive the profits and becometh non-solvent he that made the Assignment shall answer it for him but the other original Trustee shall answer for no more then what he receiveth himself because the Assign cometh not in by him or his assent or appointment and that in case if the original Trustee that did not make the Assignment receive the whole profits and become non-solvent neither the Assignor nor the Assignee shall be answerable for them and if an Obligation be made to two in trust and one of them release the whole debt as by law he may this shall not charge his companion for any part and albeit in all presumption this case hath often happened yet no president hath been produced to his Lordship or the Iudges that in any such Case the Co-trustee hath been charged for the act or fault of his companion and therefore it is to be presumed that the current and clear opinion hath gone that he is not to be charged it having not till of late been brought in question in a case that by all likelyhood hath frequently happened But his Lordship and the said Iudges did resolve that if upon the proofs or circumstances the Court be satisfied that there be Dolus malus or any evil practice fraud or ill intent in him that permitted his companion to receive the whole profits he may be charged though he received nothing And his Lordship and the said Iudges did declare that in this particular Case they did not finde any material proof against Mr. Townley to make his case worse then the general case aforesaid but rather better except onely for the three half years Rent which he joyned in acquittance with Mr. Forster for the receit of the profits alone by Mr. Forster is no breach of trust in Mr. Townley and Mr. Challoner when he came of full age took Mr. Forster for his Debtor And therefore it is ordered and decreed That so much of the said Decree as chargeth Mr. Townley with any more of the profits then the three half years for which he joyned in acquittance shall be reversed but as for those three half years profits if the same were not disbursed or imployed for the use of Mr. Challoner then for so much thereof as hath not been so disbursed or imployed the said Complainant Mr. Townley ought to be answerable and the Defendant may call the Plaintiff before Mr. Page one of the Masters of this Court to audite the account touching these three half years if any difference be thereabouts And lastly it is ordered that the Recognizances given on the Plaintiffs part to perform the Order of this Court be discharged Trinit 13 Jacob. Allen against Wedgwood IN an Action of Debt on a Bond of 100 l. made the 23 of April 1610. The Defendant demands Oyer of the Obligation and Condition which was That if the Defendant did perform all and every such Article and Articles of Agreement and every parcel and particular point thereof being dated the day of this Obligation taken between the Defendant and Plaintiff with the consent of both parties concluded and agreed upon and sealed with the seal of the Defendant that then the Oligation to be voyd And he demanded also Oyer of the Articles which were as followeth Memorandum It is agreed between the Defendant of the one part and the Plaintiff of the other part and the Defendant doth condescend and agree for him his Heirs Executors Administ c. with the Plaintiff his Heirs Executors c. in manner and form following Impr. The Defendant for him his Heirs c. doth demise set and to farm let to the Plaintiff his Heirs Executors c. the Mannor-house or Messuage called Sowdley Hall with all the Lands which were sometimes in the Tenure of Reynold Sowdley with all the appurtenances thereunto belonging being in great Sowdley in the Parish of Chosendine in the County of Salop. Item The Defendant is to make a Lease of the said Mannor for term of three lives to the Plaintiff or his Assigns and they to enter after the expiration of such Lease or Leases as are lawfully made by Iohn Sowdley if any be Item If there be any Lease or lawful bargain made thereof that then at the expiration thereof the Plaintiff is to nominate the names of three such persons as shall be expressed in the aforesaid Lease which is to be made to the said Plaintiff by the said Defendant Item If there be none made thereof that then the Plaintiff is to enter upon the said Mannor at the Anunciation 1612. Item The Plaintiff is to have and enjoy the same paying yearly during the three lives for and according to the Rent it was set for in the time of the Father of Iohn Sowdley Item The Plaintiff is to pay the Defendant when the said Plaintiff or his Assigns shall enter upon the said Mannor 20 l. for a fine Item The Defendant may at any time so long as he is unmarryed resort unto the said Mannor at such time as the Plaintiff shall inhabit there or have the profit thereof and finde good entertainment for
Bartons Case Two Ioynt-tenants are for life and one lets his moyety for years to commence after his death and dies and agreed to be a good Lease against the Survivor for as Litton saith every Ioynt-tenant is seised Per my per tout and hath an Estate in one moyety not only for his own life or his own time but also for the time and life of his Companion and therefore every Estate made by him is good for a moyety so long as the Estate of himself and his Companion continues but a Rent-charge shall not bind his Companion because he claimes by the first Conveyance which is above his Companions Estate And as to the second point it is cleer that when Husband and Wife Part. 2 make a Feoffment in Fee or a Lease for years of the Land of the Wife rendring Rent the Wife after the death of her Husband may accept the Rent and make the Lease good as in 26 H. 8. 2. the case of the Feoffment is agreed and if a Woman after the death of her Husband does accept the Rent she shall be barred in a Cui in vita 11. H. 7. 13. 15. Ed. 4. 17. and Dyer 91. B. Husband and Wife make a Lease for years by Indenture and the Husband dies and she accepts the Rent she shall be bound thereby and shall not avoid the Lease Vpon which two things being as I conceive unquestionable it follows that this Lease at the time of the making thereof is not void but voidable And therefore the sole question will be how this Lease is voidable and if it may be avoided by the surviving Ioynt-tenant or not And I conceive that it is avoidable by the Wife only if she survive her Husband and not by the other Ioynt-tenant and that for two reasons First Because the Survivor comes in above the Lease and therefore cannot take advantage of any imperfection or defect to avoid the Lease 14. Ed. 4. 1. B. If a Feoffment or a Lease for life be made to two and one dies the other may plead the Estate to be made to him only for he is not in by him that is dead but by the Feoffor or Lessor and Dyer 187. a. Two Ioynt-tenants for life one makes a Lease for yeares rendring Rent and dies the Survivor shall not have the Rent And if Tenant for life makes a Lease for years rendring Rent and surrenders to the Lessor the Lessor shall not have the Rent for he is in by his Reversion which is above the Lease for years and 28. H. 8. 96. a. An Executor had Iudgment to râ—cover a Debt and died intestate whereupon Administration is committed to another he shall not have a Scire facias upon this Iudgment because that he being Administrator immediately to the Testator is above the recovery Secondly There is no privity between the surviving Ioynt-tenant and the Lessor to make him avoid the Lease which is voidable as in 8. Rep. Whittinghams case Privies in blood as Heir generall or speciall shall avoid a voidable estate made by the Ancestor as if an Infant make a Feoffment in Fee his Heir may well enter and avoid the Feoffment but Privies in Law as Lord by escheat Lord of a Villain or Lord who enters for Mortmain shall never take benefit of the Infancy because they are but strangers And therefore if an Infant make a Feoffment in Fee and dies without Heir the Feoffment is unavoidable 49. Ed. 3. 13. 6. H. 4. 3 7. H. 5. 9. 39. H. 6. 42. And as to Privies in Estate as Ioynt-tenants Husband and Wife Donor in Tail and Donee Lessor and Lessee it is there also resolved that they shall not take advantage of Infancy unleâ—â—e it be in some speciall cases And therefore if Tenant in Tail within age makes a Feoffment in Fee and dies without Issue the Donor shall not enter contrary to the opinion of Rick and Frisby 6. H. 4. 3. because that here is only a Privity in Estate between them and no right does accrue to the Donor by the death of the Donee So if two Ioynt-tenants in Fee be and one of them being within age makes a Feoffment in Fee and dies the Survivor shall not enter but if two Ioynt-tenants within age do make a Feoffment one joynt Right remains in them and therefore if one dies the Right will survive and the Survivor may enter in all and the same Law of Covertue or non sanae memoriae as it is said also in Whittinghams case and in Fitzherb N. B. 192. K. If two Ioynt-tenants within age do alien in Fee they must sue severall Writs of Dum fuit infra aetatem because that the cause of their Action is their nonage which is severall for the nonage of the one is not the nonage of the other But if Husband and Wife within age do make a Feoffment of the Wifes land and the Husband dye the Wife shall have a Dum fuit infra aetatem 14. Ed. 3. Dum fuit infra aetatem 6. and 12. H. 7. 18. B. Kelloway In a Formedon by the Lord Brook against the Lord Latimer if an Infant does make a Feoffment none shall avoid this but the Infant himself and his Heirs and no stranger and the same Law of a Feme Covert And as to the case of Harvey and Thomas 33. Eliz. cited in the Lord Cromwells case Where the Husband made a Lease of his Wifes Land for years and then he and his Wife aliened by Fine and the Husband dies the Conusee shall avoid this Lease which I agree to for the Lease being made by the Husband only is utterly void against the Wife and cannot be made good by any Act done by the Wife and the Land passeth all from the woman by the Fine and therefore the Lease cannot bind the Conusee The Survivor in one case cannot make the Lease good by the acceptance of the Rent because that the Rent does not belong unto him and therefore he shall not be received to avoid this Lease as in Nat. B. 138. B. the Heir shall not have a Cessavit for ceasing in the time of his Ancestor for he shall not have the Rent or the arrearages incurred in the life of his Ancestors and the reason is as I conceive because that the Law does give this benefit to the Tenant for the saving of his Tenancy for the tender of arrearages the which cannot be to the Lord because that the Rent is not due to him and therefore the Lord shall lose his action rather then the Tenant shall be deprived of his advantage of saving the land by his tender And by this case also the Aunt and the Neice shall not joyne in a Cessavit for a ceasing made before the Title of the Neice accrued but in Nat. F.B. 139. it is otherwise there of joynt-tenants as I conceive the reason whereof is because as I conceive the Survivor shall have all the Rent and therefore the tender may be made to him
13. H. 4. 17. B. If one makes a Feoffment in Fee rendring Rent upon condition to re-enter for non-payment and dies the Rent being arrear the Heir cannot demand the Rent or enter for non-payment because that the Rent is not due to him and as he cannot dispence with the Condition for acceptance of the Rent so cannot he enter for non-payment thereof And I argued this Case again on Fryday being the first day of Trinity Term 14. Jac. 31. Maii at which day Daston did also argue for the Defendant but the Court did not then give any direct Opinion but seemed to incline very much for the Plaintiff And Hil. 14. Jac. the case was argued by Chilborne Serjeant for the Plaintiff and Davenport for the Defendant at which time all did agree that the Lease continued But Davenp took exceptions to the replication For he said that the marriage of Jane with Rob. Hawkins is alledged to be 21. of No. 39. Eli. and the death of William Agborrow her first Husband the 20. of Febr. 39. Eliz which is after the marriage but that was held not materiall for it is said that William Agborrow died the twentieth of Febr. 39. Elizab. and that atferwards viz. the one and twentieth of Novemb. 39. Eliz. Jane did marry Thomas Hawkins so that the afterward is sufficient Trin. 37. Eliz. Rot. 206. Butler against Wallis In a Trespasse the Defendant justified by vertue of an Extent upon a Statute and did shew the Extent and that the 28. of Febr. a Liberate was awarded by vertue whereof the Sheriff the 27. of Octob. delivered the land to him c. yet adjudged sufficient for when he said Virtute brevis the mistake of the day afterward is not materiall And at last in the said Term of S. Hillary Judgment all the Court agreed that the Lease continued good against the Survivor and cannot be avoided by him and that the acception to the pleading was not materiall And thereupon Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Rot. 668. Pasch 11. Jacob. Between Thomas Palmer Knight Plaintiff Richard Greenwill and Edward Greenwill Executors of John Greenwill Defendants IN an Action of Debt on a Bond of fifty pound entred into by the Testators the 20. of Novemb. 5. Jac. The Defendant demanded Oyer of the Bond and Condition which was that if the Testator his Heires Executors and Assignes did perform all the Covenants comprised in certain Indentures bearing date with the Obligation made between the Plaintiff on the one part and the Testator of the other part that the Obligation shall be void And the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff by the said Indenture did let to the Testator a House and the moyety of his land amounting to about thirty Rods of land in Pollicote to have c. from Michaelmas last past for seven years rendring twenty pounds Rent and shewed that the Testator did covenant by the same Indenture for him his Executors and Assignes with the Plaintiff his Heires and Assignes within two years after the beginning of the said Lease to deliver or cause to be delivered to the Plaintiff or his Assigns a Map or Plot made in distinct manner by men of skill as well of all the land in little Pollicot as was then in his occupation and in the occupation of Thomas Cocker and John Crooke parcell of the Demise of the Plaintiff in Pollicot aforesaid as of all the land in the occupation of the Testator by a lease of Lincoln Colledge in Pollicot aforesaid which are all the Covenants c. And pleaded that the Testator in his life time and the Defendants after his death had performed all the Covenants c. Replication The Plaintiff replied that the Testator within two years after the beginning of the Lease did not deliver or cause to be delivered to the Plaintiff or his Assignes a Map or Plot made in distinct manner by Surveyors and men of skill of all the land in little Pollicot aforesaid in his occupation and in the occupation of the said Thomas Cocker and John Crooke parcell of the aforesaid Demise of the Plaintiff in Pollicot aforesaid Secundum formam effectum Indenturae praedict Vpon which Replication the Defendants demurred in Law And I conceive Iudgment ought to be given for them against the Plaintiff First the Plaintiff replies that the Testator did not deliver the Plot and it may be that it was delivered by the Defendants who were his Executors which is a good performance of the Covenant and if so then the Plaintiff has no cause of action and where the matter is left doubtfull in the Replication it shall be taken most strongly by the Plaintiff who pleads it And in the Comment 104. a. Fulmerstone against Steward If a man be bound to pay twenty pounds about Christmas it is no plea for him to say he hath paid it but he must shew when or otherwise it shall be intended that he paid it after the Feast and before the Suit And so in a Dum fuit infra aetatem if the Tenant do plead a Release of the Demandant it is no plea without saying that he was of full age for the plea shall be taken most strong against himself and that is that it was made when he was within age and 3. H. 7. 2. If the Defendant in a Trespasse does plead a release it is not sufficient without shewing that it was made after the Trespasse for otherwise it shall be taken to be done before And 26. H. 8. Pleading 147. If in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant does plead Warranty collaterall of the Ancestor of the Demandant and he replies that he entred and so does avoid the Warranty it is not good without saying that he entred in the life of the Ancestor for otherwise it shâ—ll be intended that he entred after the descent of the Warranty and in Dyer 89. and 96. The Plaintiff in an Ejectment declared on a Lease for years to begin at Michaelmas after the death of Thomas Boydon and M. his Wife and set forth that they died and he entred and adjudged insufficient for it might be that he entred after this death and before Michaelmas and Dyer 28. H 8. 27. A Covenant that the Lessee and his Assigns shall pay all Rents pleading that the Lessee hath paid them is not sufficient because the Assignes are omitted In his Occupation are words uncertain sc whether they shall be referred to the Plaintiff who iâ— last named or to the Testator 7 H. 7. 7. Ed. 6. Dyer 84 a. In a Trespasse brought by the Husband and Wife for breaking their Close bona sua capt and pleaded of a Trespasse made to the Woman Dum sola fuit for which the Writ abated The Plaintiff ought to shew that â—ome land was in the possession of Kocker and Crooke for otherwise it is impossible that a Map should be made thereof 12. H. 7. 8. a. 6. H. 7. 6. a. If I am bound to
and Iudgment was given therein whereupon the Tenant to the Assise brought a Writ of Error the 5. Eliz. in Easter Term which did abate by reason of his death and after in the time of King James the new Plaintiff brought a Writ of Error in Recordo quod coram nobis refidet which did also abate by reason of variety between the Record and the second Writ of Error whereupon Mich. 13. Jac. the said Plaintiff did purchase this new Writ of Error And the Defendants did plead in abatement of the said Writ of Error that the now Plaintiff before the purchasing of the said last Writ of Error and since the purchasing of the second Writ of Error viz. the 19th of September the 10. Jacob. did enter into the said Land and the same day and year at the place aforesaid did devise the said Tenements to one Thomas Alport Habendum from the Feast of S. John Baptist then last past for four years next ensuing by vertue of which Demise the said Thomas Alport into the said Tenements did enter and was and yet is possessed Vpon which Plea the Plaintiff demurred and the Defendants joyned And I conceive that the Plea is insufficient Yet I do agree that if he who hath cause to have a Writ of Error to reverse a Iudgment of Land does make a good Lease for years he hath suspended his Writ of Error for the Term as he does quite extinguish it by his Feoffment But here it appears that there is no Lease made for it is pleaded only that the Plaintiff did enter into the Land and it appears by the recovery that his entry was taken away by the Iudgment in the Assise whereby he gains nothing by his Entry but the Freehold and possession does remain alwaies to the Defendants being Heirs to the Recovery as appears by Litt. Warrant 158. If one be seised of Land and another who hath no right doth enter into the Land and continues possession yet doth he gain nothing thereby but the possession doth alwaies continue in him that hath right and so in the 3. Ed. 4. 2. Woolocks Case and in the Comment 233. Barkleys Case Execution is taken to be no plea in Bar to an Ejectment because it was shewed that the Lord Barkley did enter as in his Remainder and was seised in Fee untill the Lessor of the Plaintiff did eject him and did demise to the Plaintiff which is not good because it is not alledged that he disseised the Lord Barkley for otherwise he had no Estate to make the Lease and the Entry doth not imply any disseisin or doth gain any possession and 11 Edw. 4. 9. B. 12 H. 6. 43. B. And the Court did agree that the plea was insufficient But then it was moved that the Writ of Error was nought for the Writ was that Quidem Recordum processus Dom. Regina Elizabeth nuper Regina Angliae causa erroris interven venire sec and it appears by the Record that although the Recovery was removed by Writ of Error the 5. Eliz. at the Suit of the Father of the Plaintiff yet the Plaintiff did purchase a new Writ of Error Mich. 9 Jacob. and had a Scire facias against the Heirs of the Recover or who appeared Mich. 10. Jacob. and also the Writs of Habeas Corpus tales Distringas wherefore the Writ is naught for all the Recovery was not in the time of the Queen but part in her time and part in the Kings time But I conceive that it is good enough for first the Recovery and Processe is satisfied by transmitting the body of the Recovery as it is proved by the usuall form of all Writs of Error which is to certifie the Record and Processe and yet they do certifie only the Declaration and the Pleas omitting the Writs Also the Record shall be intended the principall Record and not the Writ and Proces Coke Rep. 11. Metcalfes Case the words of the Writ of Error Si judicium inde redditum sit this shall be taken to be the principall Iudgment 39 Ed. 5. 1. In a Scire facias brought by John Duke of Lancaster and Blanch his Wife to execute a Fine levied to them in the time of Ed. 2. and the Writ did recite the Fine to be levied Tenendum de nobis c. but it was adjudged good by Iudgment of Parliament and 2 R. 3. 4. Bough brought an Action of Debt against Collins who pleaded a forreign Attachment in L. by custome and did mistake the Custome and it was traversed that there was no such Custom and the major certified it so and all this was in the time of King Edw. the first and it was adjourned over to another Term before which time the King died and resumed in the time of King Richard the third and Iudgment given whereupon Collins did bring a Writ of Error which was Rex Dei gratia c. quia in Recordo processu in redditione Judicii loquela quae fuit coram nobis per breve nuper inter B. c. error c. And the question was if it was good And some said that there was no Warrant for such a Writ and some said that the Writ ought to have been speciall reciting how c. But the Masters of the Office said that in a Writ of Error before the Iustices of the Bench there is but a generall form in the Writ And after it was adjudged that the Writ of Error was good John Vandlore Plaintiff Cornelius Dribble Defendant Trinit 14 Jacob. Rot. 1062. IN an Action of Debt on a Bond of two hundred pounds made the eleventh of Febr. the 12th of King James upon condition that the Defendant shall perform the agreement of William Holliday Thomas Moulson Robert de la Bar and Humphrey Burlemacke Arbitrators elected c. to arbitrate of and for all Actions Suits Accounts and Demands had moving or depending in variance between the parties before the date of the said Obligation so that the agreement of the premisses be made and put into writing before the twentieth of March next The Defendant pleaded that there was no such Arbitrement The Plaintiff replyed that the eighteenth of March 12 Jacob. they did make an Arbitrement c. of and concerning the Premisses that the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff fifty pounds viz. twenty pounds at April next and twenty five pounds at _____ and the twentieth of July next twenty five pounds in full satisfaction and discharge of all such monies as the Plaintiff did claim or demand of the Defendant by reason of the administration of the Goods c. of John Stadsell or by any other means whatsoever And that each of the parties upon payment of the said fifty pounds shall make generall Acquittances one to the other of all Actions Debts and Demands unto the day of the making of the said Acquittances And alledged breach to be made in the payment of the said twenty five pounds the twentieth of
Also the Bar is not good because the Defendant says he was possessed of five Steers and doth not say of the aforesaid 9 H. 6. 16. In a Quare Impedit brought by the King of a Chantery in the Chappel of St. Thomas in D. and made title to it and the Defendant pleaded that there was a Chantery in the said Chappel and made title to it and traversed the title of the King and adjudged to be no plea because he did not answer to the Chantry whereof the King had declared And Pasch 14 Elizab. Downing against Hayward In a false imprisonment in Suffolk the Defendant did justifie as servant to A. to whom a Commission of Rebellion of Chancery was directed and the Plaintiff pleaded De son tort Demesne and found for the Plaintiff and reversed again by Error in the Star Chamber because that when the matter of justification is upon matter of Record and matter in fact or of matters done in two Counties that cannot joyn the Issue ought to be upon one only And Pasch 15 Jac. Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff by the opinion of Mountague Crook and Doderidge because that all that was done after Sir Thomas Buriets Warrant was illegall but they agreed that the Plaintiff might have an Action for the charging of Felony and for all that was done before the said Warrant But Haughton disagreed who conceived that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff because the Plea of the Defendant was no justification for what was done before the warrant but at last Iudgment was given for the Defendant Judgment Mills against Marshall IN a Writ of Error to reverse a Iudgment given for the now Defendâ—nt against the Plaintiff in the Common Pleas upon an Action of Debt on a Bond of twenty pounds Hil. 11 Jac. Ror 1109. And the Bond was made the twentieth of Jan. in the sixth year of King James and it was on Condition to stand to the Award of George Cockrell Edward Sureton and William Wasse to arbitrate of and concerning all matters then depending between â—hem so that the said Award be made and delivered to the parties under the hands and Seals of the said Arbitrators before the twenty ninth of January next The Defendant pleaded that the Arbitrators the twenty fourth of January in the sixth year of King James did make their Award of the Premisses by Indenture under their hands and Seals 1. That all Controversies and Suits between them unto the date of the written Arbitrement should cease and that the Plaintiff should have liberty to drive his Cattell to the River Eâ—ke c. and that the Plaintiff and Defendant should work and maintain at all times from thence forward a sufficient Hedge by the top of the Scar Sicut terrae praedicti Querentis Defendentis extendunt Anglice as their own Ground goes for security of the Cattell and Sheep which said Hill doth extend to the Land of Henry Facherly unto the Pale which then was between the Land of the Defendant and if any Trees or Woods growing in or neer the Woods of either party shall fall in controversie at any time that it shall be arbitrated by the said Arbitrators three or two of them which Arbitrement was delivered to the parties the same day and the Defendant pleaded that he had performed c. The Plaintiff replyed that the Defendant did not make a sufficient Hedge upon the top of the Scarr Prout terra sua extendit the Defendant said that before the Writ purchased viz. the fourth of April 12 Jacob. at Eshdayle in the County aforesaid he did make a sufficient Hedge upon the top of the Hill aforesaid prout terra sua extendit and so they were at Issue and found for the Plaintiff and Iudgment given and the Defendant brought this Writ of Error And I conceive Iudgment ought to be affirmed Coke 5 Rep. Slingsbles Case If one let white Acro to I.S. and B. Acre to I. D. and covenant with them Et quemlibet eorum that he is Owner each of them may have an Action and Coke 5. Rep. Hurgots Case Submission to an Award so as it be delivered to either of the parties ought to be delivered to each of them 39 H. 6. 7. And all the Court did agree that each of them ought to inclose against his own Land only and so the breach was well assigned wherefore the Iudgment was well assigned wherefore Iudgment was affirmed Hilar. 13 Jac. Crawley against Marrow IN an Ejectment upon a Lease by Robert Faldoc dated the one and thirtieth day of August the thirteenth year of King James of two Houses two Orchards forty acres of Land ten of Meadow and fifty of Pasture in Bridgenorth Habendum from the tenth day of the said month for three years whereupon the Plaintiff was possessed untill the Defendant the eighth of October in the same year did enter and eject him ad damnum c. Vpon not guilty pleaded The Iury found the Defendant not guilty for all except one House and five acres of Land and found further that before the said time the twentieth day of Decemb. 11 Eliz. Rowland Hayward Knight was seised in Fee of the said one house and five acres of Land and ten of Meadow and being so seised thereof did enfeoff John Day and Robert Marshall in Fee to the use of John Whitbrooke and Margaret his Wife in Taile the remainder to the right Heirs of John Whitbrooke and that the last of January 12 Eliz. John Whitbrooke did enter into a Recognizance of a thousand pounds in the Chancery to Richard Faldoe which money was not paid to Richard in his life time That John Whitbrooke and Margaret had issue John Whitbrooke Knight and after and before the fourteenth of January 8. Jacob. died and before the said day Richard Faldoe made his Will and did make Amphillis his Wife his Executor and died and Amphillis did make Robert Faldoe Esquire and Thomas Shepheard Knight her Executors and died who undertook the Executorship 14. Jan. 8. Jac. Robert Shepeard and Faldoe had a Scire facias to the Sheriff of Middlesex to have execution of the Recognizance whereupon John Whitbrook was returned dead whereupon they had a Scire facias against the Heir and the Ter-tenant whereupon John Whitbrook was returned Heir and Ter-tenant who pleaded that he had no Land that was the Conusors at the time of the Recognizance or ever since by hereditary descent from the Conuzor in Fee and said that he ought not to be charged as Ter-tenant because he hath no Freehold that was the Conusors The Plaintiff replyed that the said John Whitbrook had divers lands by descent from the said Conuzor viz. A house called the Hospitall thirty seven Tenements or Messuages five Cottages one Tost one Dove-house thirty nine Gardens six Barns fifty four acres of Land thirty nine of Meadow and thirty six of Pasture in Bridgnorth and that the said John Whitbrook was Tenant of the Premisses
as of his Freehold whereupon Issue was joyned and found for the Plaintiffs and adjudged that they should have execution against Sir John Whitbrook whereupon the Sheriff was commanded to deliver the said lands to the Plaintiffs in execution and the sixteenth of June 12 Jacob. the said Tenements were found to the value of eighty shillings and were delivered to the said Executors in execution The twenty seventh of March 11 Jacob. Hanging the Writ of Scire facias the said Sir John Whitbrook did demise to the Defendant one Messuage and ten acres of Meadow parcell of the premisses Habendum from the said twenty seventh day for the term of three years by force whereof he entred and was possessed The sixteenth of June 12 Jacob. the said Executors did enter into the Tenements in the Inquisition mentioned whereof the said Messuage five acres of Land and ten of Meadow are parcell and did out the Defendant The one and thirtieth of August 13 Jacob. Robert Faldoe made the Lease to the Plaintiff and they found the Ejectment and prayed the advice of the Court. And I conceive Iudgment ought to be given against the Plaintiff For that a Tenant in Taile cannot charge the Land no more then he can alien 3 Ed. 3. 46. so in the 18 Ed. 4. 5. 21. If Tenant in Taile do sell the Trees and dye the Vendee cannot have them and the 17 Ass 21. Tenant in Tail acknowledgeth a Statute and dies the Issue enters and the Conusee does sue execution and enters and the Issue brings an Assise and recovers because this is a Disseisin to him and 11 H. 7. 21. 31 Ed. 3. 22. 14 Ass 3. Tenant in Tail grants a Rent and dies and the Issue enfeoffs a stranger adjudged that he shall hold the Land discharged for it was discharged by the entry of the Issue and 26 Ass 38. If Tenant in Tail doth charge the Land and dye and the Issue enters and pâ—yes the Rent and then after confirms the Rent this is good But in Brook Grants 73. contrary for the charge was avoided by the entry of the Issue But admit that this Recognizance shall bind the Issue in Tail yet it shall not bind the Termer but he shall avoid it 1 H 7. 9 7 H. 7. 11. and in the 30 Assise 10. the Tenant pleads recovery by Action tryed against a stranger and did aver the Estate of the Ancestor of the Demandant to be between his Title and the Recovery the Demandant said that the stranger was enfeoffed with Warranty and did not plead this and so did Fauxesie and Iudgment was awarded for him And although that this Lease was made after the Teste of the Scieri facias it is not materiall because the Lessor had good power to make a Lease and the Land was not subject to the execution and therefore the Lease here is good and cannot be avoided but only by the default of the Lessor in not pleading the Estate-tail and that is especially aided by the Statute because the Statute does aid the Lessee against such fâ—igned Recoveries against the Lessor and it is no Recovery untill the Iudgment had at which time the Lessee had a good Lease not subject to the execution 21. H. 6. 13. 14. He who comes to the Reversion hanging the Praecipe quod reddat against the Tenant for life shall be received by the Statute of Westm 2. cap. 3. and 16 H 7. 5. In a Writ of Entry or Disseisin he in the remaiâ—der does pray to be received the Demandant traverseth that he hath nothing in Reversion at the time of the Writ purchased and could not for if he purchased the Remainder hanging the Writ he shall be received And Hill 14 Jacob. All the Court did agree Judgment that the Lessee for the Lease made after the Verdict against the Issue in Tail could not falsifie wherefore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Penson against Mootham IN an Action of Covenant for that by Indenture Tripartite dated the fifth Decemb. 12. Jacob. It was between Abraham Baker by the name of Abraham Baker Owner of the moyety of a Ship called the Grissell of L. and of the Ship called the Peregrine of L. and of a Pinnace called the Hopewell of L. on the first part and the Plaintiff by the name of H. P. Owâ—er of the other moyety of the said Ships and Pinnace on the second part and the Defendant by the name of Ja. Mortham Nautestrategi dicti Itineris Anglice generall of the said Voyage N. N. B. W. and D. E. by the names of N.G. Naute magister dictae navis vocat le Peregrine B. W. Naute magister dict navis vocat the Grissell and D. E. Naute Magister of the said Pinnace and severall persons named in a Schedule annexed to the said Indenture on the third part It is testified and doth appeare that the said Owners had furnished and set forth and the said Victualer had victualed the said Ships as well for Trade as for Discovery and had delivered them to the said Generall Masters and Officers pro itinere faciend in such manner and to such an Island in the West-Indies or otherwise as it should be most profitable to the said parties at the discretion of the said Generalls and according to certain Articles of the Commissioners bearing date with the said Indenture and after their Voyage to return to the Port of London And that the said Generalls and each of the said Masters and Officers severally for each ones proper and severall part and not the one for the other did Covenant for themselves their Executors and Administrators with the said Owners severally and their severall Executors c. in manner c. and that they the said Generalls or the severall Masters and Officers their Executors or Assignes at any time during the said Voyage should go beyond the Cape of Good hope nor should do or commit any spoyle or losse to any of the Subjects of our Lord the King nor to any other person or persons being subject or in subjection to any Prince or Principality being in league or amity with our King nor shall do any thing whereby any detriment prejudice trouble or damage may come to the said Ships or Pinnace or any of them or to the said Owners or any of them respectively Breach 1 And that although the Plaintiff had performed all c. yet the said D.E. and the Commissioners aforesaid in the said Ship called the Hope-well during the said Voyage to wit the eighth day of March upon the high Sea neer the Isle of Saint Jago by force and armes did take and spoyle one Spanish Frigot laden with Rice c. which Sip and Goods were the Ship and Goods of divers persons who were Subjects to the King of Spaine the which King then was and yet is in amity and league with the King and the Defendant and the other Commissioners comming to the said Island did divide the said Goods amongst
pursue their claim by entry or action within five years next after the Proclamations and saving such Action Right Title Claim and Interest as first Shall grow remain descend or come after the Fine and proclamations by force of any Gift in Tail or by any other course and matter had and made before the said Fine levied so as they pursue within five years c. By which it appears that nothing is saved to the strangers but rights actions and interests arising by force of any cause or matter before the Fine and therefore nothing is barred by the Statute but former rights for what ever right is barred as to the Privies is saved to the strangers so as they pursue their claim within c. Sir Richard Shuttleworths Case between Barton and Lever 37 Eliz. Tenant in Tail levied an erronious Fine with Proclamations and then as Vouchee did suffer an erronious Recovery and died the Issue brought a writ of Error to reverse the Fine the Defendant pleaded the recovery afterwards and the Plaintiff to maintain the writ did alledge a default in the Recovery whereby he conceived the same to be void but resolved that it was but voidable by a writ of Error and therefore so long as it was in force the Issue was barred to reverse the Fine And therefore it was agreed there that the Issue ought first to reverse the Recovery by writ of Error and then he may reverse the Fine And so in our Case if the Plaintiffs should be barred in the writ of Error by the Fine they shall be without remedy although that the Fine be erroneous as I conceive it to be for if they bring a writ of Error to reverse the Fine first the Recovery although it be erroneous will be a clear Bar to them as it is adjudged in the said Case of Burton and Lever 7 H. 4. 40. a. One brought a writ of Error to reverse an Outlawry the Attorney said he was outlawed at the Suit of another Hulls said there that he could not be received for when one is to adnull an Outlawry he shall not be disabled by another Outlawry although he be twenty â—imes outlawed for then it will follow that there shall be delay infinite 26 Ed. 3. 66. Tenant in ancient Demesne levies a Fine at the Common Law and after does levy another and the Queen being seignioresse of the Mannor did bring a Writ of deceit to reverse one of them she shal not be barred by the other especially by the first to reverse the second And as to the Warranty 2. Matter of the Bar. I conceive that it is no Bar for many reasons 1. Because Warranties do bind only Rights and Actions which are in esse at the time of the warranty made and not Rights and Actions which do accrue after the Warranty created but this Writ of Error is given to the Plaintiffs in respect of the erroneous Recovery which wâ—s suffered after the creation of the warranty and therefore the warranty is no Bar to the Plaintiffs to have this writ of Error 30 H. 8. Dyer 42. B. All the Iustices did agree that when a man does bind him and his Heirs to warranty they are not bound to warrant new Titles of any Actions accrued since the warranty but only such Actions as are in esse at the time of the warranty made 12 Assise 41. The Tenant in a Praecipe quod reddat made a Feoffment hanging the writ and after the Demandant had recovered by erroneous Iudgment notwithstanding that the Feoffment had excluded the Tenant from his Right to the Land yet this shall not exclude him from his writ of Error which is accrued to him since the Iudgment given after the Feoffment Vide 18 19 Eliz Dyer 353. But it may be objected that this warranty shall bind the Right of the Plaintiffs to the Land for although the Recovery be reversed Object yet the Plaintiffs shall be put to their Formedon to recover this Land in which they shall be bâ—rred by this warranty and so it shall be in vaine for them to reverse the recovery for by the warranty they shall be barred to have the Land I answer That notwithstanding the Collaterall warranty Answer yet a Right doth remain in the Plaintiffs which is bound by the warranty which Right is taken away from the Plaintiffs by this Recovery by which the Law would have given to them a Remedy which is by writ of Error to be restored to their Right for a collaterall warranty doth not extinguish the right of him who is bound by the warranty but only does bind the Right for the time that the warranty remains undefeated and this is proved by many Authorities 34 Ed. 3. Droit 29. If the Tenant in a writ of Right hath collaterall warranty of the Ancestor of the Demandant he ought to plead it and not to conclude upon the Right for if he conclude upon the Right it shall be found against him because the warranty doth not give or extinguish the Right but only binds it 43 Assise 44. A collaterall warranty may be defeated by a Deed of Defeasance made after the creation of the warranty by which it appears that the Right is not extinguished for if so it could not be revived by the Defeasance and with this agrees 43 Ed. 3. 20. Earle of Staffords Case 19 H. 6 59. B. Fortescue A collaterall warranty does not give Right for if Land be given to one and the Heirs Males of his body and he hath two Sons and doth alien and the collaterall Ancestor to the Son doth release with warranty to the Alinee and dies and the Donee dies now is the eldest Son barred but if he die without Issue Male leaving Issue a Daughter the younger Son shall not be barred by the warranty 24 H. 8. B. Formedon 18. If Tenant in Tail hath two Sons by severall venters and dies and the Ancestor collaterall of the elder Son doth release with warranty and dies without Issue and the elder Son dies without Issue the younger Son shall recover by a Formedon because he is not Heir to the warranty And Littleton 160. B. Tenant in Taile hath three Sons and discontinues the second Son Releases to the Discontinuee with warranty the Tenant in Taile and the second Son dies now is the eldest Son barred because the warranty is collaterall to him but if he die without Issue the younger may have a Formedon and shall not be barred by the warranty because that the warranty as to him is lineall and to this purpose is the 8. of Rich. 2. Warranties 101. By which Book it does appear that the Estate-tail is not extinct by the warranty for if it could be so it can never be revived again This Warranty is executed and determined for it was made to the Conusees against whom the Writ of Entry whereupon this Recovery was had was brought and they did vouch to Warranty Thomas Lea and Katherine his wife who made
for a year rendering forty shillings Rent at Michaelmas and before the Feast does release to the Lessee all Actions yet after the Feast he shall have an Action of Debt for non-payment of the forty shillings notwithstanding the Release And 40 of Ed. 3. 48. Hillary By such Release to the Conusor of a Statute-Merchant before the day of payment the Conusee shall be barred of his Action because that the Duty is always in demand yet if he release all his right in the Land it is no Bar 25 Assis 7. And Althams Case Cokes Rep. 153. By a Release of all Demands not onely all Demands but also all causes of Demands are released And there are two manners of Demands viz In Deed and in Law In Deed As in every Praecipe quod reddat there is an express Demand In Law As in every Entry in Land Distress for Rent taking and seising of goods and the like acts in Pais which may be done without words are Demands in Law And as a Release of Suits is more large and beneficial then a Release of Complaints or Actions so a Release of Demands is more large and beneficial then any of them for by that is released all those things that by the others are released and more for thereby all Freeholds and Inheritances are released as in 34 H. 8. Releases 90. 6. He who does release all Demands does exclude himself of all Entries Actions and Seisures And Littl. 170. By the Release of all Demands Warranty is released and yet that is Executory and the reason hereof is that by the Release of Demands all the means remedies and causes that any hath to Lands Tenements Goods or Chattels are extinct and by consequence the right and interest in all of them And in 40 Ed. 3. 22. It is debated there whether a Release of all Demands by the Lord to the Tenant to hold onely by Rent and Fealty shall bar the Lord to demand reasonable ayd to marry his Daughter but it was agreed there that such Release shall bar the Lord of his Rent for as it is there said that is always in demand And 13 R. 2. Avowry 89. One gives Land in Tayl to hold by Rent Homage and Fealty for all Services and Demands this does discharge the Tenant of Relief but 18 Ed. 3. 26. contrarium tenetur And 7 Ed. 2. Avowry 211. Suit at a Leet by reason of Residency is not discharged by a Feoffment to hold by Rent for all Services and Demands for this service is not in respect of the Land but of residency of the person And 14 H. 4. 2. Gilbert de Clare Earl of Glocester before the Statute of Quia Emptores Terrarum did give Land parcel of the Honor of Glocester to hold of him as of the Honor to hold by Homage Fealty and Rent for all Services and Demands And after long argument it was agreed and hereby the Lord was excluded to have a Fine for alienation which otherwise was due from every Tenant of the Honor. And as the Fine was discharged there by the Feoffment so it might have been by Release of all Demands And the whole Court agreed Judicium that by this Release of all Demands the Rent is released and so the Plaintiff ought to be barred and so Pasch 16 Jacob. Judgment was given accordingly Hillar 13 Jacob. Southern against How IN an Action on the Case for that the Defendant the first of April 5 Jacob. was possest de quibusdam Jocalibus artificialibus contrefectis Anglice artificial and counterfeit Iewels viz. two Carcanets one pair of Ear-rings one pair of Pendants and one Coronet as of his proper goods and the Defendant there and then knowing the said Iewels to be artificial and counterfeit and fraudulently intending to sell them for true and perfect Iewels there and then did deliver them to one William Sadock his servant to whom at that time the said Iewels were known to be counterfeit and artificial and did command the said William to transport the said Iewels beyond the Seas into Barbary where the Defendant well knew that the Plaintiff was residing and did further command the said William that he should conceal the counterfeitness and falsness of the said Iewels and that after his arrival he should repair to the Plaintiff and shew him the said Iewels for good and true Iewels and there require the Plaintiff to sell the said Iewels for good and true Iewels for the Defendant to the King of Barbary or to any other that would buy them and that he should receive a price for them as if they were good and true Iewels That the 20 of April 5 Jacob. the said William did sail from London to Barbary and there the 22 June 5 Jacob. arrived and did then repair to the Plaintiff and knowing the said Iewels to be artificial and counterfeit did shew them to the Plaintiff for good and true Iewels and there and then did require the Plaintiff to sell them for good and true Iewels to Mully Sydan then King of Barbary and there then did affirm to the Plaintiff that the said Iewels were worth in value 14400 Dunces of Barbary Mony amounting to 810 l. of English Mony And the Plaintiff not suspecting the said Iewels to be counterfeit but conceiving them to be good and true did receive them of the said William and afterwards scil the 22 of August 5 Jacob. did offer them to the said King of Barbary as good and true Iewels and there and then did procure the said King to buy the said Iewels not being of the value of 3000 Ounces of Barbary Mony amounting to 168 l. 15 s. English for 14400 Ounces of Barbary Mony amounting to 810 l. which mony the Plaintiff the 22 of August 5 Jacob. received of the said King for the said Iewels for the Defendant and did pay the said sum then there to the said William for the Defendant and the said William immediately after the receit thereof did secretly withdraw himself out of Barbary and did return into England to the Defendant with the said sum and the first of October 5 Jacob. did pay the same to the Defendant That the 30 of May 6 Jac. the said King perceiving the said Iewels to be counterfeit caused the Plaintiff to be arrested and imprisoned for them and retained him in prison three months and until the Plaintiff out of his proper goods did repay to the said King the said 14400 Ounces of Barbary Mony That the first of October 6 Jac. the Plaintiff gave notice to the Defendant of the repair of the said William to him and of all the premisses and requested him to pay to the Plaintiff the said sum which yet he hath not payd ad damnum 2000 Marks The Defendant pleaded Not guilty The Iury found that the first of April 5 Jac. the Defendant was possest of the said Iewels and knowing them to be artificial and counterfeit and intending fraudulently for good and true Iewels
acts of his Servant but those which he does by his commandment as 9 H. 6. 53. by Rolphe If I have a Servant who is my Merchant and he goes to the Fair with an unsound Horse or other Merchandize and sells them the Vendee can have no Action against me Martin You say true for you do not command him to sell the Horse to him nor to no other person in certain Vide Doctor and Student 138. It does not appear that the Plaintiff was lawfully indemnified for it is onely alledged and found that he was imprisoned by the King until c. but it is not alledged or found that this was done by a legal course or according to the Law of that Country but onely by the absolute power of that King and therefore the Plaintiff can have no remedy although there had been a Warranty as Cook 5 Rep. Noke and Anders Case If Lessee for years be outed by a stranger without title he shall not have an Action of Covenant And this Case was argued by Crook for the Plaintiff and by me for the Defendant 29 Janua 15 Jacob. at which time the Court seemed to incline against the Plaintiff And Trinit 16 Jacob. The case was argued by Davenport for the Plaintiff and by Coventry the Kings Solicitor for the Defendant at which time Montague Doderidge and Haughton agreed that the Action would not lie and Crook was absent Judgment And afterwards Michaelm 16 Jac. Iudgment was given by all the Court Quod querens nihil capiat per Billam Trinit 15 Jacob. Lingen against Payn. IN an Action of Debt upon a Bond of 400 l. made the third of October 12 Jacob. and the Defendant demanded Oyer of the Obligation and of the Condition which was That whereas the Plaintiff had devised to Robert Hawkins the Farm of Williamsthorp in the County of Glocester until the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel next if the said Robert upon the said Feast day or any time after upon request made by the Plaintiff his Heirs or Assigns should deliver the possession of the said Farm to the said Plaintiff his Heirs or Assigns and permit the said Plaintiff his Heirs or Assigns to have and enjoy the same after such request and also if the said Robert in the mean time shall not give nor sell any Wood nor commit any waste in the said Farm that then the Obligation should be voyd The Defendant said that the Plaintiff or his Assigns Bar. upon the said Feast or at any time after and before the Bill did not require the said Robert to deliver to the Plaintiff the possession of the said Farm and that the said Robert from the time of the making of the said Bond unto the said Feast did not give or sell any Wood nor make any waste upon the premisses That the 13 of June Replication 12 Jacob. the said Robert being possest of the said Farm and the Plaintiff being seised in Fee of the Reversion of the said Farm the Plaintiff together with John Welford by Indenture made at W. between the Plaintiff and the said John Welford of the one part and Richard Powle and Henry Powle of the other part and inrolled in this Court within six weeks for 1700 l. payd to the Plaintiff did bargain and sell to the said Richard and Henry Powle the Reversion of the said Farm habendum to them and their Heirs And the 30 of Septemb. 13 Jacob. being the next day after the said Feast the said Richard and Henry Powle as the Assigns of the said Plaintiff at the said Farm in W. aforesaid did request the said Robert to deliver the possession of the said Farm to the said Richard and Henry which he did refuse That the said Richard and Henry Powle did not require the said Robert to deliver to them the possession of the said Farm the said 30 of September the 13 Jac. upon which they were at issue Rejoynder The Iury found the possession of the said Robert Hawkins and the seisin of the Plaintiff and the bargain and sale and that Henry Powle 31 Septemb. 13 Jac. did alone come to the capital Messuage of the said Farm without any notice given before of his coming to the said House and there then as Assignee of the Plaintiff did require the said Robert Hawkins to deliver the possession of the said Farm according to the effect of the condition aforesaid and that the possession of the said Farm was not delivered according to the tenor of the said writing but the possession of the said Farm was kept from the said Richard and Henry Powle And if it seems to the Court upon this matter that the said Richard and Henry did require the said Robert to deliver to them the possession of the said Farm then they found it so and did assess costs and damages and if not they found for the Defendant And I conceive that Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff For in Tookers Case 2 Report by Popham Every act made by one Ioynt-tenant for the benefit of him and his companion shall binde the other as payment by one discharges the other and one may prejudice the other in the profits as where a Ward does happen to two Ioyn-tenants and one distrains for the services which is a waver of the Wardship by 1 Ed. 3. this shall binde the other And if two Ioynt-tenants be disseised and one enters this is in Law the entry of both and so it shall be pleaded for when an act is made by one the Law shall adjudg this to be made by him in whose right it is made as in 32 Ed. 3. Bar 264. If one be bound to infeoff another such a day if he be ready by his Attorny to do it it is sufficient for the Law takes the act of the Attorny to be the act of the party and so in the 19 H. 6. 78. to continue an Action and so in 10 Edw. 2. Dower 130. and 9 Ed. 3. 38. If there be two Ioynt-tenants in Fee and one seised in right of his Wife of Land to which the Wife hath title of Dower the one Ioynt-tenant or the Husband may assign the Dower and the reason is given because that when the Husband or one Ioynt-tenant does any thing out of Court that they are compellable to make it shall be intended to be the Deed of the one and the other And so if a Lord by Fealty onely does distrain for Rent and the Tenant brings a Trespass and the Lord justifies because he holds of him by Fealty and Rent and so justifies the Writ and the Tenant says that he does not hold of him moda forma c. and it is found that he holds by fealty onely yet shall the Plaintiff be barred for the matter of the issue is whether the Tenant held of him or not for then the Action lies And so here the matter of the issue is whether a legal request of the