5 H. 7.9 And afterwards vide Mich. 37 38 Eliz. It was adjudged that this was good enough in an Ejectione firmae for there the damages are the principall but otherwise in a Precipe for there ought to be a certainty but in an Assise of Novel Disseisin it is good enough but afterwards Mich. 38 39 Eliz. the case was debated in the Exchequer Chamber by Writ of Error and the Iudgment was reversed Hil. 36 Eliz. in B. R. Rot. 34. Walters Case LOve brought an Action of Debt against Wotton who pleaded the Statute of Vsury in Bar and by reason of Mispleader it was awarded by the Court that the parties should plead De novo and this Award was entred in this manner viz. Et quia placitum illud in modo forma placitat est sufficiens in lege the Court awarded that the parties should replead and hereupon they pleaded and Iudgment for the Plaintiff and the Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber which was certified accordingly And there Gawdy moved that the Record in this point might be amended and to have the Record certified de novo into the Exchequer Chamber for that the first Award is repugnant in it self for it is awarded that they shall replead because the Plea est sufficiens whereas it ought to be that they shall replead because est minus sufficiens as the paper books are and the opinion of the Court was that it could not be amended because that the fault is in the Iudgement it self which is the act of the Court and therefore cannot be amended Glanvill It is no Error in the Iudgment for the Iudgment is only that they shall replead but the Error is in the Iudgment to the Iudgment and may be well amended and of the same opinion was Popham Mich. 36 and 37 Eliz. in B. R. Rot. 579. Bartwrights Case BArtwright brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond against Harris the Condition was that if the Defendant did acquit discharge and save harmlesse the Plaintiff against an Obligation in which he and the Defendant were bound to I.S. in 601 l. that then the Obligation should be void The Defendant said that Bartwright was sued on this Obligation by I. S. and upon default I.S. had Iudgment to recover and that the Defendant before execution did deliver to the Plaintiff the 601 l. and hereupon the Plaintiff demurred Humbert It is no plea for he confesseth that the Plaintiff was not yet taken in execution yet inasmuch as he may be taken therefore his body goods and lands are liable to the execution and he hath not acquitted nor saved him harmlesse against the Bond of I.S. vide Dyer 186. And the Plaintiff had Iudgment c. Mich. 36 and 37 Eliz. in B. R. Rot. 25. Greyes Case GRey brought an action of Trespasse against Bartholmew the Case was A man did purchase divers Fishes viz. Carpes Tenches Trouts c. and put them into his Pond for store and then died The question was whether the Heire or the Executors should have the Fish Popham The Heire shall have the Deer in the Park and by the same reason the Fish Clench If the Fish be stolne it is Felony so that it appears there is a property in them vide 18 Ed. 4. 10 Ed. 4.14 22 Ass 98. that stealing of Tench out of a Pool is Felony by which it seems they are but Chattels Popham the Book is so and so is the Law but that is of stealing Fish out of a Trunk or some narrow place where they are put to be taken at will and pleasure but otherwise it is where they are put into a Pond Fenner He which hath the water shall have the Fish And Popham ex assensu curiae gave Iudgment for the Heire And in the principall case the Executors did take the Fish with Nets and the Heire brought a Trespasse and adjudged maintainable See what Chattels Executors shall have and what not in 21 H. 7.26 10 H. 7.6 30. an account will lye for Fish in a Fish-pond so in the 5 R. 2. Waste 97. an Action of waste did lye against Guardian in Chivalry for taking Fish out of a Pool by the Statute of Magna Charta but quaere if it lies against a Termor or Guardian in Soâ—age upon an Account for Fish 36 Eliz. in B. R. Rot. 767. Leighs Case LEigh brought an Ejectione firmae for a Chamber against Shaw the Case was A Lease was made of the Rectory of Chingford in Essex and of the Glebe excepting the Parsonage house saving and allowing to the Lessee a Chamber over the Parlor next the Church It was adjudged that the Lease of the Chamber was good for as well as a man by his exception may except part of a thing so as it shall be intended that it was never let or granted so in this case when he saies except the Parsonage house saving and allowing to the Lessee a Chamber this saving makes the Chamber as it were excepted out of it as if it had been leased so a saving out of a saving is as much as there had been no saving at all and then this Chamber not being excepted out of the Lease shall passe clearly by the Lease of the Rectory And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff 37 Eliz. in B. R. Rot. 242. Wrights Case WRight brought a Writ of Error against the Mayor and Comminalty of Wickombe to reverse a Fine levied by his Ancestor of twenty acres of Land the Defendants in abatement of the Writ of Error did plead that the Plaintiff after the death of his Ancestor did disseise the Defendants of the Land and made a Feoffment to a stranger Iudgment c. The Plaintiff replied that they did re-enter upon him without that that he did enfeoff a stranger modo forma The Iury found that there was a Fine of twenty acres and that the Plaintiff being Disseisor of all made a Feoffment of six of the acres to a stranger Et si supra totam materiam c. And it was objected that the Record was intire and the Error is a Chose in Action and not a Chose in Droit and therefore cannot be divided but if it were a Chose in Droit it is otherwise as if a Disseisee of twenty acres releaseth all his right in five acres this doth extinguish all his right in the five acres so upon a Feoffment of parcell yet the right remaineth as to the remnant But of a Chose in Action which is meerly entire no apportionment can be as in the 31 Eliz. in the Kings Bench between Charnock and Wrothesley the case was Husband and Wife levied a Fine of the Wives Land and after because the Wife was within age they sued a Writ of Error to reverse the Fine The question was If this should be reversed as to the Wise onely or against the Husband according to the opinion of Belknap in the 50 Ed. 3. And after long debate it was resolved
that it should be against both for it is intire and cannot be affirmed in part and disaffirmed in another part And the Lord Norris case is very agreeable to this where Tenant for life did levy an erroneous Fine and then was attaint by Parliament and all the right which he had to any Land was given to the Queen and it was adjudged that there is no title of Error nor was it given to the Queen by this word Right and then if it be so the Title of Error is not of any right in the land but onely to the Suit and if it be a Suit it is a Suit intire for he cannot have severall Suits as is agreed in Sir Richard Knightleys case A man had judgment to recover 150 l. and did release 20 l. of it and after sued execution and the other brought an Audita querela upon the Releases and defeated all the execution But it is otherwise where such apportionment of such Suit is done by act in Law as in 7 Ed. 4. fol. ultimo The Sheriff levied parcell of the debt by Fieri facias yet shall he have an Action of Debt for the Residue upon the Record But in this case it is the act of the party himself that destroies his Suit for part of the Land for which it shall destroy the other suit for the Error is intire as to all the land and cannot be divided as in the 38 Ed. 3. and 12 H 6. if a false Verdict be found and the party greived does make a Feoffment of parcell he shall not have an attaint for any part So in the 19 H. 6. and the 39 Ass If he who hath cause to bring a Writ of Error or Attaint does take a Lease for years of parcell he doth suspend his Action and if he takes in fee it is quite gone But it was resolved by the Court that the Feoffment does not destroy the Title of the Writ of Dower for more then so much as a Feoffment was made of and thereupon they first took a difference between suspension and extinguishment of an Action for peradventure if he suspend his Action as to any part for any time this is a suspension unto all but extinguishment of part is a Bar to that part onely and Gawdy cited the case in 9 H. 6. where Iudgment was reverst for part only and it is not unusuall to have a Fine reversed for part as if a fine be levied of lands in ancient Demesne 47 Ed. 3.9 a. there by Parsley If there be Error in Law as to one parcell and Error in Fact as to another parcell the Iudgment as touching the matter of Law may be reversed Fenner He who hath Title to reverse a Fine or recovery by Writ of Error hath right in the Land and if he release all his right in the land the Error is extinct and the reason of the Lord Norris Case was not that the Title to the Error was an Action in privity annexed to the party to the Record and his Heires and cannot be transferred over to another no more then a Writ of partition between Coparceners or a Nuper obiit Popham He who hath Title to have the Writ of Error hath no Title to the Land although that thereby he be to be restored to the Lande for if the Land discend to one who hath Title to have the Writ of Error without doubt it shall not be accounted a remitter But as to the matter now in question he said that if two men bring a Writ of Error in the Realty and the Tenant plead the release of one this is a good Bar against both because the Error in the Record is released But if one who hath Title to a Writ of Error does make a Release of all his Right in one acre this is a Bar but for so much inasmuch as the Release is a Bar but as to the Restitution of the Land onely and no Release of Errors in the Record for by the Reversall of a Fine or Recovery the party may annihilate the Record and have Restitution of that which the Record before took from him and therefore it shall bar the Plaintiff And the opinion of all the Court was that the Fine should be reversed for that part of the Land onely whereof no Feoffment was made but for some defects in the Writ of Error Iudgment was stayed Mich. 37 and 38 Eliz. in B. R. Barnards Case SMith brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond against Barnard the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff was outlawed and a day was given him to bring in the Record at which day he made default Daniel moved that the Iudgment for the Plaintiff in this case should be that the Defendant should answer for that the plea of Outlawry was but a dilatory Plea and no Plea in Bar as appears 21 Ed. 4 15. but this difference was taken by the Court. In an Action of Debt upon a Bond Vtlary of the Plaintiff is a Plea in Bar and the reason is because all the Debts in specialties are forfeited to the Queen by reason of the Outlawry and because the Queen is to have them it is a good Plea in Bar But in a Trespasse or Debt upon a Contract the Outlawry is but to the abatement of the Writ and the Queen shall not have Debts upon simple Contracts but after the Outlawry pardoned the Plaintiff may have an Action for them again And because he failed to bring the Record at his day appointed the Plaintiff recovered vide Dyer 6 Eliz. 227 228. Hil. 32 Eliz. in C. B. Lord Dacres Case GRegory Lord Dacres was summoned to answer Richard Gawton in a Plea of Debt for 26 l. 14 s. and did declare that the Defendant did retain the Plaintiff to be his Bayliff of his Mannor of Moreford c. and to receive the Defendants money for a certain time and to do other businesses for the Defendant and to render an account and afterwards before one Launcelot Love the Auditor assigned by the Defendant the Plaintiff did account Super quo computo praefatus Richardus pro diversis costagiis expensis quae idem Richardus circa prosecutionem executionem negotiorum praefati Gregorii in surplusagiis in praedict 26 l. 14. s. erga ipsum Gregorium ultra omnes denariorum summas per ipsum Richardum ad ipsum dicti Gregorii recept permansisset And thereupon he brought his Action and the Defendant pleaded Nil debet and it was found for the Plaintiff and yet he had not Iudgment First because the Declaration was insufficient because the Plaintiff was not in Surplusage to the Defendant but the Defendant to the Plaintiff and so are all the Presidents directly and he ought to alledge he was in Service and that he had received Goods whereof no mention is made Secondly Because neither day nor place is alledged where the Auditor was assigned Pasch 33 Eliz. in C. B. Rot. 409. Owseleys Case ROger Owsely brought a
Deforceants Qui quidem finis fuit ad usus intentiones in Indentura praedict specificat by force whereof the said Thomas and Margaret were seised but the Iury found nothing of the Marriage whether it took effect or not and further found that William Pile and Philip his Wife had Primogenitam prolem a Daughter and then died and then Thomas Beale died and his Wife inter married with one Lamock who made a Lease to the Plaintiff who was ousted by Layton the Lessee of Philip Pile And hereupon it was moved by Gawdy Serjeant that inasmuch as the Marriage took no effect between Thomas and Margaret the uses cannot be in them but the Fine shall be to the use of the Conusor which was opposed by Walshey Serjeant who said that it was not like a Covenant in consideration of marriage to stand seised of such a Mannor for there if the considerations faile the uses faile also for the consideration onely is the sole and entire cause that makes the uses to arise but in this case the consideration is not materiall but the Fine effectuall without consideration of money paid and if a Feoffment be made to the use of I S. although no money be paid yet I.S. shall have the Land Windham The Cases differ much for here the Fine is not exprest to be levied to the use of Thomas and Margaret but to the uses and consents contained in the Indenture but he said that the common course was to limit the use to the Conusor untill the Marriage took effect and after as before was urged by Walmsley And the Iury found that Thomas and Margaret were seised accordingly Winham They are no Iudges to determine doubts in Law Rhodes Iustice Herein they have taken notice but of the matter in fact and he affirmed the difference put by Walmsley Windham The case de matrimon praelocut is stronger then this Case for the secret intention shall reduce the Land if the marriage take no effect And after the Court being full they all agreed to the difference put by Walmsley and also that the sale afterwards was not good by reason of this Limitation And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff accordingly Hil. 26 Eliz. Britman against Stanford UPon a speciall Verdict the Case was A House Stable and Hay-loft were demised to one for yeares rendring foure and twenty pounds Rent per annum and foure and twenty pounds for an In-come quarterly by equall portions upon Condition that if any of the Rent or In-come be behind at the time it ought to be paid that then the Lease shall cease and determine The Lessee makes a Lease of the Stable to the Lessor and after part of the In-come is behind and unpaid and the Lessor enters for the Condition broken into the house And if this was a good entry was the question And Iudgment was given that the Condition was gone and void by reason of the Lessors taking part of the thing demised because a Condition is speciall and intire and not to be severed And in this Case Fenner said that a Grantee of a Reversion cannot take benefit of a collaterall Condition as in case of a grosse summe but in case of a Rent waste c. it was otherwise Mich. 29 and 30 Eliz. Rot. 2529. Doctor Lewin against Munday IN a Replevin by Lewin against Munday it was found by Verdict That a Fine was levied the 14th of Elizabeth between Lowla and Rutland Plaintiffs and Fook and seven others Deforceants of the Mannors of Gollochall whereby the Defendant did grant the Mannor to the Plaintiffs and the Heires of one of them who granted and rendred twenty pounds per annum to the said Fook and his Heires with a Distresse for non-payment Fook seised of the Rent makes a grant to a stranger in this manner That whereas a Fine was levied the 14. of Eliz. of the Mannor aforesaid and divers other lands c. and mistook the Mannor for he put the names of the Conusees in place of the Conusors and so e contra and that it was levied of the Mannor and divers other lands whereas the Fine was levied of the Mannor solely and that he did grant the said Rent granted unto him to the said stranger and his Heires And this grant was adjudged by Anderson who said that if one recite that he hath ten pounds of the grant of I.S. whereas it was of the grant of I.D. yet it is good Hil. 30 Eliz. Rot. 17.32 Hunts Case HUnt brought an Action on the Case against Torney and declared that he being seised of lands in Swainton in Norf. in fee Secundum consuetudinem Mannerii the Defendant did promise to the Plaintiff in consideration the Plaintiff would permit him to occupy the same for the space of five years that he would pay him at the Feast of All-Saints next coming and so yearly twenty pounds at the Feasts of the Annunciation and All-Saints by equall Portions during the terme aforesaid and alledged that he had injoyed the lands by the space of a year and half and so brought his Action on the Assumpsit And Anderson was of opinion that untill the five years were expired no money was to be paid because the Contract was intire But all the other Iustices on the contrary for the consideration was to pay a certain summe yearly which made severall duties and so severall Actions For by Periam if a man be bound to pay I.S. twenty pounds in manner and forme following viz. ten pounds at such a day and ten pounds at such a day in this case the Obligee cannot have an Action of Debt for the first before the day of payment of the last ten pounds be past because the duty in it self is an intire duty but if a man be bound to pay I.S. ten pounds at such a day and ten pounds at such a day here the Obligee shall have his Action for the first because the duty was in it self severall Anderson at another day said that if a man makes a Lease for ten years rendring Rent in that case he may have an Assumpsit for the Rent due every year So if I covenant with you to build you twenty houses the Covenantee shall have a severall action for each default Periam That Case of the Assumpsit is much to the purpose for an Assumpsit is in the nature of a Covenant and is indeed a Covenant without writing Rhodes cited this Case Gascoigne promised in consideration of a marriage of his Daughter with such a mans Son to give seven hundred marks and to pay a hundred marks every year untill all the sunun were paid and it was held clearly in this Court that a severall action might be brought upon every hindred pounds but because the action was brought for all the seven hundred marks before the seven years were out Iudgment was given against him for if a man be bound in a Bond of a hundred pounds to pay twenty pounds for so many years he
that the Action might be against the Husband onely because that the woman could not convert them to his own use during the Coverture but onely to the Husbands use And the opinion of the Court was that the Writ was good against them both and that the conversion was in nature of a Trespasse and so the Action would well lye Mich. 32. and 33 Eliz. Kent against Wichall IN a Trespasse Quare clausum fregit herbam conculcavit the Defendant pleaded that he tendied sufficient amends to the Plaintiff and he refused the same and demanded Iudgment c. And upon a Demurrer the opinion of the Court was that this is no plea in Trespasse but in a Replevin it is a good plea Sed non dierunt causam diversitatis 21 H. 7.30.9 H. 7.22 F.N.B. 69. G. 31 H. 4.17 Drew demanded of the Court that whereas Edmund Leusage had bound himself in an Obligation by the name of Edward Leusage if this was good or not and it seemed to the Court Quod non est factum and Anderson and Walmesley said expresly that it was void 34 H. 6.19 6. Dyer 279 21 H. 7.8 Sir John Arrundell and his Wife brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Glocester and others who pleaded in Bar that William Sturton was seised of a Mannor to which the Advowson was appendant and bound himself in a Statute-merchant of two hundred pounds to one Long and the Statute was extended and conveyed the interest of the Statute to one of the Defendants and then the Church became void And by the Court the Advowson may be extended and if it become void during the Conusees Estate the Conusee may present Note it was said by the Iustices of the Common Pleas that if a man promise another that he shall have a Lease in his land for eight years or it is agreed amongst themselves that one shall have a Lease of the others land for eight yeares that is no lease of the land but onely a Contract and Agreement but if one promise another that he shall have his land for eight years or openly agree that one shall have the others land for eight years this is a good lease for eight years by force of the agreement A. came before the Major of Lincolne and acknowledged a Statute-merchant and the Seal of the Major was not put to it and it was adjudged that the Statute was not good but a man may sue upon it as an Obligation because the Seal of the party is to it Pasch 36 Eliz. IN a Waste the Case was that a Lessee for yeares purchased Trees growing upon the land and had liberty to cut them within eighty yeares and after the said Lessee purchased the inheritance of the land and devised it to his Wife for life the Remainder to the Plaintiff in see and made his Wife Executrix and died who after married with the Defendant who cuts the Trees whereupon the Action is brought And by opinion of all the Court the Action was maintainable for although the Trees were once Chattels yet by the purchase of the Inheritance they were united to the land and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff accordingly Pasch 36 Eliz. UPon an Exigent the Sheriff returned that after Divine Service he made proclamation and did not say that there was no Sermon and therefore the Iudges held that the return was not good for by the Statute if there be a Sermon in the Church the Sheriff shall make his proclamations after the Sermon and if there be no Sermon then after Divine Service and because it did not appeare whether there were any Sermon or not the opinion of the Court was ut supra It was said that a man shall not aver against a Postea in the Kings Bench or the Common Pleas to say that it was contrary to the Verdict nor shall he be received to say that the Iudges gave a Iudgment and the Clarks have entred it contrary to their Iudgment but otherwise is it in Court Barons or other base Courts not Courts of Record 10 Ed. 3.40 35 and 36 Eliz. Newman against Beaumond IF the Ordinary grants the Administration of the Goods of B. to A. and after grants the Administration to R. this second Grant is an appeale of the first without any further sentence of repeale for the Administrator is but a servant to the Ordinary whom he may charge at any time In an Action of Debt on a Bond bearing date the nineth of July the Defendant pleaed a Release of all Actions the same day usque diem dati ejusdem scripti and it was adjudged that the Obligation was not discharged because the Release does exclude the nineth day on which it was made Mich. 37 and 38 Eliz. Rot. 211. Holman against Collins HOlman brought a Writ of Error against Collins upon a Iudgment given in the Court of Plymmouth in the County of Devon the case was Collins was possessed of a peece of Ordnance and in Consideration that he would tender this to Holman for to put into his Ship which was then going to Sea and that Collins would stand to the hazard of losing it The said Holman did assume upon himself and did promise to give Collins certain Goods which he should gain by the Voyage and after the said Ship did return laden with certain Goods and for non-satisfaction the said Collins brought his Action on the Assumpsit and had Judgment to recover And Crook assigned these Errors 1. That the Stile of the Court was not good for it was Curia Dominae Reginae Burgi praedict tent coram Majori de Plymmouth without saying secundum consuetudinem villae praedict and he who is Iudge of the Court ought to be either by Patent or Prescription and then for not expressing the stile of the Court nor by what authority they held their Court it is error and he cited the case in the Lord Dyer 262. and a Iudgment 30 Eliz. Rot. 32. given in the very point Another Error was that no day was prefixed for the Defendant to appear but generally ad proximam curiam which is Error although it be held every munday And for these Errors Iudgment was reversed Trin. 28 Eliz. Rot. 948. Mercer against Sparks MErcer had Iudgment to recover against Sparks in the Common Pleas upon an Action of the Case for words and Sparks brought a Writ of Error in the Kings Bench and assigned for Error that the Plaintiff did not expresse in the Declaration that the Defendant spake the words malitiose but it was adjudged that it was no Error because the words themselves were malicious and slanderous wherefore Iudgment was affirmed Savacres Case IT was adjudged in the Common Pleas that if a Baron or others mentioned in the Statute of 21 H 8. take divers Chaplaines which have many benefices and after they discharge their Chaplaines from their Service they shall retain their Benefices during their lives and if the Baron takes others to be his
maneriis de Badmanshall and the question was If the Vitar by this Indowment shall have the third part of the Tythes growing upon the â—and of the Freeholders within the Mannor or not And it was said by the Court that a Mannor cannot be without Freeholders and inasmuch as they are to be charged with the payment of Tythes one and the other together shall be said to be the Tythes of the Mannor and so it was adjudged that the Vicar should have Tythes of the third part of the land of the Freeholders as well of the Demesnes and Copyholders Trin. 37 Eliz. Rot. 438. Willoughby against Gray A Venire facias did beare Teste out of the Terme and also there was no place mentioned in the Writ here the Visne should be impaunelled and after the Writ said Coram Justiciariis and did not say apud Westmonasterium and a tryall was had hereupon and Iudgment given which was prayed might be reversed for these causes But it seemed to the Court that notwithstanding all that was alledged it was good enough for although the Venirefacias was not good yet if the Distringas had a certain return and place therein And the Iury appeared and gave their Verdict so that a Verdict was had the Statute will aide the other defects as in the case adjudged between Marsh and Bulford where the Venire bore Teste out of the Term. But Fenner said that the Teste was in the Term but on the Sabboth day which was not Dies Juridicus Trin. 38 Eliz. Rot. 622. KInton brought an Appeal of Mayhem against Hopton Flam and Williams Hopton pleaded not guilty Flam pleaded that he was mis-named and demanded Iudgment c. Et quoad feloniam mahemium not guiltâ— de hoc ponit se super patriam praedict Kinton similiter And Williams pleaded no such man in rerum natura as Flam and demanded Iudgment of the Writ and as to the Mayhem and Felony not guilty Et de hoc ponit se super patriam c. And as to the other two pleas to the Writ Kinton demurred prayed that the Writ might be awarded him and a Venire facias to try the issue For Tanfeild urged that by pleading over to the felony he waved the plea to the Writ for there was a diversity between an appeal of Murther and of Mayhem for in Murther as it is 7 Ed. 4. and 3 Ed. 6. although he plead to the Writ of appeal yet of necessity he must plead over to the Murther because it is in favorem vitae or else if he will joyne in Demurrer upon the plea to the Writ he doth confesse thereupon the Felony and therefore he must plead over not guilty But in Mayhem it is otherwise for although the Declaration was for Felony yet is a Mayhem but a Trespasse onely and all are pruâ—cipalls and the life of the Defendant is not questioned but he shall onely render damages and therefore it he plead over to the Felony that is a waver of the plea and so a Venire faciaâ— ought to issue out to try if he be culpable or not and of this opinion were Popham Fenner and Gawdy clearly and agreed to the diversity between the appeal of Mayhem and Murther Mich. 38 and 39 Eliz. King against Braine A Man sells Sheep and warrants that the yare sound and that they shall be sound for the space of a year upon which Warrant an Action of the Case was brought and it was moved that the Action did not lye because the Warranty is impossible to be performed by the party because it is onely the act of God to make them sound for a year But Clench and Fenner on the contrary for it is not impossible no more then if I warrant that such a Ship shall return safe to Bruges and it is the usuall course between Merchants to warrant the safe return of their Ships Mich. 38 and 39 Eliz. Wentworth and Savell against Russell IN a Writ of Parco fracto the Plaintiffs declared that they were Tenants pro indiviso of a Mannor in Yorkshire and that the Defendant held of them certain lands as of their Mannor rendring Rent which Rent was behind and for which they distrained and impounded the Distresse and the Defendant broke the Pound and rescued the distresse and thereupon they brought this Action and the Defendant demurred on the Declaration because the Plaintiffs did not shew how they were Tenants pro indiviso or Tenants in Common or Coparceners But the Court ruled the Declaration to be good And Gawdy said that a Tenant in Common alone without his companion may have an Action De parco fracto And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Hil. 39 Eliz. POphamsaid that in Lancashire there is a Parish called Standish within which are many Townes and one of the Townes is called Standish And if a man seised of lands in the Town of Standish and also of land in the other Townes do let all his land in Standish onely his land within the Town of Standish doth passe and not all his land within the Parish of Standish in the other Townes For where a man speaks of Standish or of Dale it shal be intended to be a Town and not a Parish unlesse there be expresse mention of the Parish of Standish or of Dale Gawdy and Fenner on the contrary for the Grant of every man shall be taken strongest against himself and therefore all the land as well within the Parish of Standish as within the Town of Standish shall passe And Fenner said that when Dale is mentioned in any Precipe it shall be intended the Town of Dale because Towns are noted at the Common Law and not Parishes for Parishes were ordained by the Councell of Lyons but notwithstanding in Grants there shall be no such intendment but the intendment shall be according to the common usage and understanding of the Country and Country-men in favour of the Grantee and when a man speake of Standish or any such place it shall as well be intended to be a Parish as a Town Hil. 29 Eliz. Clarentius against Dethick CLarentius brought an Action of the Case against Dethick by the name of Dethick alias Garter The Defendant demanded Iudgment of the Writ for the Queen by her Letters Patents had created him King at Armes Et quod nuncuparetur Garter principalis Rex armorum and that he should sue and be sued by such name and because he was not sued according to his creation he demanded Iudgment c. Tanfeild prayed that the Writ might abate for this case had been here in the Court in question before where Dethick was indided by the name of Dithick onely and because he was not named according to his creation he pleaded that matter and the Indictment was quashed Gawdy I remember the case very well and it was adjudged at my first coming to this Court and in truth the Iudgment passed against my opinion which then and still is
expounded as they are commonly taken and not to go to any strict construction of the words as Heirs in the Latine is used also for goods by the Civill Law but we use it only for lands and so Libra in Latine signifies a Weight and yet if I am bound in Vigint Libris if I forfeit my Bond I must pay money and not Lead or the like And so the word Puer is somtimes taken for a servant Claudite jam rivos pueri c. and the same reason that it may be intended for a Daughter may be for a Servant also Gawdy I suppose the Son shall have it and not the Daughter for although Pueri was taken for Male and Female yet now it is taken for Male in any Modern Author but to omit curiosity of words we ought to consider rather the intent of the parties and there are many circumstances to prove that he intended this to his Son and not to his Daughter for he made it for setling his Inheritance and it shall not be supposed that he intended his Daughter should have it Also where the case may be taken two waies the most usuall shall be intended as in case of a reservation of a Rent at Michaelmas that shall be intended at the chiefest Feast also in this case it shall be intended that he would advance the most worthy of his blood and therefore to that purpose the conveyance shall be expounded for if there be two I. S. and I give land to I.S. it shall be intended to my next Neighbour but if one be my Cosin although he dwells forty miles from me yet he shal have the land And to this Southcote accorded 31 Eliz. in B. R. Hone against Clerk A Woman Lessee for life takes Husband who by Indenture makes a Feoffment of the land to I.S. for these words Sciant per Servantes Richardum How Katherin uxor ejus dedisse I.S. unum messuagium habendum praedict I.S. heredibus suis ad solum opus usum of the said I.S. and his Heirs during the life of Katherine The question was if this was a forfeiture because the wife was Tenant for life and the Attorney argued that it was for the words Pro termino vitae Katherin are referred to the use only and not to the estate for by these words habendum to him and his Heirs the estate is limited and therefore it is a forfeiture but after comes the limitation of the use ad usum I.S. and his Heirs during the life of the woman and after the death of the woman the use remaines in the Feoffor and he cited the Lord Sturtons case in the beginning of the Queens Raign The Lord Sturton gave land to Clerk and his Heirs to the use of Clerk and the Heirs of his body and adjudged that it was not an estate in taile for the limitation of the estate was before in the Premises Coke on the contrary and said that those words For life of the wife are to be referred to the limitation of the Estate for if a double sense be in words such sense shall be taken as shall avoid all wrong and therefore it shall not be so expounded as that the Grant shall not take effect and that a forfeiture shall ensue 4 Ed. 2. and see a notable case for exposition of words and for relation of words and sentences 34 Ed. 3. Avowry 58.28 H. 8. Dyer Gawdy It is a forfeiture Clench said he would advise but afterwards it was adjudged a forfeiture for as Wray said the estate given was forfeit Mich. 36 37 Eliz. Bagnall against Porter in B. R. Rot. 353. A Man by Indenture bargains and sells his land and if the Bargainor pay 100 l. at such a day that then he shall be seised to the use of the Bargainor and his heirs and did assume to make such assurance for the security of the land as should be advised by the Councell of the Bargainor and the Bargainee bound himself in a Recognizance to performe the said Covenants And in debt upon the Recognizance it was shewn that the Bargainor paid the money at the day and had tendred to the Bargainee a Deed in which was comprised an acquittance of payment of the money and also a release of all his right and the Bargainee refused to seale it Coke was of clear opinion that he ought to have sealed it for it is necessary to have the Deed to mention payment of the money for otherwise the Bargainee and his heirs may claim the land for default of payment Gawdy of the same opinion and cited 19 Ed. 4. Popham The case is not so clear for if he had tendered an acquittance only there is no doubt but the Bargainee might refuse to seale it and by the same reason he may refuse when it is joyned to a thing that he is bound not to do viz. to seal the release but at last the matter was referred to Arbitration Hillar 37 Eliz. COke demanded this question A man having two Daughters his Heires does demise his Land to them in Fee What estate had they by this Demise For if a man deviseth Land to his eldest Son it is voyd and he is in by descent That it was holden by the Court that they shall hold by the Devise because that he gives another estate to them then descended for by the descent each of them had a distinct moyety but by the Devise they are Joyn-renants and the survivor shall have all And Fenner sayd If a man had Land in Burrow-English and Guildable Lands and devised all his Land to his two Sons and dyes both of them shall take joyntly and the younger shall not have a distinct moiety in the Burrow-English nor the elder in the Guildable Land but they are both Joyn-tenants Pasch 37 Eliz. Carrell against Read in B. R. Rot. 270. A Lease for years was made of divers Fenny grounds in Cambridge ss and the Lessee covenanted to defend the ground for being surrounded with water and to drain the water out of other lands that were demised to him in the said County And upon an Action of Covenant for not performing the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff had entred in the land demised And adjudged no plea by the Court because the Covenant was not in respect that the Lessee should enjoy the land nor was it a Covenant abhering to the land but to a collaterall thing but if it had been in respect of enjoying the land there it is a good plea to say that the Plaintiff had entred but where the thing to be done is collaterall it is otherwise and also if he did plead such plea yet it is not a bar unlesse he holds him out of possession Coke lib. 3.221 4 Ed. 3.29 the Lord shall not have a Cessavit after entry in parcel 10 Ed. 4.11.35 H. 6. Bar 162.19 Ed. 4.2 Trin. 37 Eliz. in B. R. Rot. 1076. Dogrell against Perks IN an Action of Covenant The Defendant pleaded
that it was enacted by the Major of London and common Councel that if any Citizen takes the Son of an Alien to be his Apprentice that the Covenants and Obligations shall be void and he shewed that he was the Son of an Alien and became an Apprentice to the Plaintiff who is a Citizen and made the Covenants with him for his Apprentiship And demanded Iudgment And it was held no Bar for notwithstanding the Act the Covenant is good for it is the Act of the Defendant although the Act of the Common Councell be against it but the said Act may inflict punishment on any Citizen that breakes it And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 41 Eliz. in B. R. Knotts against Everstead LEssee for life the remainder for life the remainder in taile he in the reversion who had the fee does enter and enfooffs the Lessee for years and adjudged that by this Feoffment Nihil operatur Popham said that he who hath a term cannot license another that hath nothing in the land to make a Feoffment for he who hath the Freehold wants nothing but possession to make a good Livery but in this case he who makes the Livery had not the Freehold and therefore the license is void But Tanfeild said that if Lessee for life gives leave to a stranger to make Livery it is void but if he consent that the stranger shall make a Feoffment it shall amount to a Disseisin and the Feoffment is good Which was denied by the Court. And Clench said if a Lessee for ten years makes a Lease for one year to him in reversion there he in the reversion who hath the land for a year may make a Feoffment to the Lessee for ten years and it is good Trin. 41 Eliz. Moyle against Mayle MOyle brought an Action of Waste against Mayle and declared that he had leased to him a Mannor and a Warren and that he had destroyed a Cony-borough and subverted it and assigned otherwastes in cutting down certain Thornes Williams The Action of waste will well lye and said that a Warren consisted or two things of a place of Game and of liberty and to prove that a waste did lye for a liberty he cited the Statute of Magna Charta Cap. 5. in which a Warren is intended also the Statute of Marlebridge cap. 24. and the Statute Articuli super Chartas cap. 18. by which Statutes it is evident that a waste does lie for Warrens and a Warren is more then a liberty for a Writ lies Quare warrenam suam intravit and by the 12 H. 8. if Lessee of a Warren does break the Pale it is a waste also if Lessee of a Pigeon-house stop the holes so that the Pigeons cannot build a waste doth lye as it hath been adjudged Also if Lessee of a Hop yard ploweth it up and sowes Graine there it is waste as it hath been adjudged Also the breaking a Weare is waste and so of the Banks of a Fish-pond so that the water and fish run out To all which cases the Court agreed except to the principal For the Court held it was not waste to destroy Cony-boroughs for wast will not lye for Conies because a man hath not inheritance in them and a man can have no property in them but only possession and although by a speciall Law Keepers are to preserve the land they keep in the same plight they found it yet thiâ— does not bind every Lessee of land Walmsley The subversion of Cony-boroughs is not waste and it was usuall to have a waste against those who made holes in land but not against those who stop them up because therby the land is made better And it was said that to dig for stones was a waste unlesse in an ancient Quarry although the Lessee fill it up againe And Walmsley said that in Lancashire it is waste to dig Marle unlesse it be imployed upon the land And said it was not waste to cut thornes unlesse they be in a Wood stubbed and digged up by the roots but if they grow upon the land then they may be stubbed and it is no waste But to cut down Thorne-trees that have stood sixty or a hundred years it is waste Hil. 32 Eliz. in B. R. Sir George Farmer against Brook IN an Action of the Case the Plaintiff claimeth such a Custome in the Town of B. that he and his Ancestors had a bake-house within the Town to bake white bread and houshold-bread and that he had served all the Town with bread that no other could use the Trade without his license and that the Defendant had used the Trade without his license upon which the Defendant demuâ—'d Morgan This is a good Prescription and it is reason that a Prescription should bind a stranger vide 11 H. 6.13 A. prescribed to have a Market and that none should sel but in a Stall which A. had made and was to pay for the Stall and held there a good Prescription And the Arch-bishop of Yorks Case in the Register 186. is a good case A man prescribed that he had a Mill and he found a horse to carry the Corn thither and that therfore they ought to grind there and because they did not he brough his Action on the case Buckley contra It cannot be intended to have any commencement by any Tenure 11 H 4. A. procured a Patent that none should sell any thing in London without paying him a penny adjudged not good and the case of the Arch-bishop was good because he had it ratione dominii tenuri And adjudged the principall case that the action will not lye 23 Eliz. in C. B. Farrington against Charnock KIng Henry the 8 granted Turbariam suam in D. at Farrington rendring rent sur 21. years and then the Lessee imployed part of it in arable land and relinquisht part of it in Turbary and then Q. Mary grants Totam illam TurbariaÌ„ before demised to Farrington and adjudged that that passed only which was Turbary and the other part that was converted into Tillage did not passe Mich. 18 Eliz. in B. R. SIr Arthur Henningham brought an Action of Error against Francis Windham to reverse a common recovery had against Henry Henningham his brother and the Error assigned was that there was no warrant of Attorney of the Record And it was agreed by the Bar and Bench and adjudged error But the great point was if the Plaintiff could have a writ of Error The Case was Henry the Father had Henry his Son and three Daughters by one Venter and the Plaintiff by another Venter and died seised of the land intailed to him and the Heirs Males of his body Henry enters and makes a Feoffment the Feoffee is impleaded and voucheth Henry who looseth by default in the recovery and dies without issue and whether the Daughters which are Heirs generall or the Plaintiff which is Heir in tail shall have the Error Gawdy and Baker for the Defendant who said
reason appears that the nature of the Lapse is to be taken hac vice and the King must take it then or not at all and where it is objected that by this means every Lapse may be taken from the King I conceive that far greater inconvenience will be to the Patrons on the other side for when a Lapse is devolded to the King and a stranger presents if then the true Patron may not present untill the death of such Incumbent perhaps the Incumbent will resign or be deprived and a stranger shall be presented again and again in like manner and so by this means the Patron shall never continue his advowson for by the Couin between the stranger and the neglect of the King to take his Lapse the Incâ—mbent shall never die And afterwards in this term it was adjudged that such usurpation shall not take away the Lapse from the King because the avoydance accrued by the act of the Incumbent Cook ib. 7.27 a. Hillary 29 Eliz. Lassell's Case LAssell brought an action of debt upon an obligation the Defendant pleads that the condition was that he should personally appear before the Iustices and set forth how he was taken by a Latitat by the Plaintiff who was Shiriff who took this obligation upon his deliverance and urged the Statute of 23 H. 6. and said that the obligation was not according to the Statute And by the Opinion of three Iustices Anderson being absent If it were in such an action wherein a man may appear by Atturney then it is void And the Plaintiff shewed a Iudgment given in the Kings Bench wherein in such case Iudgment was given for the Sheriffs and it was between Seekford and Cutts 27. 28. Eliz. Rot. 373. And the next Terme it was moved again Anderson The Obligation is voyd for when an express form is limited by the Statute no variance ought to be from it But the other three Iustices were against him for they held that he ought to appear in his proper person in case of a Latitat Anderson I deny that for Latitats have not been of above 60 years continuance Vid. Cook lib. 10. Beufages Case and his first Institutes 225. a. Pasch 25 Eliz. Kayre against Deurat in C. B. Rot. 603. IN a Waste the Plaintiff declared how the Defendant was seized in Fee and made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life the remainder to the Plaintiff in Fee after which he committed waste The Tenant said that he was seized in Fee without that he made a Feoffment as the Plaintiff declared and upon issue joyned it was found that the Defendant was seized in Fee and that he made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life of J.S. without impeachment of waste the remainder ut supra and whether this was the Feoffment which the Plaintiff alledged they prayed the advice of the Court. Anderson Chief Justice If the impeachment of waste be not part of their issue then the Verdict is voyd for that point and that which is found more than their issue is voyd 33 H. 6. the Defendant pleaded that he was not Tenant of the Free-hold and the Iury found that he held joyntly with another there the Plaintiff shall recover And then at another day it was said by the Iustices that the Iury had found such an estate as was alledged by the Plaintiff and although that they further found this priviledge to be dispunisht of waste which upon the matter proves that the Plaintiff hath no cause of action yet because the Tenant may choose whether he would take hold of this priviledge or not the Iury cannot finde a thing that is out of their Verdict and whereof the Defendant will not take advantage by pleading and for this cause their Verdict was voyd 7 H. 6.33 21 H. 7.12 where one pleaded in Bar a Feoffment and traversed the Feoffment and hereupon they were at issue and the Iury found that he had enfeoffed the Tenant after the Fine levyed to the Plaintiff this cannot be found because it is out of their issue 31 Assi 12. and Iudgement was given for the Demandant Hillar 29 Eliz. Michell against Donton in C. B. Rot 639. IN an Ejectment a man makes a Lease rendring Rent with a Covenant that the Lessee shall repair the houses with other Covenants and Conditions of re-entry for not performance and then he devised the same land to the same Lessee for divers years after the first years expired yielding the same Rent and under the same Covenants as in the former Lease and he devised the remainder in fee to the Plaintiff and the first Lease expires and the Defendant being possest by force of his second Lease doth not repair the houses and if the Plaintiff might enter was the question Shuttleworth In as much as he devised the land under the same Covenants as the first Lease was and the first was with Covenants and Conditions the second shall be so also the rather because he deviseth the remainder over so that the Devisee cannot take advantage of the Covenants but of the Conditions he may and the second Lease is conditional But the whole Court was against him Shuttleworth To what purpose then are these words in the Devise Under the same Covenants Periam They shall be voyd And by all the Iustices the intent of the Will was not that the Lease should be conditional for Covenants and Conditions differ much for the one gives an action but not the other but the intent was that he should perform the Covenants upon pain to render damages in a Writ of Covenant Bottenham against Herlakenden 29 30 Eliz. in C. B. Rot. 1620. HErlakenden was seized of land and devised the same to the Plaintiff for years the remainder to his wife for life Proviso that the Plaintiff should pay to the woman 20 l. per annum and if he failed of his payment c. wherefore the woman entred and if this shall be called reservation or reversion was the question Anderson A man cannot make a Reservation on a Devise Periam A man may to himself and his heirs but not to a stranger Anderson Every Devisee is in in the sier by the Devisor and why shall not this then be a reservation to the Devisor and a grant of the reversion to the woman Gawdy Wherefore cannot a man devise land reserving rent when by the Statute 32 H. 8. he may devise at his pleasure Periam Because his pleasure must correspond with the Law Anderson If I devise land to another reserving rent to me and my heirs and then devise the reversion he shall have the rent as incident to the reversion and the Iudges were divided wherefore c. 29 Eliz. Glover against Pipe in B. R. Rot. 838. IN debt upon a Bond the Condition was that where Glover the Plaintiff had a Copyhold of inheritance and had leased it to the Defendant if the Defendant should not commit any manner of waste and
Writ is grounded upon a recovery by default in a reall action but a waste is a meere personall action And therefore in the 2 H. 4. in a waste against the husband and wife the wife shall not be received also it will not lie in this case because here is no default within the intent of the Statute for the Statute intends to relieve defaults after appearance and therefore all the Iudgment in this Writ is that the recovery was by default and if there was a default in pleading it is a default but not within the Statute Glanvill cont No waste is committed and so the recovery shall not bind for it appears in the 8 Ed. 4. by West That this action was provided instead of a Writ of right and there is no question but a Writ of right will lie here and this Writ is of the same nature And Mr Plowden in his Reading said that this action will lie upon a recovery upon a Writ of waste aswell as in other actions for the recovery is not upon the Inquiry of the Iury but upon default And it is also a reall action 7 Ed. 3. 28 Ed. 3.30 If the husband make default herein the wife shall be received Anderson There is no question but this action lies upon a recovery in waste but if this be a default within the Statute is a doubt for if this should be suffer d it were very mischievous for then contempts shall be favoured which was never the intention of the Statute and therefore it will not lie where there is a default after appearance Walmesley of the same opinion for this case differs much from the Statute of Glocester for this Statute gives remedy to a third person upon default of the particular Tenant and therefore upon this Statute the intent of the partie who makes default is more regarded than the manner of the default and therefore it shall be taken largely But here is default in the party himself and he shall have no favour against his willfull default for every nihil dicit is a confession of it self for thereupon it is supposed that nothing can be said Windham I hold that a Quod ei deforceat will not lie in a Writ of waste for the inquiry of the Iury is the cause of the Iudgment But he agreed that default within the Statute is intended such default that in it self is the cause of the Iudgment but here the Iudgment is given upon contempt and refusall of the party and therefore no favour Perryam This action cannot be compar'd to a writ of right which is grounded upon the right and not on the Iudgment but the form in the Quod ei deforceat is set down in the Statute which ought to be observed and the Statute gives this action upon a default and here is no default for it cannot be a default where the partie appears and hath no day in Court but he doubted much if it lay in awrit of waste because the damages are the principall but as the case is here it will not lie And to prove that a nihil dicit is a confession he cited Pepyss Ease in the Comentaries 438. And at last Iudgment was given that the Writ would not lye Pasch 35 Elizab. James against Portman WIlliam James and Thomas James Ioyntenants for life of a lease made by Portman William James doth assent covenant and agree that Thomas James occupy all the land alone and sow it with his own Corn After the land is sowed Thomas James dyes William James the survivor grants the Corne to Portman who takes it and the Plaintiff as executor to Thomas brought an action of trespass Ewens for the Defendant one Ioyntenant cannot make a Lease to his companion no more than one may infeof the other by reason they have joynt possession 10 Ed. 4.3 2 R. 2. Extinguishment 3. Also the words here are not sufficient to make a Lease but admitting this yet the survivor shall have the corn of that part which belongs to him for by this Lease the Ioynture is severed and then the Survivor shall have that which grows on his part For it two Ioyntenants sowe their land and one of them letts his moytie for years and he who did not let dyes the other shall have the corn as Survivor Pyne cont Although one Ioyntenant cannot inteof another because he cannot make livery because he hath possession before yet may he Release to his companion and so may he make a Lease for years for there is no need of any livery and by the 22 H. 6.43 If one Ioyntenant infeofs another this shall enure by way of confirmation And 14 H. 6.10 One Ioyntenant may put out his companion by this means for he may clayme a Lease from him and then a Release and if it be a good Lease then the Executors shall have it Popham The action is good for one Ioyntenant may make a Lease to the other although he cannot infeof for a Lease is but a contract And 11 H. 6.33 one Ioyntenant commanded the other to occapy all and in a trespass he was compelled to plead this as a Lease and then if one Ioyntenant does sow all and dyes the other shall have the Corne by Survivor and it is not as in case where a man hath an estate determinable upon uncertainty for there his Executors shall have the Corn but in our case the Survivor had contracted with his companion and thereby had bound himself not to meddle with the land and the other bestowed great costs in manuring and sowing the Land and therefore the Executors shall have the Corn. Fenner agreed but doubted whether one Ioyntenant could make a Lease to the other but said that by the contract he had excluded himself from the proffits and by the 39 Ed. 3.27 one Ioyntenant may have an account against the other And he said that if I agree that you shall sow my Land with me you shall gain no interest in the land and yet you shall have the corne And one Ioyntenant may distreyn for himself and as Bayly for the other And the Cause was adjourned and afterwards viz. Hillary 36 Eliz. the case was repeated And Gawdy said That if there be two Ioyntenants and one grants to the other that he may sow the Land yet may the other occupie with him for these words do not transfer any sole interest but if he sayes that he shall occupy all the Land and shall sow it solely this does exclude him from having any interest with him Popham Agreed because this is but a contract and so of a Lease for years Gawdy If one Ioyntenant sayes to the other that he will not occupie the Land with him or that he will not put in his Cattle this does not transfer any interest but that he may occupie with him and so in this case if it had not been said that he should occupy solely Popham of the same opinion for where he sayes he will not occupy
the words are in the negative which will not exclude him of his interest but in the Case at Bar they will because they are in the affirmative so That he shall occupy the Land solely And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Pasch 3. Eliz. Woodward against Nelson in B. R. WOodward Parson of Wotton in consideration of 120 l. payd by Bretman one of his Parishioners did accord and agree with him that he and his assignes should be discharged of Tythes during the time that he should be Parson Bretman made a Lease to Nelson Woodward did libell against him for Tythes and Nelson prayed a prohibition upon the said contract And it this was sufficient matter for a prohibition was the Question because it was by word only and without writing which amounts only to a cause of action upon a promise for Bretman but no action for his lessees neither can this amount to a Release of Tythes for as Tythes cannot be leased without Deed so they cannot be released or discharged without Deed. Gawdy Justice Tythes cannot be discharg'd without Deed unless by way of contract for a sum of money and he cited the 21 H. 6.43 Fenner for that year in which the discharge was made it was good by way of discharge without Deed because the Parson for that year had as it were an Interest but such discharge can have no continuance for another year for default of a Deed and so a promise being no discharge it is no cause of a prohibition But Gawdy held as afore And about this time Wray Chief Iustice dyed and Popham succeeded and the same day he was sworn Cook moved this Case again And the Court held that the agreement being by parol was not good And Fenner then said that without writing the agreement could not be good between the parties but for one year And the Court awarded a consultation But upon search made no Iudgment was entred in the Roll. Trinit 35 Eliz. Dr. Foord against Holborrow in B. R. Rot. 367. IN an Action of Debt upon a Bond the case was Dr. Drury to whom the Plaintiff was Executor made a Lease to Holborrow of the Mannour of Golding for years and Holborrow the Lessee entred into a Bond that if he his Executors or Assigns did pay to Anne Goldingham widow the sum of 20 l. for 17 years if the said Goldingham should so long live and so long as Holborrow the Lessee or any claiming by or under the said Holborrow shall or may occupy or enjoy the said Mannour of Goldingham and then Holborrow surreudred his Lease to the Obliges praecextu cujus the Defendant pleaded quod non occupavit nec potuit occupare c. wherefore he did not pay the said sum to Anne Goldingham and the Executor of the Obligee brought an Action of Debt upon this Obligation Johnson for the Defendant The term is gone for he cannot occupy after the surrender and also the Obligee is a party to the cause why it is not performed and therefore he shall take no advantage 4 â— 7.2 But the whole Court was against him for he to whom the surrender is made cometh in quodammodo by him and is his Assignee for he shall be subject to the charge that was before the surrender and also the Defendant shall be bound by these words in the Obligation viz. so long as he shall or may and although these words were not inserted yet he shall pay the annuity for where the first Cause does commence in himself he shall not have advantage thereby but otherwise where he is not party to the first Cause As if two Ioynt-tenants with Warranty make a partition the Warranty is gone because they are parties to the act which made the extinguishment but if one makes a Feoffment of his part the Warranty as to the other remains 11 Ed. 4.8 and in the Case at Bar the Obligor made the surrender and therefore he is party and the first cause and there is a diversity when the thing to be done is collateral and when not for if a Lessee does oblige himself to do a collateral thing as payment of money there he ought to do it although that he surrender for although the Obligee do accept of the surrender yet no act is done by him to hinder the performance of the condition but where the Obligee does any act to hinder the performance of the Condition the Condition is saved as if the Lessee be bound to the Lessor to suffer J.S. to enter into a Chamber during the Lease and he surrenders to the Obligee who will not suffer J.S. to enter the Obligation is saved and Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff 36 Eliz. Bedford against Hall in B. R. IN an Action of Covenant wherein the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant did devise and grant to him certain land with all his goods contained in a certain Inventory for 20 years and said that in the Inventory amongst other things were five Cows which the Defendant seized and that one J.S. took them away as his proper goods as indeed they were and hereupon he brought this Action Fenner The Action will not lye for no interest in the Cows doth pass to the Lessee by this Lease neither was there any right to them in the Lessor As if I demise to you the land of J. S. by these words Dem si concessi and you enter and J S. re-enters no Covenant lyes against me And so in the 11 H. 4. a Prebend made a Lease for years and resigned now is the term of the Lessee quite destroyed and if after he be outed by a new Prebend yet he shall have no Action of Covenant And so is it 9 Eliz. Dyer â—57 Lessee for life makes a Lease for years and dyes the Lessee shall not have a Covenant if he be outed by him in the reversion because he is not in as a Termor at the time of the disturbance But if in the principal Case the Lessor had been possest of the goods although by a wrong title and the Owner had seized them then a Covenant would lye And so if a Disseisor makes a Lease and the Disseisee re-enters the Lessee shall have a Covenant Gawdy If a man lets lands wherein he hath no estate together with his goods although the land will not pass yet the goods do and if a man lets goods for a year and re takes them within the year no Covenant will lye for the property was never in the Lessee Câ—…câ— If a man lets anothers goods to me by Deed if I seize them and the Owner re-takes them a Covenant will lye and so will an Action on the Case if it be without Deed 42 Assi 8. If I be in possession of anothers goods and sell them a deceit lyes against me by the Vendee and so is the Book of Ass 42.8 conâ—ra where the Vendor hath not possession at the time of the sale And if I sell goods by Deed which
for the goods themselves are not to be recovered in this action nor damages for them and so they are but collaterall to the action as in 10 Edw. 3.30 In a Rescous the Court was for taking of Cattle without shewing what Cattle and the Iury found them to be two horses and the Plaintiff had judgment where note that a verdict did help an insufficient Court and 22 Aâ—si 21 Ed. 3. a trespass was brought for taking away of Writings concerning land without shewing what they were or the quality of the land But otherwise in a detinue for Charters for there the Writings themselves are to be recovered The second and great doubt was when a man doth promise to another that if he will deliver the pawn he will pay the debt if this be a sufficient consideration to maintain an Assumpsit Foster Justice It is not for he that hath the pawne hath not such an interest in it as he may deliver it over to another or make a legall contract for it and that his delivery being illegall he cannot by his own wrong raise an action to himself and a man shall never maintain any action where the consideration is illegall and not valuable 9 Ed. 4. In an action on the Case the Defendant pleaded an accord and that he delivered the writing to the Plaintiff which concern'd the land and it was held no plea because the Plaintiff having land the writtings belonged to it And cited Reynolds Case where a man promised another 100 l. to solicite his business and it was holden that no action would lie for the money because the soliciting his business was illegall he being no man of Law Dier 355 356. Cook Warburton and Daniell cont Who said that the consideration was good legall and profitable and sufficient to maintain an assumpsit for he who hath goods at pawn hath a speciall property in them so that he may work such pawn if it be a Horse or Oxe or may take the Cowes milk and may use it in such manner as the owner would but if he misuseth the pawn an action lyes also he hath such interest in the pawn as he may assign over and the assignee shall be subiect to a detinue if he detaines it upon payment of the money by the owner as in the 2. assise Land was leased untill he had raised 100 l. he hath such interest as is grantable over And Foster agreed to this because he had power to satisfie himself out of the profits And it was agreed by the Court that if a man takes a distress he cannot work the distress for it is only the act of the Law that gives power to the distress for he hath no propertie in the distress nor possession in jure as in the 21 H. 7. Replevin A man hath returne Irreplevisable he cannot worke them for the Iudgment is to remit them to the pound ibid. remansurum vid. 13 R. 2 Brook 20 H. 7 1 a. 34 H. 8. Bâ— pledges 28.22 Edw. 4 11. goods pawned shall not be put into execution untill the debt be satisfied And it was agreed by Cook and Warburton that when a man hath a speciall interest in a thing by act in Law that he cannot work it or otherwise use it but contrary upon a speciall interest by the act of the partie as in case of a pawn Daniell There is difference between pawns which are chargeable to the parties as Cowes and Horses and things that are not chargeable and also there is a difference between pawnes that will be the worse by usage as Clothes c. For if the pawn be the worse by usage an action of the Case will lie against him that hath them pawned to him But contra of goods that are not the worse for usage Cook If I deliver goods to you untill you are promoted to a benefice you may use them which Foster denied And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and that they may be granted over and so a good assumpsit will lie 26 Eliz. Earl of Northumberlands Case THis case was privately argued before the Lord Treasurer because the parties agreed to refer themselves to the opinion of Wray and Anderson And the case was this the Earl of Northumberland devised by his will his Iewells to his wife And dyed possessed of a Collar of Esses and of a Garter of gold and of a Buckle annexed to his bonnet and also of many other buttons of gold and pretious stones annexed to his robes and of many other chains bracelets and rings of gold and pretious stones The question was if all these should passe by the devise under the name of Iewells And both Iustices did Resolve that the Garter and Collar of Esses did not pass because they were not properly Iewells but ensignes of Honour and State and that the Buckle in his bonnet and the buttons did not pass because they were annexed to his Robes and were therfore no Iewells But for all the other chaines rings braceletts and Iewells they passed by vertue of the said Will. Michaelm 40 41 Eliz. Sperke against Sperke in C. R. Rot. 2215. IN an ejectment the Case was this M. Sperke made a Lease of the land in question to William Sperke for 89. years if William should so long live the remainder after his death to the Executors or Assignes of the said William for 40. years afterwards William dyes Intestate and administration is committed to Grace Sperke his wife who entred clayming the 40. years and the Defendant clayming by another Lease entred upon him and he brought this action Aâ—dâ—…on Executor is as good a name of purchase as Heire is And I conceive the points in this case are two First if the Administrator be an assignee Secondly If the lease for 40. years be a Chattell vested in the Intestate in his life for if it be then his Administrator shall have it And as to the first I conceive that she is not assignee to take these 40 years For in the 19 Ed. 3. It is there said that Administrators are not assignees for administration is appointed by the ordinary and assignees must be in by the party himself and not by a stranger and therefore an Administrator cannot be an assignee as an Executor that comes in by the partie or as a husband for his wife Walmesley and Glanyâ—… accorded But Kingsmill cont for he said that although one could not be assignee in Deed without the act of the partie yet one may be assignee in Law by the act of the law And so the opinion of the â— Iustices to the first point was that the Administrator could not have it as assignee and as to the second point Anderson said that it could not vest for if a man have a Lease for life the remainder for 40. years the remainder is voyd because there is no person named to whom it is limited but if a man make a Lease for life and after his death to his lessee for
Ostensum est nobis returned in the Common Bench against Lee and Lovelace upon a scire Facias awarded against them and two Nihils return'd the Fine was reversed Anderson The scire Facias is not well awarded for it ought to be brought as well against those in possession as the Conufors and this appears by the 21 Ed. 3.56 by which they in possession and those in remainder ought to be made privy Walmesley agreed for the Freehold which is in me shall not be taken from me without making me privie no lesse then if A. bring a Precipe against B. of my land and recover for I shall have an Assise upon this Also another matter is in the Case For the land now in question is alledged to be parcell of the Mannor of Andover and therefore cannot be ancient Demesne But no Iudgment was at this time given because there were but two Iustices Halling against Comand IN an action of Covenant the case was thus Comand the Defendant did covenant with the Plaintiff that at the Costs and charges of the Plaintiff be would assure certaine land for the Ioynture of the Plaintiffs wise before Mâ—châ—e mas And the Plaintiff declared that no assurance was made nor tender before the said Michaelmas And hereupon the Defendant demurred for that the charges should have been offered before the assurance 3 H. 74.23 Eliz. Dyer Anderson in the 35 36 Eliz. Fâ—steâ— did covenant with Franke to make an assurance at the costs and charges of Franke and Franke brought a Covenant and Foster Demurred because no charges were tendred to him it was adjudge against Fester for Franke could not have cognizance what manner of assurance should be made and so could not tell what charges to tender and therefore he ought first to shew him what manner of assurance he should make and according to that he ought to tender reasonable Charges Walmesley But the charges ought to precede the assurance but the declaring of what manner of assurance should be made ought first to be done Beaumond of the same opinion Michaelm 38 Eliz. Damport against Sympson IN an action on the Case the Plaintiff declared that he had given to one Spilman certain Iewells to Traffique with them beyond the Seas and that he had not fold them but had delivered them to the Defendant who had spoild them whereupon the Plaintiff brought an action against the said Spilman and upon not guilty pleaded they were at issue and the now Defendant at that evidence did Depose upon his oath that the Iewells were worth but 200 l. whereas they were worth 800 l. by reason whereof the Iury gave indeed but 200 l. damages and for this false oath he brought this action and the Iury upon not guilty pleaded found for the Plaintiff and assessed 300 l. damages And now it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the action would not lie no more than against those informe a Iustice of Peace of Fellony upon his oath against J. S. 20 H. 7.11 Also the party grieved hath his remedy in the Star-Chamber And Walmesley said that for perjury there was no remedy and so is it in the 7th Eliza. Dyer 243. a. for it is not to be thought that a Christian would be perjur'd and in the 2d H. 6.5 a Conspiracy will not lye against Indictors who informe their company of their oath Wherefore It was adjudg'd that this action did not lie Note that Anderson was against this Iudgment but Walmesley Owen and Beumond were against him FINIS The Table of the principall matters contained in this Book Abatement WHere the Resignation of a Bishop Dean or Parson shall abate the writ and where not 30 31 Where the writ shall abate for not naming the party according to his Dignity or Office and where not 61 In trespass against two the writ shall not abate for the death of one 107 Admirall Where he hath Jurisdiction and where not 122 123 Action and what words will beare Action Slanderous words of several kinds 13 17 18. vide Slander where the Lessee for years by intrusion shal have an Ejectment and so in case of the King 18 What Action the Lessee of an Intruder or Copyholder of the King shall have if he be outed 16 Where an Action will lye for slanderous words spoken or for any of them and of a slander in writing 30 Action of Trover good against the Husband onely though the wife made the conversion 48 Action of debt by an Administrator durante minoritate not good 35 VVhere a second Action for the same matter shall be brought and where not 37 For warranting sheep sound 60 VVhere a Trespass or Detinue shall lye for Goods taken and sold 70 VVhat Action for a Dogg Ferret or Hawk 94 VVhere two shall joyn in the action and where not 106 Non-suit of one Non-sult of both in a personall action 107 For a Fine in the Leet brought by the Lord 113 VVhere an action of Trover will lye for money 113 Account For fish in a Pond 19 Account will not lye where is no privity 35 36 Against a Receiver 36 Severall actions of Account 36 Administrator vide Executors Advowson VVhere by the presentment of another the King shall be said to be out of possession 43 Grant of the next avoidance by a Letter 47 Advowson appendant to a Mannor and the Mannor is granted yet the Advowson will not pass 53 VVhere the Patron shall dispose of the Advowson though thre be a deprivation 151 Age. The Heir of the Tenant in tail that is impleaded during life of the Tenant by Curtesie shall not have his age 33 Aide Difference between Tenant at wil and Tenant at sufferance in case of praying aide 29 By him in reversion 43 Where the Tenant praies in aide of a stranger it shall be a forfeiture 81 Alien Debt by an Administrator alien Born 45 Who shall be accounted an alien enemy 45 Amendment Where the Habeas Corpus distringas shall be amended though the Venire be well returned 62 Amends vide payment Annuity Where the husband shall have an action of debt for the arrears of an Annuity granted to the wife before marriage 3 Granted by him that hath no Estate what remedy for the Grantee 3 From a Corporation 75 No Dower to the Bargainees wife before inrolement 70 Where the suing or recovering of Dower shall be accounted the waving of the Assignment of Dower 150 Entry WHere the Entry of the Lessor on the Lessee shall not avoid the Covenant of the Lessee 65 The Lord shall not have a Cessavit after entry in parcell 66 Where the entry of the Discontinuee shall avoid the fine of the Tenant in tail 75 76 VVhere the discent of the Intruder on the King shall not take away the entry of the Kings Feoffee 45 Entry into a house to demand money where good 114 Error Error in Judgment whether amendable 19 VVhere a writ of Error by the husband and wife within age shall
in purchasing the Inheritance by which the Terme is extinct shall bar the possibility which Reynald the Son hath to come upon the womans marriage 3. That a Lessee for years being in possession may take a Feoffment although it be by Deed and may take Livery after the delivery of the Deed and shall be deemed to be in by force of the Feoffment as in this case is pleaded although that the Lessee may take the Deed by way of confirmation and then the Livery is but Surplusage and void 4. It was resolved that this possibility which was in Reynald the Son to have the residue of the terme upon the inter-marriage which at the time of the Feoffment and of the Fine was but Dormant shall be accounted a former charge and before the Covenant because of the will which was before the Covenant and shall awake and have relation before the marriage As if Tenant in tail of a Rent purchaseth the Land out of which the Rent issueth and makes a Feoffment and covenants that the Land at that time is discharged of all former charges although this charge is not in esse but is in suspence as it is said 3 H. 7.12 yet if the Tenant in tail dye his Issue may distrain for this Rent and then is the Covenant broke for now it shall be accounted a former charge before the Feoffment Mich. 29 and 30 Eliz. in Com. Ban. Bretts Case Debt on â— Bond. BRett brought an action of Debt on a Bond against Averden and the Condition of the Bond was to stand to the Arbitrement of J.S. who did award that the Defendant should pay ten pounds to Brett and no time was limited to pay it The Defendant confest the Arbitrement but pleaded in Bar that the Plaintiff hath not required him to pay the money And the Plaintiff hereupon demurred Adjudged by the Court that it is no good plea for the Defendant at his perill ought to pay the money and the Plaintiff need not make any request wherfore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 29 Eliz. in Com. Ban. Bucknells Case Action for Robbery on the Statute of Winchestster BUcknell was robbed in a Hundred within the County of Bucks and thereupon brought his Action upon the Statute of Winchester because the Theeves were not taken And Not guilty being pleaded by the Inhabitants the Iury gave this speciall Verdict viz. That he was robbed the same day alleadged in the Declaration but in another place and within another Parish then that he hath alledged in the Declaration but that both the Parishes were within the said Hundred Vpon which they prayed the Iudgment of the Court whether the Inhabitants were guilty Adjudged by the Court for the Plaintiff for it is not materiall in what Parish he was robbed so it were within the same Hundred Hil. 30 Eliz. in Com. Banc. Rot. 904. Spittles Case Replevin SPittle brought a Replevin against Davis the Case was this Turk being seised of Land in Fee did devise parcell thereof to his youngest Son Proviso and it is his intent that if any of his Sons or any of their Issues shall alien or demise any of the said Lands devised before they shall attain the age of thirty years that then the other shall have the Estate and does not limit any Estate And then the eldest Son made a Lease before his age of thirty years and the youngest Son enters and afterwards and before the age of thirty years he aliens the Land he entred into by reason of the limitation the elder Brother re-enters and demised to Spittle the Plaintiff for three years who put a Horse into the ground and Davis by the commandment of the younger brother entred and took the Horse Damage-feasant and Spittle brought a Replevin And upon the whose matter there was a Remainder It was resolved 1. That this is a limitation and that the Estate shall be to such use as by the Will is directed untill there be an Alienation and upon Alienation the Land shall go to the other Brother 2. When the youngest Brother hath once entred for the Alienation then is the Land discharged of all Limitations for otherwise the Land shall go and come to one and the other upon every Alienation ad infinitum wherefore all the Iudges agreed that after the one Brother hath entred by reason of the limitation the Land is then for ever discharged of the Limitation made by the Will And Iudgment was given accordingly Michaells Case Debt on a Bond THomas Michaell brought an Action of Debt on a Bond against Stockworth and Andrews the Iury gave this speciall Verdict That the said Stockworth and Andrews did seale a Bond and delivered it to the Plaintiff as their Deed and after Issue joyned and before the Nisi prius the Seale of Andrews was taken from the Bond. Shuttleworth The Plaintiff shall be barred for it is one entire Deed and the Seale of one is wanting And admit in case it goes against us the Iudgment be reversed by Writ of Error the Plaintiff can have no Action on such Bond But it was adjudged to be a good Bond and Iudgment for the Plaintiff See the like case in Dyer Trin. 36 H. 8.59 A. Hillari 33 Eliz. in Com. Ban. Rot. 1315. Richmonds Case Debt for rent RIchmond brought an Action of Debt against Butcher the case was A man makes a Lease for years reserving Rent to him and his Executors and Assignes and during the terme the Lessor dies and his Heire who hath the Reversion brings an Action of Debt And it was urged that the Rent was incident to the Reversion and the Heire having the Reversion shall have the Rent also as incident to it as the case is in the 27 H. 8.16 If H. makes a Lease for years rendring Rent without saying any more words the Heire shall have this part because it shall go along with the Reversion So in the fifth of Edw. 4.4 If two Ioynt-tenants make a Lease for years rendring Rent to one of them yet the other shall have the Rent also although no mention were made of him so in the 7 H. 4.223 By the Court If I make a Feoffment in Fee rendring a Rent to me my Heires may distraine And if I grant over this Rent my Assignees in this case may distraine and avow so in this case an Action will lye for the Heire although he be not mentioned But adjudged to the contrary by the Court for when H. passeth Lands from himself the Law gives him liverty to passe them in such way and manner as he himself will and this liberty ought to take effect according to the expresse words for the Law will not extend the words further for the intent shall appeare by the words and then it cannot be here intended that his will was that his Heire shall have the Rent because the words are not sufficient to give it to his Heirs And therefore note a diversity when
a Report 34 Eliz. between Badinton and Hawle in the Kings Bench adjudged that if the Queens Copyholder be outed and a Lease be made for years by the Intrudor this Lessee shall not have an Ejectment if he be outed but he shall have an Action of Trespasse against any stranger The second exception was taken to the pleading because the Defendant pleaded in que estate del Lessee del Abbe without shewing how he came to the Estate And by the Court a good exception for he shall be compelled to shew how he came to an Estate in the terme inasmuch as it cannot be by loyall means vide 1. 2 Eliz. Dyer 171. that a Que Estate of a particular Estate of a terme is not good and 7 Eliz. Dyer 238. where the Plea was of a que Estate of a Termor and exception taken to it and the difference between it and a Freehold so in the 7 H. 6.440 it was agreed that H. could not convey an Interest by a que Estate of a particular Estate as Intail for life or years without shewing how he came by the Estate be it on the part of the Plaintiff or the Defendant The third exception was that the Defendant pleaded a Lease made by the Abbot and Covent by Indenture as it ought to be without saying Hic in curia prolat which exception was also clearly allowed by the Court for he is privy to it and therefore he ought to shew it And for these two exceptions but especially for the former Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Mich. 36 and 37 Eliz. in C. B. Palmers Case Action on the case for words PAlmer an utter Barrester of Lincolns-Inn brought an Action on the Case against Boyer for these words Palmer being Steward to I.S. the Defendant in discourse had with I.S. said I marvail you will have such a paltry Lawyer for your Steward for he hath as much Law as a Jack a Napes And the Plaintiff shewed all the matter in the Declaration and that by reason of such words he was displaced of his Office Williams Serjeant did move in that the words were not That he hath no more Law then c. for then those words were actionable but that he hath as much Law as c. for which words no Action will lye But resolved by the Court that the Action will lye for the words are standerous and prejudiciall to his credit and by reason of them he was discharged of his Stewardship also an Action will lye for saying That he hath as much Law as a Jack an Apes or my Horse because they are unreasonable creatures but if he had said that he hath no more Law then I.S. that is not actionable although I.S. be no Lawyer And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Pasch 35 Eliz. in B. R. Audleys Case A Man brought an Action of Debt on an Obligation made by the Father of the Defendant in which Writ the Defendant was named Son and Heir apparent of the Obligor Iudgment was given against the Defendant whereupon he brought a Writ of Error for the Writ does imply that his Father was living for he is his Heire in truth and in fact if his Father be dead and not apparent To which was answered that that was but Surplusage which shall not abate the Writ as appeares by the Book of the 10 Edw. 3. But the Court held that Iudgment should be reverst for he ought to be named Heire as in debt against Executors he shall be named Executor And Iudgment was reverst Trin. 36 Eliz. in B. R. Downinghams Case Ejectment THe Defendant in an Ejectione firmae pleaded that the Lord of the Mannor did enter into the Land of a Copyholder by reason of forfeiture for Waste committed in suffering the houses to be uncovered by which the timber is become rotten and did not alledge in facto that the Custome of the Mannor is that such Waste is a forfeiture for it was said that although other Waste by the Common Law is a forfeiture yet this permissive Waste is not Sed non allocatur for all Waste done by a Coppholder is forfeitable 2. It was resolved that if a Coppholder made a Lease for yeares which is not according to the Custome of the Mannor yet this Lease is good so that the Lessee may maintain an Ejectione firmoe for between the Lessor and the Lessee and all other except the Lord of the Mannor the Lease is good and so hath it been severall times adjudged in this Court Trin. 36 Eliz. in B. R. Wisdomes Case Action on the case for words STich brought an Action on the Case for slanderous words against Wisdome the words were There is many a truer and honester man hanged and that there was a Robbery committed whereof he thought him to be one and that he thought him to be a Horse-stealer And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that these words were not actionable for it is not said in facto that he was in the Robbery or that he was a a horse-stealer in fact but onely by imagination that he thought he was such a one but Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 36 Eliz. in B. R. Rot. 815. Palmers Case CHristopher Palmer brought an Ejectione firmae against John Humphrey and declared that one George Hanger the eighteenth day of May in the six and thirtieth year of Eliz. by his Indenture did demise unto him a certain peece of Land called the great Ashbroke and other peece of Land called Stocking and also divers other peeces of Land naming the peeces and of one Garden called Muchins Gardein and of another peece of Meadow called Michins Meade and of seven acres of arable Land for the terme of two years by vertue whereof the said Christopher entred untill the Defendant by force and armes c. did eject him and did set forth in his Declaration that the Defendant ejected him out of the said peeces of Land and yet did not expresse the contents thereof in certainty And upon not-guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and for the seven arable acres of Land and the Garden the Court gave their Iudgment that it was certain enough but as to the other peeces of land the Court was divided For Popham Gawdy held that it was certain enough being in an Ejectione firmae which is but in the nature of an Action of Trespasse and the damages are the principall and a man may bring an Action of Trespasse for a peece of land without any other certainty But Clench and Fenner were on the contrary for he ought to set forth his terme in the land and then to shew the contents thereof as well in an Ejectment as in a Precipe quod reddat by which land is demanded and a man shall have an Ejectione firmae de una visgata terrae but shall not have a Precipe quod reddat of one portion of land by Skeene and Hill 7 H. 4.40 9 H. 6.3
Replevin against Edmund Brach and others the Defendant made Conulance as Baily to John Levison and said that long time before the taking c. one William Coup was seised of a house and eight acres of Meadow c. whereof the place is parcell in his Demesne as of Fee and did demise the same to Richard Coup for one and twenty years reserving Rent and the Lessee died and the Land came to his Wife as his Executrix who married Roger Owseley and that William Coup did levy a Fine of the Premisses to Stephen Noke and others to the use of Stephen and his Heires and after Stephen entred and outed the Termor and infeoffed John Leveson and his Heires and then the Termor re-enters claiming his Terme and for Rent arreare the Defendant made Counsans as aforesaid and it was adjudged against the Defendant because this entry and Feoffment by Noke to Leveson and the re-entry of the Termor is no Attornment and this varies from Littleberries case where the Lessor entred and made a Feoffment and the Lessee re-entred for Noke the Lessor had not any Attornment and can have no Distresse and his Feoffee cannot be in better case then he himself And if the first Feoffee makes Feoffment to B. who enfeoffs C. and the Lessee re-enters that is Attornment but to the first Feoffee and not the other for he may be misconusant of it because he was outed by the Lessor but note Iudgment was not given till Trin. 36 Eliz. Pasch 36 Eliz. in C. B. Owens Case EDward Owen brought an Action of Waste against Peerce for land in ancient Demesne the Defendant made defence and pleaded to the Iurisdiction of the Court because the land was ancient Demesne and the Defendant was ruled to plead over for it is but a personall Action and the Statute is a beneficiall Statute for the Common-wealth and by the opinion of all the Court except Walmsley does extent to ancient Demesne 40 Ed. 3.4 Ancient Demesne is a good plea in Replevin 2 H. 7.17.21 Ed. 4.3 it is no good plea in an action upon the Statute or Glocester Mich. 33 and 34 Eliz. in C. B. Rot. 2122. Sir Edward Cleeres Case SIr Edward Cleere brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Norwich Edward Peacock and Robert Hinston Clerk to present to an Addowson holden in Capite Anderson A Devise of an Addowson in grosse is void because it is of annuall value whereof the King shall have the third part But Owen Beaumont and Walmsley held the contrary and so it it was adjudged See the Case of the Earle of Huntington against the Lord of Montjoy of a Devise of Liberties of Cramford which were not of any annuall value and yet the opinion of Wray and Anderson Iustices was certified to some of the Councell being Arbitrators that the Devise was not good Trin. 36 Eliz. in C. B. Rot. 2145. Brownes Case ANthony Brown brought an Action of Trespasse against Richard Pease the Case was this John Warren was seised in fee of the Mannor of Warners and of the Mannor of Cherchall and demised his Mannor of Warners to the youngest Son of Richard Foster his Cosin in fee. at which time Richard the Father had issue George Foster and John Foster And he demised his Mannor of Cherchall in haec verba I will my Mannor of Cherchall to Margery Water for her life and if she die and then any of my Cosin Fosters Sons then living then I will my foresaid Mannor of Cherchall unto him that shall have my Manner of Warners and after the Devisor died without issue and the Reversion of the Mannor of Cherchall discended to Henry Warner as Brother and Heire of the Devisor And after the said Henry Warner by Deed Inrolled did bargain and sell the Mannor of Cherchall to Anthony Browne who devised it to the Plaintiff And then George Foster dies without issue and the Mannor of Warners does discend to Iohn Foster his Brother and Heire who enters and enfeoffs the Lord Rich and after marriage the Tenant for life of the Mannor of Cherchall dies and the Plaintiff enters and the Defendant enters upon him as Servant to Iohn Foster whereupon the Plaintiff brought this Action And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff because that the words and the intent of the Devise was that the Mannors of Warners and Cherchall should go together and therefore the Mannor of Warners was sold before the death of Margery by John Foster and after the death of Margery John can take nothing by the Devise Mich. 29 and 30 Eliz. Rot. 2325. or 2929. Hambletons Case JOhn Hambleton had issued foure Sons John the eldest Robert the second Richard the third and Thomas the fourth and devised to each of them a parcell of land to them and the Heirs Males of their body begotten and if it happen that any of their Heirs dye without issue Male of his body lawfully begotten then the Survivor to be each others Heire If these words make a Remainder or are void was the question And it was adjudged against the Plaintiff for the Court held that all those that survived were Ioynt-tenants and one Ioynt-Tenant cannot have a Trespasse against the other for by the intent of the Will it appears that the Survivors should have that part and the survivority of each other Heire each Survivor that is all that survive shall be each others Heire and so the remainder should be to every one of them 29 Eliz. Fenners Case argued before the Lord Mayor of London at Guildhall IN this Case it was adjudged that if a man Covenants that his Son then within age and infra annos nubiles before such a day shall marry the Daughter of I.S. and he does marry her accordingly and after at the age of consent he disagrees to the marriage yet is the Covenant performed for it is a marriage and such a one as the Covenantee would have untill the disagreement vide 7 H. 6.12 Dyer 143.313 369. 25 Eliz. Webbe against Potter IN an Ejectione firmae by Webbe against Potter the Case was Harris gave Land in Frank-marriage to one White and the Deed was Dedi concessi Iohan. White in liberum maritagium Iohannae filiae meae habend dictae Ioannae heredibus in perpetuum tenend de capitalibus Dominis feodi illius with Warranty to Iohn White and his Heires Periam The usuall words in Frank-marriage shall not be destroyed for the words of Frank-marriage are Liberum maritagium cum Ioanna filia mea in the Ablative case and although here it be in the Dative case it is good And of the same opinion were all the Iudges Also a Gift in Frank-marriage made after the Espousals was held good by all the Iustices 2 H. 3. Donor 199.4 Ed 3.8 Dyer 262 B. And a Gift in Frank-marriage before the Statute was a Fee-simple but now speciall taile and if it be not a Frank-marriage he shall have an Estate for life and to prove this his
that the Plaintiff could not have the Error but the Daughters who were the Heirs to Henry for an Action alwaies discends according to the right of land and it seems that the Heir in Burrow English shall have Error or Attaint and not the Heir at the Common Law which was agreed by all on both sides but it was said that this varies much from the present case for two reasons One because he came in as Vouchee which is to recover a Fee-simple and he shall render a Fee-simple in value which is discendable to the Heirs at the Common Law Secondly he hath no Estate-tail Bromley Solicitor and Plowden contra and laid this ground that in all cases where a recovery is had against one by erroneous processe or false verdict he which is grieved shall have redresse of it although he be not party or privy to the first Iudgment and therefore at the Common Law if a Recovery be had against Tenant for life he in the Reversion shall have Error of Attaint after his death and now by the Statute of R 2. in his life so in a Precipe if the Tenant vouches and the Vouchee looseth by default the Tenant shall have Error for the Iudgment was against him and he looseth his term and in the 44 Ed 4.6 in a Trespasse of Battery against two one pleads and it is found against him and the plea of the other not determined damages by the principall Verdict is given against them both which if they be excessive the other shall have an Attaint And Bromley said there could not be a case put but where he that hath the losse by the recovery should have also the remedy and Baker cited 9. H. 7.24.6 that if a Recovery be had against a man that hath land on the part of the Mother and he dies without issue the Heir of the part of the Father shall have the Error But Bromley and Plowden denied this case and that 3 H 4.9 it was adjudged to the contrary And Wray said to Baker that he ought not much to rely on that case for it was not Law and said that if Tenant for life makes a Feoffment and a Recovery is had against the Feoffee the first Lessor shall not avoid this Bromley there is no use for he may enter by forfeiture but in our case of whatsoever estate it be at the time of the recovery the right of the Estate-tail is bound and therefore it is reason that the Heir in tail shall avoid it Jeffrey of the same opinion and cited 17. Ass A Conusor makes a Feoffment and then execution is sued against the Feoffee by erroneous processe the Feoffee shall have the Writ of Error although he be not party to the first Record but the reason is because of his interest in the land And Bromley and Plowden said further that notwithstanding the Feoffee recovers against the Vouchee and the Vouchee recover over the land yet this recovery shall go to the Estate-tail And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 32 Eliz. in B. R. TRussell was attainted of Felony by Outlawry and after an Execution is sued against him at the suit of a common person and he is taken by force thereof and after he takes a Habeas Corpus out of the Kings Bench and Coke prayed that he might be discharged of this execution for where a man is attaint of Felony he hath neither Goods nor Lands and his body is at the Kings disposall and so is not subject to the execution of a common person 4 Ed. 4. But Harris Serjeant and Glanvill on the contrary For although he be attaint of Felony yet may he be in execution for his own offence shall not aid him and so was it in Crofs case in the Common Pleas where a man being attaint of Felony was taken in execution at the suit of a common person and he escaped out of Prison and an escape was brought against the Sheriffs of London and a Recovery against him And at last by advise of the Court because he was indebted to many persons and to discharge himself from his Creditors intended to have a pardon for his life and so deceive them therefore he was committed to the Marshalsey upon this execution Trin. 42 Eliz. Malloy against Jennings Rot. 1037. IN a Replevin the Case was A man seised of land in fee is bound in a Recognizance of 100 l. and then bargains and sells all his land to the Plaintiff and then the Recognizance is forfeit and the Conuzee sues out a Scire facias against the Conuzor before the Deed was inrolled and had Iudgment to have Execution And the question was if the Bargainor was a sufficient Tenant against whom the Execution was sued Williams Serjeant The Bargainor was Tenant at the time of the Scire facias before inrolement and although it was inrolled after shall have relation to the first livery to prevent any grant or charge And if an Action be brought against an Executor as in his own wrong and the Suit depending he takes Letters of Administration this shall not abate the Writ So in our case the Bargainor was seised of the land when the Scrie facias was brought and if a man makes a Lease for life rendring Rent and then the Lessor bargains and sells the Reversion and before the Inrolement the Rent is behind and the Bargainer demands the Rent which was not paid and then the Deed is inrolled yet he cannot enter for the forfeiture which I have seen adjudged in the 28 H. 8. Dyer Disseisee of one acre makes a Release to the Disseisor of all his lands and delivers it as an Escroll to be delivered to the Disseisor and then he disseiseth him of another acre and then the Deed is delivered to the Disseisor yet the right in the second acre shall not passe And he much rolled on Sir Richard Brochets case 26 Eliz. who made a Recognizance to Morgan upon condition to convey unto him all his lands whereof he was seised the first day of May and it hapned that one Corbet had sold him land by Indenture the 24. day of April but the Deed was not inrolled untill the 24. day of May after And the question was if the Conuzor was bound to convey these lands or not and adjudged that he was not for inasmuch as the Deed was not inrolled the ffrst day of May he was not seised and great mischief would ensue if the Law should be otherwise for no man will know against whom to bring his Action for a Bargain and Sale before Inrolement may be done secretly Herne Serjeant The Bargainee is seised before Inrolement and by the Statute of 5 Eliz. which wills that none shall convert land used to tillage unlesse he puts other land to tillage within six months yet none will say that it is a breach of the Statute although Pasture be presently converted to tillage and he cited Chilburns cafe 6 Eliz. Dyer 229. that proves that
that the Estate-tail was not barred Dyer The Estate tail is barred and made a difference where the Fine is defeated by entry by reason of the Estate-tail and where it is defeated by entry by reason of another estate-tail as in 40 Eliz. Tenant in tail discontinues and disseiseth the Discontinuee and levies a Fine to a stranger and retakes an Estate in Fee before the Proclamations passe the Discontinuee enters and then the Tenant in tail dies seised and adjudged that the Issue is not remitted for the Statute 32 H. 8. saies That a Fine levied of lands any way intailed by the party that levies the Fine shall bind him and so it is not materiall whether he were seised by force of the Estate-tail or by reason of another Estate or whether he have no Estate And all the Iustices were of opinion that the Estate was barred for although the discontinue had avoided the Fine by the possession yet the Estate-tail remains concluded and the same shall not enter by force of the Estate-tail but by force of the Fee which he had by discontinuance Popham Avoidance of a Fine at this day differs much from avoidance of a Fine at the Common Law for it appears by the 16 Ed 3. that if a Fine at the Common Law be defeated by one who hath right it is defeated against all but at this day the Law is contrary for if a man be disseised and the Disseisor die seised his Heir within age and he is disseised by a stranger who levies a Fine and then five years passe the Heire shall avoid this by his nonage yet the first Disseisee is bound for ever for the Infant shall not avoid the Fine against all but only to restore the possession And therefore it was adjudged in the Lord Sturtons Case 24 Eliz. where Lands were given to him and his Wife and the Heires of him and he died and his Issue entred and levied a Fine to a stranger and before the Proclamations passed the Mother enters it was adjudged that the Issue was barred for the Wife shall not avoid this but for her own Estate And so if a stranger enters to the use of him who hath right this shall not avoid the Fine Fenner did agree to this and said that it had been so adjudged but all the Iustices agreed that the Estate-taile being barred the entry shall go to the benefit of him who hath most right to the possession and that is the discontinue and therefore the Plaintiff in the Formedon hath good Title to the Land but onely to the Fee and not to the Intaile for that is barred by the Fine 28 Eliz. in C. B. Rot. 2130. Gibson against Mutess IN a Replevin the Case was John Winchfeild was seised of Lands in Fee and by his Will did devise all his Lands and Tenements to Anthony Winchfeild and his Heires and before his death made a Deed of Feoffment of the same Lands and when he sealed the Feoffment he asked If this Feoffment will not hurt this last Will if it will not I will seal it And then he sealed it and made a Letter of Attorney to make Livery in any of the said Lands the Attorney made Livery but not of the Lands which were in question and then the Testator died And the question was if the Devisee or Heire of the Devisor should have the Land And it was said in behalf of the Heire that if the Testator had said It shall not be my Will then it is a Revocation Quod curia concessit But it was the opoinion of the Court that it appears that it was the intent of the Testator that his Will should stand and if it be not a Feoffment it is not a Revocation in Law although that the Attorney made a Livery in part so that the Feoffment was perfect in part yet as concerning the Land in question whereof no Livery was made the Will is good and the Iury found accordingly that the Land does not descend to the Heire Fenner cited a Case of Serjeant Jeffereys where it was adjudged that where one had made his Will and being demanded if he will make his Will doth say he will not that this is no Revocation Sir Wolston Dixy against Alderman Spencer 20 Eliz. in C. B. IN a Writ of Errour brought upon a Iudgement given in an Assize of Fresh-force in London The case was Sir Wolston Dixy brought an Action of Debt for rent arrear against Spencer upon a Lease for years made to him by one Bacchus who afterwards granted the reversion to Dixy and the Tenant attorned and for rent arrear Dixy brought an action c. The Defendant pleaded in Bar that before the Grant made to Dixy the said Bacchus granted it to him by parole according to the custome of London whereupon he demanded Iudgement if c. and the Plea was entred on Record and hanging the suit Dâ—xy brought an assize of fresh force in London and all this matter was here pleaded and it was adjudged a forfeiture of the Land and hereupon Spencer brought a Writ of Errour and assigned this for errour that it was no forfeiture Shuttleworth It is no forfeiture untill a Trial be had whether the reversion be granted or not as in wast the Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff had granted over his estate this is no forfeiture and in the 26 Eliz. in a Quid Juris clamat the Defendant pleaded that he had an estate Tail and when he came to have it tryed he acknowledged he had an estate but for life and that was no forfeiture But the Court said they could remember no such Case Walmesley It was so adjudged and I can shew you the names of the parties Periam Justice If there be such a Case we would doubt of it for there are Authorities to the contrary as the 8 Eliz. and 6 Rich. 2. Anderson If the Defendant in a Trespass prayes in aid of an estranger this is a forfeiture and if it be counter-pleaded it is a forfeiture and the denial alters not the Case Walmesley The Books in 15 Ed. 2. Judgement 237. and 15 Ed. 1. that Iudgement in a Quid Juris clamat shall be given before the forfeiture Andâ—rson In my opinion he may take advantage before Iudgement as well as after if the Plea be upon Record And so was the opinion of the Court. The Dutchess of Suffolks Case Pasch 4 5 Ph. Mary in C. B. IN a Quare impedit against the Bishop of Exeter the Writ was ad respondendum Andrew Stoke Dennisae Franciscae de Suffolk Uxori eâ—uâ— Benlowes demanded Iudgement of the Writ c. because she lost her name of dignity by marriage with a base man as it was adjudged 7 Ed. 6. Dyer 79. where Madam Powes and her husband brought a Writ of Dower and the Writ abated because she called her self Dame Powes whereas she had lost her dignity by marrying with her husband Stanford agreed for Mulier nobilis si
this is voyd And after viz. 31 Eliz. It seemed to all the Iustices that the consideration was not good and therefore the contract voyd But if goods he delivered to an Infant to be re-delivered if Afterwards his Executor assumeth to re-deliver them this is good Gawdy in the 13 H. 6. If a man be indebted in a simple Contract and dye and his Executors assume to pay the debt it is good but â—his seems to be contrary to the Law for it is contrary to that which hath been lately adjudged in the Common Pleas. And Egerton cited a Caâ—e 10 H 6. where an Infant brought an Action of Trespass and submitted himself to an arbitrement this shall binde him at his full age and this was agreed by the Court but differs much from the Case at Bar for when an Infant commits a Trespass he is chargeable in an Action of Trespass and shall lose damages but it is not so here Wherefore Iudgement was given that the Plaintiff should be barred Mich. 30 Eliz. Stanton against Chamberlain Rot. IN an Action of Debt upon a Bond upon non est factum pleaded the Iury found that the Defendant sealed the Bond and cast it on the Table and the Plaintiff came and took up the Bond and carried it away without saying any thing and if this shall amount to a Delivery by the Defendant to the Plaintiff was the question And it was resolved by all the Iustices that if the Iury had found that he had sealed the Bond and cast it on the table towards the Plaintiff to the intent that the Plaintiff should take it as his Deed who took the Bond and went away that had been a good delivery or that the Plaintiff after the sealing and casting on the table had taken it by the commandment or consent of the Defendant but because it is found that the Defendant onely sealed it and cast it on the table and the Plaintiff took it and went away with it this is not a sufficient delivery for it may be that he sealed it to the intent to reserve it to himself untill other things were agreed and then if the Plaintiff take it and go away with it without the Defendants consent that will not make it the Descendants Deed. But it was said that it might be accounted to be the Defendants Deed because it is found that he sealed it and cast it on the table and the Plaintiff took it c. and it is not found that the Defendant said any thing and therefore because he did not say any thing it will amount to his consent Nam qui tacet consentire videtur But to this it was answered that it is not found that the Defendant was present when the Plaintiff took it and if the Defendant had sealed and cast the Bond on the Table when the Plaintiff was not there and then the Defendant went away and then the Plaintiff came and took it away then clearly it is not the Deed of the Defendant Hill 31 Eliz. Beron against Goodyne IN an Ejectment the Case was the King was seized of lands in Fee and a stranger intruded and the King grants this land to J. S. in Fee and the Intruder continues possession and dyes seized The question was if this descent shall take away the entry of I.S. Johnson It shall not for none will affirm that an Intruder shall gain any thing out of the King but that the land shall pass to the Patentee and the continuance of the Intruder in possession and his dying seized shall not take away the entry for he cannot be a Disseisor because he gained no estate at the beginning as if a Guardian continues possession after the heir is of full age he is no Disseisor nor shall gain any estate And 10 Ed. 3.2 where a tenant of the King dyes his heir within age and a stranger enters and after the heir is of full age dyes seized this shall not take away the entry of the heir Cook contr By his continuance of possession he shall be accounted a Disseisor and the Free-hold out of the Patentee for another estate he cannot have for tenant at sufferance be is not for he comes in at first by a title as in the 12 Assi The Dona's in Frank-marriage are divorced and the husband continues the possession and so where a Lessee continues possession after the death of the tenant for life these are tenants at sufferance and the Patentee hath a Free-hold in Law which is taken away by descent and denyed there was any such case as was vouched in the 10 Ed. 3. but compared the case to the 21 Ed. 3.2 where a Fine was levyed per conusans de droit come ceo c. if before the Conusee enters a stranger enters and dyes seized the entry of the Conusee is barr'd So is it where an Advowson is granted to J.S. and his heirs and a stranger usurps the Grantee hath no remedy And if a man deviseth land to J.S. and before he enters a stranger doth enter and dyes seized the entry of the Disseisee is taken away and so it is in our case But a further day was given Cook to shew cause why Iudgement should not be given against him Hillar 31 Eliz. Suttons Case in C. B. Rot. 533. IN an Ejectment the Iury gave a special Verdict that the Defendant nihil habens in terra did make a Lease thereof to the Plaintiff by Indenture according as the Plaintiff had declared and then the Defendant entred on the Plaintiff and whether this entry be good was the question Walmesley for the Defendant Iurors are sworn ad veritatem dicendum and therefore they shall not enquire of Estoppels because it is not in evidence But the whole Court was against him who held that the Iury might finde a matter that is not shewed in evidence for by Anderson in an Assize they may finde a Release although it be not given in evidence and he and Periam held that the Plaintiff ought to have Iudgement for that there was a good Lease between the parties and if Rent were reserved an Action of Debt would lye Windham contr For it is onely an Estoppell between the parties but the Court is at liberty and are not estopped when the truth appears to them and it is a Maxim in Law that he who hath nothing in the land cannot make a Lease and then the Plaintiff hath no cause of Action And afterwards viz. 32 Eliz. Anderson and Periam were expresly for the Plaintiff for whereas it hath been said that it was a Lease by Estoppell they held it was not so for that in Debt the Rent should be recovered And Anderson said If I levy a Fine of your land to you for years if you be put out I shall have an Assize but Windham was of opinion with Walmesley wherefore Periam said we will have the opinion of the other Iustices in the Exchequer Chamber wherefore c. Trinit 30 Eliz.
Perryn against Allen in C. B. Rot. 611. 612. IN a debt upon a Lease for years It was found that on Gibson was seised of Land in Lease for thirty years and he let the Land to Perryn for 19. years rendring 10. l. rent and that afterwards it was articled and agreed between Gibson and one J.S. that Pâ—rryn should have and hold the Lands which he had and also other lands which he had for terme of 3. years rendring a greater rent to which Articles Perryn at another time and place afterwards agreed but the intent of the articles and agreement betwixt them was not that the first Terme to Perryn should be extinct That afterwards Perryn letted this Land to the Defendant Allen for 17. years rendring Rent and then the three years expired and Gibson grants his term to J.S. who enters c. If this agreement amounts to a surrender was the question Hanam for the Plaintiff It is not for to a surrender three things are incident First an actuall possession in him who surrenders Secondly an actuall remainder or reversion in him to whom the surrender is made Thirdly consent and agreement between the parties But to all these the Plaintiff was a stranger and therefore no surrender For if I let land to you for so many years as J.S. shall name if he names the years it shall be good from that time and not before but if I let land for so many years as my Executors shall name this is not good for I cannot have Executors in my life time and when I am dead I cannot assent so in this case there ought to be a mutuall assent between the Lessor and Lessee Hâ—…iâ— Cont. It is a surrender for if he concluded and agreed at another time or accepted a new Lease it is a surrender 37 H. 6. 22 Ed. 4. 14 H 7. and then when a stranger does agree that he shall have other lands and pay a greater Rent this is a surrender Anderson If I covenant with you that J.S. shall have my land for ten years this is only a Covenant and no Lease quod Waâ—mâ—slâ—y concessit And so if I covenant that your Executors shall have my land for a term of years after your death this is no Lease And all the Court held that this was not a good Lease for the act of a stranger cannot make a surrender of the Terme Peryam You at the Bar have forgotten to argue one point materiall in the Case videlicet If Lessee for 20. years makes a Lease for ten years if the Lessee for ten years may surrender to the Lessee for 20. years And Hanam said privately that he could not surrender for one Term cannot merge in the other And Anderson said that by opinion of them all that the Lessee for 10. years cannot surrender But to the other point All the Iudges agreed that it was no surrender And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Dabridgecourt against Smallbrooke IN an action of the Case the Plaintiff declared that he was Sheriff of the County of Warwick and that a writ came down to him to arrest J.S. at the suit of the Defendant who requested the Plaintiff to make Russell who was the Defendants friend his speciall Baily in consideration of which the Defendant did assume that if the said J.S. did escape that he would take no advantage against the Plaintiff whereupon he made Russell his Bailiff who arrested the said J.S. who afterwards escapt from him and that notwithstanding the Defendant had charged the Plaintiff for this And a verdict was found for the Plaintiff And in this case it was agreed that where a Sheriff did make a Bailiff upon request of any one it is reason that the party should not charge the Sheriff for an escape by reason of the negligence of such Bailiff for the Sheriff hath security from every one of his Bailiffs to save him harmeless wherefore it is great reason that if upon request he makes a speciall Bailiff that the party should not take advantage of such an escape but that the Sheriff may have his action against him again upon his promise And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Hillar 31 Eliz. Beale against Carter Rot. 331. IN an action of false imprisonment The Defendant justified the imprisonment for two hours because the Plaintiff brought a little infant with him to the Church intending to leave it there and to have the Parish keep it and the Defendant being Constable of the Parish because the Plaintiff would not carry the child away with him again carryed the Defendant to prison all the said time untill he took the child away with him And hereupon the Plaintiff demurred And it seemed to the Iustices that it was no good plea for although the Constable at the Common Law is keeper of the Peace yet this does not belong to his Office but if he had justified as Officer then perhaps it had been good And afterwards viz. Hillar 33 Eliz. the Case was argued again and then Glanvill said That it was a good justification for any person may do it For if I see A. ready to kill B. I ought to hinder him of his purpose And in the 22 Ass 50. the Defendant justified because the Plaintiff was madd and did a great deale of mischief wherefore he imprisoned him And in 10 Eliz. which case I have heard in this Court The Constable took a madd man and put him in prison where he dyed and the Constable was indicted of this but was discharged for the act was legall and so here in this Case if the infant had dyed for want of meat it had been murder in the Plaintiff For it was held in 20 Eliz. at Winchester before the Lord Bacon if one brings an infant to a desert place where it dyes for want of nourishment it is murder Gawdy It was ill done of the Plaintiff but that ought to be reformed by due course of Law for a Constable cannot imprison at his pleasure but he may stay the party and carry him to a Iustice of Peace to be examin'd Wray Then such matter ought to be pleaded Quod Gaudie concessit Fenner If he had pleaded that he refused to carry the infant away then it had been a good justification for a Constable is Conservator of the peace but because it was not so pleaded the Plea is naught But the Iudges would not give Iudgment for the ill Examples sake and therefore they moved the parties to compound Pasch 31 Eliz. Sale against the Bishop of Lichfield in C. B. SAle Executor of J.S. who was Grantee of the nomination and presentation to the Archdeaconary in the County of Derby brought a Quare impedit against the Bishop of Lichfield and declared of a presentment and disturbance in vita Testatoris quod Ecclesia vacavit adhuc vacata est The Defendant pleaded Plein d'Incumbent before the writ purchased and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff And it was moved
Court of Wards TEnant of the King by Knights service bargains and sells his land to Sir Henry Dimmock and his heirs and Sir Henry Dimmock dyes his heir within age and then the Deed is inrolled the question was if the King should have premier seisin Trist The King shall not because Sir Henry did not dye within his homage but the land was in the Bargainor as if there be a Bargainee of the reversion and the Tenant makes waste the Bargainee shall not have waste unless the Deed be introlled before the waste committed 3 Jacobi Bellingham against Alsop Bargainee before inrolment sells the land over and it was adjudged that the second bargain was voyd 10 Eliz. Mockets case Disseisee releaseth to the Bargainee of the Disseisor before inrolment and adjudged voyd 5 Eliz. in Pophams Case it was said that the Statute of inrolments had altered the Common Law for now by the delivery of the Deed no use is raised untill it be inrolled But all the Iustices held that the heir should be in Ward and pray premier seisin if he were of full age for the Statute sayes that no use shall be unless the Deed be inrolled but if it be inrolled it passeth ab initio and then the Bargainee shall be Tenant ab initio But it was also agreed by all the Iustices that the wife of Sir Henry shall not be indowed and that Rent paid to the Bargainor at the Rent-day incurr'd after the bargain is good and the Bargainee hath no remedy because it is a thing executed Trinit 12 Jacobi Cuddington against VVilkin in C. B. Rot. 924. IN an Action of the Case for calling the Plaintiff Thief the Defendant justified because the Plaintiff had stollen Sheep 37 Eliz. the Plaintiff replyed protestando that he had not stollen Sheep and pleaded the General Pardon 7 Jacobi upon which the Defendant demurred and adjudged for the Plaintiff for the Pardon had so purged and abolished the Offence that now he was no Thief 1 Ed. 3. Corone 15. 2 Ed. 3. Corone 81. 1 Assi 3. So if one call another Villain after he is infranchised And in one Baxters Case in Banco Regis it was adjudged that where a man was accused for Perjury and acquitted by Trial if he be afterwards called perjur'd he shall have his Action on the Case And Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Seaman against Cuppledick IN a Trespass of Assault and Battery the Defendant justified in defence of his servant scil that the Plaintiff had assaulted his servant and would have beaten him c. and the Plaintiff demurr'd Yelverton The bar is good for the master may defend his servant or otherwise he may lose his service 19 H. 6.60 a. Crook Iustice The Lord may justifie in defence of his villain for he is his inheritance Williams contr The master cannot justifie but the servant may Justifie in defence of his master for he owes duty to his master 9 Ed. 4.48 Yelverton The master may maintain a plea personal for his servant 21 H. 7. and shall have an Action for beating his servant and also a man may justifie in defence of his cattle Cook A man may use force in defence of his goods if another will take them and so if a man will strike your cattle you may justifie in defence of them and so a man may defend his son or servant but he cannot break the peace for them but if another does assault the servant the Master may defend him and strike the other if he will not let him alone Williams It hath been adiudged in Banhams Case that a man cannot justifie a batterie in Defence of his soil a fortiori he cannot in defence of his servant vid. 19 H. 6.31 9 Ed. 4.48 Trinit 12. Jacob. Drury against VValler IN an action on the Case upon a trover and conversion of 200 l. delivered by the Plaintiff to the Defendant and upon not guilty pleaded the Question was if denyall by the Defendant to pay it upon request would beare this action And the case of Isaac was urged who brought an action of Trover c. for 200 l. in a bag and by verdict it was found that demand was made thereof and a deniall to pay it And by Dodderidge it was a Conversion Crooke accorded but Haughton doubted the case And Man Prothonotarie said that he remembred a president in the Case where it was resolved that in such case deniall of a horse was a conversion Haughton I remember an action of Trover was brought for a Trunk and it was ruled there that if one hath Timber in my land and he demands liberty to carry it off my Land and I deny it this is not a sufficient conversion Dodridge there is great difference in the Cases for a Horse or money cannot be known if they be used but Timber may Et adjournatur Michaelm 8 Jacobi Alfo and Dennis against Henning in B. R. Rot. 969. IN an action of Covenant the Case was thus Thomas Tavener by Indenture primo Jacobi did demise land to one Salisburie for 7. years and by the same Indenture Salisburie did Covenant grant condescend and agree with Taverner his heirs and assignes that he his Executors and Administrators should pay to Taverner his heirs and assigne 75 l. per annum And after Taverner demised the same land to Mary Taverner for life and he demised the reversion for 40. years to the Plaintiff if he so long lived and the tenant attorned and for rent due at the Feast of St Michaell he brought his action of Covenant And the first question was if this were a sum in gross because the Lessee covenanted to pay this as a Rent And resolved by Cook Chief Iustice and the Court that this is a good reservation of Rent for it is by Indenture and their intention was to have it as a Rent and the words of the Indenture shall be accounted to be his who may most properly speak them 26 H. 8.2 10 Eliz. 275. 22 H. 6.58 28 H. 8.6 And the Case between Whitchett and Fox in Replevin this terme where a man made a Lease for 99. years rendring rent and the Lessee covenanted by the same deed with the Lessor that he would not alien without his assent upon paine of forfeiture and after he aliened and the Lessor entred And it was held by the Court that this was a condition although the Plaintiff did covenant for being by Indenture they shall be the words of both and the words sub paena â—orisfacturae are the words of the Lessor The second point was if the assignee for 40 years may have a Covenant and it was held he might for it is for payment of rent and if the Lessee covenants to do any thing upon the land as to build or repaire a house there a covenant will lie for the assignee by the common Law but if it do not by the Common Law yet it is cleere that it will lie by the Statue of
facias by the Queen against Allen. THe Case was A man recovers damages in an Action on the case and he assignes parcell of his debt to the Queen before execution and the Queen thereupon brought a Scire facias Manwood chief Baron and all the Court held cleerly that parcell or a Meyety of this debt could not be assigned over to the Queen See 22 H. 6.47 where parcell of a debt upon an Obligation was attached by a forren Attachment Beverley against the Arch-bishop of Canterbury Quare Impedit THomas Beverley brought a Quare Impedit against John Arch-bishop of Canterbury and Gabriel Cornwall the case was That the Queen being intituled to an Advowson by Lapse because that the Incumbent had two Benefices each of them being of the value of eight pounds per annum whereby the first by the Statute of 21 H. 8. became void and after the said Incumbent died and divers others were presented by the Patrons who died also whereby the Church becomes void againe If the Queen may now take her turn to present in regard she took not her turn when the first Lapse happened immediatly at the first avoidance was the question And after long and serious debate all the Iustices of the Common Pleas did resolve That the Queen shal not now have her Presentment but the Patron because the Queen hath such presentment by Lapse as the Bishop had and no other and could present but to the present avoidance then void and although Nullum tempus occurrit Regi yet we must distinguish it thus for where the King is limited to a time certaine or to that which in its self is transitory there the King must do it within the time limited or in that time wherin the thing to be done hath essence or consistence or while it remaineth for otherwise he shall never do it For if the Grantee of the next avoidance or Lessee Per auter vie be attaint here the King must take his interest and advantage during the time viz. during the life of Cestui que vie or within the years of the next avoidance or otherwise he shall never have it the same Law is where a second presentment is granted to the King and he does not present he shall not present after Shuttleworth we have an Outlawry against the Plaintiff whereupon Iudgment was staied But after Hil. 29 Eliz. The Queens Serjeants shewing that the Plaintiff was outlawed It was argued by Walmsley that that could not now come into debate for the plaintiff hath no bay in Court after judgment and it is but a surmise that the plaintiff is the same party Windham In a debt upon an Obligation the Serjeants may pray the debt for the Queen and yet it is but a surmise And the opinion of three Iustices was for Anderson was absent that the Writ to the Bishop ought to be staied but in what manner processe should be made if the Scire facias shall issue against the Plaintiff they said they would advise concerning the Course But Periam said that a Scire facias might have issued against the ancient Incumbent and then the Queen shall bring a Scire facias again because she had no presentation And the Scire facias was brought against Beverly Walmsley I conceive the Queen shall have no Presentation for although we have acknowledged our Presentment yet before execution we have but a right As if a Disseisee be outlawed he shall not forfeit the profits of his Land also he hath brought a Scire facias and a Scire facias lies not but by him that is party or privy Periam After that we have this Chattell it is forfeit by Outlawry Anderson The Iudgment that he shall recover shall not remove the Incumbent and then the Plaintiff hath but a right to which Periam and Walmsley agreed but as to the other point that the Queen shall not have a Scire facias for default of privity they saw no reason for in many Cases she shall have a Scire facias upon a Record between strangers Anderson If I recover in debt and then I am outlawed shall the Queen have this debt Walmsley If I recover in a Quare Impedit and dye who shall have the Presentment my Executor or my Heire To which no answer was made But the Court would take advice for the rarenesse of the Case And it was said to Walmsley that he might demur in Law if he thought the matter insufficient to which Walmsley agreed and did demur c. Annuity to a woman who marries and dies AN Annuity is granted to a woman for life who after marries the Arrears of the Annuity encur and the wife dies whereby the Annuity is determined It was adjudged that the husband shall have an Action of Debt at the Common Law for that an Annuity is more then a Chose in Action and may be granted over And it was agreed by the Court in this case That if a man grant an annuall Rent out of Land in which he hath no interest yet this is a good Annuity to charge the person of the Grantor in a Writ of Annuity 14 H. 4.29 A. Coke 4th Rep. 51. A. Bragg against Brooke Second deliverance LUcas Bragg brought a Writ of second deliverance against Robert Brook for taking his Cattell in a place called East Burlish in the County of Surrey the Case was That Sir Thomas Speck was seised of a Mannor containing in it severall Copyholds and the place where c. was Copyhold And the said Sir Thomas being so seised married and then died and the wife 5 Edw. 6. demands the third part of the Mannor for her Dower Per nomen centum Messuagium centum gardinum tot acr terrae prati c. And the wife had Iudgment to recover and the Sheriff assigned to her part of the Demesnes and parcell of the Services and of the Freeholders and Copyholders And it was resolved clearly that the Copy-holds did not passe by the assignment and that she could not grant a Copyhold for when she demanded her Dower it was at her election and liberty to demand either a third part of the Mannor or of the Messuages and when she demanded Per nomen Messuagiorum c. she cannot then have the Mannor nor can a Mannor be claimed unlesse by his name of Corporation as Anderson termed it and not otherwise And the Lands and Acres cannot be called Mannors and then the grant of a Copyhold by one who hath no Mannor cannot be good And so was the opinion of the Court and yet the Sheriff had assigned to her Demesnes and Services and all things which make a Mannor And 29 Ed. 3.35 If a Mannor to which an Advowson is appendant be delivered by the Sheriff in execution by the name of a Mannor cum pertinentiis the Advowson passeth also but it is otherwise if it be delivered in extent by the name of Acres Lands Meadow Wood c. Wakefeilds Case 28 Eliz. Rotulo
Customes or Services and this is neither Rent Custome or Service for that of common right the Estrey belongs to the King and no common person may have it unlesse by grant or by prescription and the Statute is to be taken strickly for the Avowant for Damage-feasant or for Rent Charge should not recover Damage by this Statute before the Statute of 21 H. 8.19 where the Plaintiff hath remedy as it is holden in Dyer 141. B. But because divers Presidents were shewn out of the Common Pleas from time to time since the making that Statute that damages shall be recovered by the Avowant who avowes for Amercements c. it was said that it would be very difficult to controll so many Presidents Gawdy no great credit is to be given to such Presidents as passe sub silentio without any exception taken to them Another Error was assigned because the Iudgment was to have return averiorum predictorum whereas there was but one Guelding wherefore Iudgment was reversed and the Roll markt Trin. 36 Eliz. in B. R. Fulgeambs Case Trespass against the Constables of Cambridge FUlgeambe brought an Action of Trespasse against the Constables of Cambridge the Case was The Plaintiffs horses estrayed into Cambridgeshire and were thereupon Impounded in Cambridge and then one A. came with a Commission from the Lord Hunsdon Captaine of Barwick to take Horses to ride to Barwick and the Constables delivered to him the Plaintiffs Horses and then one of the Horses died And the opinion of all the Iustices was that the Action did well lye for the Constables cannot take Horses out of the Pound to deliver them to any by vertue of such a Commission Trin. 36 Eliz. in B. R. Tauntons Case Lease on condition COles made a Lease to Taunton for ninety nine years on condition â—hat if he demised it in other manner then in such manner as he let the same to him that then it should be lawfull for him to re-enter the Lessee devises it by his Will to his youngest Son Resolved that Rigore Juris this is a breach of the Condition for a Devise is an Alienation as is holden 31 H. 8 Dyer 6. and although Conditions shall be taken strickly yet not directly against the intent of the parties and the reasonable disposition of the words and therefore a Devise shall be intended to be within this word Demise yet it was said that it was very hard according to equity that the Estate should be lost For he intended by this Will to prefer one of his youngest Children and not to break the Condition and thought not it was any breach of the condition and for this cause some doubt was made of the Case but Hil. 38 Eliz. Iudgment was given as aforesaid Pasch 36 Eliz. in B. R. Rot. 41. Leighs Case Ejectment THe Queen being seised of lands as Dutchesse of Lancaster did make a Lease thereof to the Plaintiff the Lessee is outed by A. the Plaintiff makes a Lease to B. for years and B. being outed brought an Ejectione firmae 1. It was resolved that the Queen as Dutchesse of Lancaster cannot be disseised for although she be not seised in jure Coronae yet is it in Seisin of the Queen and cannot be taken away from her in respect of her person 2. Gawdy and Fenner held that the Lessee being outed the terme is turned into a Right and therefore it hath been adjudged that an Ejectment will lye as the case is in Dyer 29 H. 8. It Tenant in taile the reversion in the King suffers a Recovery although this shall not be to the prejudice of the Kings Reversion yet shall it bar the Estate-tail So if a Parson makes a Lease for years and the Patron and Ordinary confirme it and the Parson dies and during the Vacation the Lessee is outed he is hereby outed of his terme yet is not the Frank-tenement touched Clench on the contrary That he who is outed hath an Estate but at sufferance for he cannot have an Estate for years without a Lease and it is agreed he shall not have an Estate of Freehold by reason of the Reversion in the Queen and the possession of the Lessor shall maintain the possession of the Lessee as well as the possession of the Lessee shall keep the Freehold of the Lessor and if he have but an Estate at sufferance then cannot the Lease to B. he good For if Tenant at sufferance of a common person makes a Lease for years this is a Disseisin And Popham was of opinion with Gawdy and Fenner wherefore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff I have seen a Report 24 Eliz. in the Kings Bench upon a Demurrer between Edmund Frough and Henry Dixe where the better opinion was That if one enters on the terme of the Queen he shall not thereby gaine any possession but notwithstanding the Termor may grant over his Terme but it was agreed that he shall have an Ejectione firmae for by Plawden an Assise will lye of a Mill where the water is divers for the possession of the Mill continues in him But the Justices doubted whether it was an Ejectment wherefore the parties did compound In the 4. H. 6. Intrusion If Lessee for life the Remainder in the King be outed he shall have an Assise Trin. 36 Eliz. in C. B. Rot. 134. Thurstons Case Ejectment GOffe brought an Ejectment against Thurston the Case was this The Abbot of Kingswold in Wiltshire being seised of Land in the 28th yeare of H. 8. did with consent of the Covent make a Lease for years by Deed indented and then the Abby came into the hands of H. 8. and from him to Edw. 6 and from him to the present Queen And it was pleaded that the Defendant hath the Lease and that Henry Thinne did intrude on the Defendant and made a Lease to the Plaintiff who being ejected by the Defendant brought this Action and on this matter the parties demurred 1. It was said that the Plaintiff cannot bring this Action inasmuch as Henry Thinne by his entry on Lessee for years the Reversion being in the Queen cannot gaine any possession so that nothing passeth by his Lease to the Plaintiff But the Court was against this for he is a sufficient Lessee to maintain an Action of Ejectment And it was adjudged in the Exchequer Chamber that the Queens Lessee for years being outed may have an Ejectione firmae which proves that he is put out of possession of his terme and this very point was in a manner agreed the last terme in the case of Norris Fenner If H. enters on the possession of the Queen and makes a Lease for years nothing doth passe and the Lessee cannot maintain an Ejectione firmae for he gains no possession at all but it is on the contrary heâ—e when he enters on the Queens Lessee Gawdy That is no difference for the Lessee for years of an Intrudor shall maintain at Ejectione firmae And I have seen
therefore the Action shall continue And if a man be outlawed he may bring an Action as Executor and the Writ shall not abate Browne If I make I.S. my Attorney and he the Warrant of Attorney still continuing is made a Knight yet is not the Warrant of Attorney determined although the word Knight which is now part of his name be not in the Warrant therefore in this case the Writ is good Mich. 7 Eliz. NOte it was said by Browne that if H. does let the Cite of his Mannor with all his Lands to the said Mannor appurtenant hereby all the Demesne lands do passe but if it were with all the Lands appertaining to the said Cite nothing passeth but the Mannor-place Pasch 6 Eliz. A Man seised of the Mannor of Dale doth let the same with all the Members and Appurtenances to the same to have and to hold all the members of the said Mannor to the Lessee for terme of years Walsh and Weston were of opinion that this was a Lease for years of the Mannor onely and that the limitation of the word Members being after the Habendum was void But Dyer and Browne were of the contrary opinion And Browne said that when the Habendum is used by way of limitation it shall not be void As if he let his Mannor of Dale to have and to hold one acre parcell thereof for a terme of years the Lease is void for all but if there had been no Habendum but the Lease for years had been limited in the Premisses of the Lease that is good enough And if the Lease had been Habendum every part thereof that had been a good Lease of the Mannor for all the parts comprehend all the Mannor And Dyer said that the word Members shall be taken for the Townes and Hamblets wherein the Mannor hath Iurisdiction Note it was said by Dyer that if partition be made by the Sheriff although the Writ be not returned yet it is good enough and none of the parties shall except against it and so was the better opinion concerning the Estate of Culpeper and Navall in the County of Kent Sutton brought a Writ of Ravishment of a Ward against Robinson wherein it was resolved by Dyer Carus Weston and Benlowes That if the Tenant enfeoff his Lord and others all the Seigniory is extinct also if the Tenant does infeoff the Lord but of a Moyety yet is all the Seigniory extinct And Dyer said that if the Tenant does infeoff the Lord and a stranger to the use of another and his Heires and makes Livery to the stranger this is no extinguishment of the Seigniory but if the Livery were made to the Lord it is otherwise and yet is the possession instantly carried away to the stranger by the Statute of 2 H. 7.13 A man seised of lands devises the same to his Wife to dispose and imploy them for her self and her Son according to her will and pleasure Dyer Weston and Walson held that the Wife had a Fee-simple by the Intendment of the Will and the Estate is conditionall for ea intentione will make a Condition in a Devise but not in Grant vide Dyer 2â— 6 A woman Tenant in taile makes a Lease for one and thirty years and after takes a Husband who have issue the Husband being Tenant by the Curtesie surrenders the Heirs doth oust the Lessee and the Lessee brings an Ejectment And it was held that the Surrender was good and that the Privity was sufficient Mich. 40 Eliz. IN an Action of the Case for calling one Bastard Dyer and Walsh said an Action would lye but Browne on the contrary because it shall be tried in the Spirituall Court And Dyer said That at Barwick Assises a Formedon in the Discender was brought and one said that his Father by whom he claimed was a Bastard and thereupon he brought an Action against him for those words and recovered Catlin said That if Lands be given to a man and to the Heires he shall engender on the body of an English woman and he marries a French woman and she dies and then he marries an English woman that now this is a good Estate in special taile Pasch 7 Eliz. THe Prior and Monks of the Charter-house before the dissolution made a Lease for foure years reserving the ancient rent of twenty five Quarters of Wheat per annum and then the house was surrendered into the hands of King Henry the eighth and then the Lord Chancellor did let the said rent of twenty five Quarters of Wheat to I.S. for foure and twenty years And it came into question between I.S. and the Termor if this was warranted by the 27 H 8.28 Harper and Portrell it is not for the Statute is that they may make Leases of any Mannors Lands Tenements and Hereditaments for one and twenty years c. and this Wheat is neither Land Tenement nor Hereditament but a Chattell and shall be demanded in an Action of debt But the opinion of all the Court was that the Lease was good and they did agree that it was directly within the word Hereditaments for it may discend or escheat and the wife shall be endowed thereof Also upon a Lease of Corne a Rent may be referved for a man may reserve a Rent upon a Lease of a Rent and the Rent is not parcell of the Reversion but onely incident thereunto and the Lessor hath the same inheritance therein as he hath in the Reversion Trin. 7 Eliz. AN assurance was made to a woman to the intent it should be for her Ioynture but it was not so expressed in the Deed. And the opinion of the Court was that it might be averred that it was for a Ioynture and that such averment was not traversable and so was it in the case between the Queen and Dame Beaumont Winter brought an Action of the Case against Barnam for these words viz. Thou Murtherer Dyer and Walsh said that the Action would lye for there are some words that cannot be qualified as Murtherer Theef Extortioner false Knave and in such Case an Action will lye but contrary where such words are spoken in a jesting way Note by Dyer that the Lord Fitz-James late Lord chief Iustice of England did devise his land to Nicholas Fitz-James in taile with divers remainders over and in the same devise he devised divers Iewels and peeces of Plate viz. the use of them to the said Nicholas Fitz-James and the Heires Males of his body In this case it was the opinion of the Court that the said Nicholas had no property in the said plate but onely the use and occupation And the same Law where the Devise was that his Wife should inhabit in one of his houses which he had for terme of years during her life because the Wife takes no interest in the terme but onely an occupation and usage out of which the Executors cannot eject her during her life but Walsh held the contrary Hil. 8 Eliz. IF a Bishop
to pay the Rent to me because the receit is no wrong But it is otherwise in the first case for when the Tithes are set forth they are presently in the possession of the Parson so that when the Defendant takes them he is a wrong Seisor of them and therefore no account will lye against him And so was it adjudged in a case of a Mannor in London where one under colour of a Devise did occupy the Land for twenty years which Will afterwards was made void and thereupon he to whom the right of the land belonged brought an account and it was adjudged that it would not lye Harper An Account will lye against a Procter so that the Plaintiff may charge him as Procter and it is no plea for him to say he is no Procter no more then it is for a Guardian in Socage to say he is not Prochein amy Dyer there are three Actions of Account One against a Baily another against a Receiver the third against a Guardian in Socage And if an Account be brought against a man as Receiver he must be charged with the receipt of the money but if the Defendant pretends he is Owner of it it is contrary to the nature of an account and therefore he is not chargable in such Action but he may plead Ne unque son Baily pur account render for in an Account as my Brother Manhood said there must be privity But an Abator or an Intruder shall not be charged in an Account because they pretend to be Owners But in this case the Lessee may have an Action of Trespasse against him for the Tythes were immediatly upon the setting forth in the possession of the Lessee and by the Statute of the 31 H. 8.7 he may have an Ejectione firmae but an account will not lye in this case Mich. 14 Eliz. TEnant in Dower commits Waste and the Waste was assigned in this Case that the Lessee had destroyed a hundred Does of the Plaintiffs whether this was Waste or no was the question Dyer I think it no Waste unlesse she had destroyed all the Deer Manwood If a Lessee of a Pigeon house destroy all the old Pigeons except one or two yet it is a Waste and so is this although all be not destroyed Mich. 15 Eliz. A Man is indebted by Obligation in a hundred pounds to a Testator this Obligation is not Assets in the hands of the Executors untill it be recovered by them because it is but a Chose in Action but if in such case the Executor release the Debt now he hath determined the Action and hath made it Assets in his hands to the whole value of the Bond. Bliss against Stafford MArgaret Bliss who was in Remainder after an Estate in taile did bring an Action on the case against Edward Strafford for standring her Title in affirming that A. had issue one B. who is alive and the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Action adjudged good by all But did abate for an exception to the Count. Pasch 13 Eliz. UPon the Statute of Recusancy made the 29. of Elizabeth Thomas Salherd and Henry Evered being committed of Recusancy for not paying twenty pounds for every month a Commission was awarded to enquire of their Goods and Lands in Suffolk to levy the said Debt and amongst other Lands certain Copyhold Lands were seised and being returned the parties came in and by way of plea did set forth that some of their Lands seised were Copyhold and did pray Quod manus Dominae Reginae amoveantur and hereupon the Queens Attorney demurred upon which the question was if Copyhold Lands were within the said Statute of the 29 Eliz. Snagge The Lands and Hereditaments which the Statute speaks of are such as are known by the Common Law and not by Custome for it I grant all my Lands Hereditaments in D. my Copyhold lands will not passe so that it seems to me Copyholds are not within the Statute Popham contra If Copyhold Lands are not within the Statute some persons shall be free and he held that Lands in ancient Demesne were within the meaning of the Statute although not within the words and he agreed that where a Grant is made of all my Lands and Tenements in D. that Copyhold Lands passe not because they cannot passe by such assurance and that Copyhold Lands were not within the Statute of Bankrupts if they be not particularly expressed and a Copyhold cannot passe by grant but by surrender But after great debate it was adjudged that Copyhold Lands are not within the Statuto by reason of the prejudice that may come thereby to the Lord who hath not committed any Offence and therefore shall not loose his Customes and Services Trin. 30 Eliz. IN the Case of Viscount Bindon it was holden that if a man hath Iudgment in Debt upon an Obligation and no execution yet he may commence another Action upon the same Obligation but otherwise of Contract 9 Ed. 4.51 A question was moved that if a man grants Vesturam terrae what doth passe and it was said by Clerk that one man may have the Vesture another the Soil Lord chief Baron he who hath Vesturā terrae cannot dig the Land And if many have a Meadow together viz. to be divided amongst them every year by lots how much every one shall have of grasse in such a place and how many in such a place and so to change every year according to the lots they have not a Freehold but onely vesturam terrae Dyer 285.6.14 H. 7.4 6. 21 H. 7.37 Dyer 375.6 13 H. 6.13 14 H. 8.6 In the Case of a Dean and Chapter the question was that if Lessee for years be rendring Rent with clause of re-entry for non-payment and then the Reversion or Rent be extended by a Statute or seised into the hands of the King for debt if the Lessee shall pay the Rent according to the extent and no breach of the Condition although he pay not the Lessor And the chief Baron held it was no breach of the Condition because he is now compellable to pay it according to the extent Caltons Case IT was moved by Serjeant Fenner and agreed by all the Barons that if the King make a Lease to A. rendring Rent and there the Lessee lets parcell hereof rendring Rent in this case the second Lessee shall not have the priviledge of the Exchequer to fly thither to be sued concerning this Land because that by such means all the causes in England may be brought into the Exchequer and hereupon Fenner said that he had demurred upon a Bill exhibited into the Exchequer Chamber by such a Lessee and prayed the Court that he might not answer and he was thereupon dismist Vpon not guilty pleaded the parties joyned issue and after evidence given and the Iury dismist from the Bar some of them had Apples and Figgs whereof the Court taking notice when they came to give their Verdict did examine them upon their
was no apparance unlesse there were a Record But the Case in Court was ut supra Hil. 30. Eliz. IN an Ejectment by Dorothy Michell against Edmund Dunton the Case was A woman makes a Lease for years rendring Rent with a Covenant that the Lessee should repaire the house with other Covenants and then devised the same lands to the same Lessee for divers years more yeilding the like rent and under such Covenants as were in the first Lease the Remainder over in fee and dies and then the first Lease for years does expire and the Lessee continues in by force of the second Lease by vesture of the devise and repaires not the houses so that if the first Lease had been in being he had broke the Covenant If this shall be such condition as he in the remainder may enter was the question Shuttleworth It is a Condition for he cannot have a Covenant and then it shall be intended that iâ— is conditionall But by all the Court There appears no such intent for it appears that he holds under like Covenants Anderson The nature of a Covenant is to have an Action but not an entry and therefore there shall be no entry Shuttleworth To what end then serves these words under like Covenants Periam They are void And at last it was resolved by all the Iustices that the Will expressing that the first Lessee should have the Land observing the first Covenants it shall not be now taken to be a Condition by any intent that may be collected out of the Will for a Covenant and Condition are of severall natures the one giving Action the other entry and here the intent of the Will was that although the Covenants were not performed yet the Lessee should not forfeit his terme but is onely bound to such paine as he was at the beginning and that was to render damages in an Action of Covenant And Iudgment was given that the Plaintiff should be barred Mich 29 and 30 Eliz. Rot. 2449. THe Earle of Kent brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond against William Bryan which was indorsed with a Condition That if the Defendant did permit the Plaintiff his Executors or Assignes not onely to thresh Corn in the Defendants Barn but also to carry it away from time to time and at all times hereafter convenient with free egresse and regresse or else to pay eight pounds upon request c. that then c. And in truth the Defendant permitted the Corn to lye there two years in which time the Mise and Rats had devoured a great part of it and then the Defendant thresht it and the Earle therefore brought this Action And upon Demur it seemed to Walmsley that there was no forfeiture of the Bond because the Earl took not the Corn away in convenient time for convenient time is such as shall prejudice no person Quod fuit negatum per Justitiar and here is great prejudice to the Detendant because the Plaintiff did not carry away the Corn And he put many cases where things ought to be done in convenient time as in the 21 Ed. 4. where an Arbitrement ought to be performed in convenient time But the opinion of the Court was that he might come in covenient time although he comes long after and the words are not within convenient time Windham said That if the words had been within convenient time it would have made a difference Anderson If the words of the Condition had been that he should suffer the Plaintiff in time convenient to come and thresh and take away his Corn then perhaps he ought to send within a year according to Walmsleys saying but the words here are at all convenient times and that day that the Servant came was a convenient day to thresh and carry away and the words At all convenient times shall be construed that at any time when it pleaseth the Earl he may come unlesse it be night or Sabboth day and if the word convenient had not been mentioned then by the words from time to time and at all times after then the Earl may come at any time either in the day or night and that a hundred years after as he pleaseth and then the word convenient does restrain him that he cannot come but in the working daies but does not restrain any time in which he shall come but onely in conveniency of time which is at times of labouring and watching And so was the opinion of the Court ut supra An Action of Debt was brought upon a Lease for years the Defendant pleaded Nihil debet per patriam and did intend to give in evidence an entry of the Plaintiff before any Rent behind And by the Court he could not do it for it is contrary to the issue Hil. 30 Eliz. Rot. 904. Between Spittle and Davis IN a Replevin the case was One Turk seised of lands in fee devised parcell thereof to his eldest Son in taile and the other parcell to his youngest Son in fee. Provided and his intent was that if any of his Sons or any of their Issues do alien or demise any of the said lands before any of them comes to the age of thirty years that then the other shall have the Estate and does not limit what Estate and then one of the Sons makes a Lease for years before such age whereupon the other enters and before he comes to the age of thirty years he aliens that part into which he made entry and the other brother being the eldest enters and makes a Lease to Spittle the Plaintiff for three years and Davies by commandment of the younger brother enters and takes the house Damage-feasant and Spittle brought a Replevin And upon Demur it seemed to the Court that this was a limitation and by vertue of the Will the Estate devised to them untill they aliened and upon the alienation to go to the other upon such alienation the land is discharged of all limitations for otherwise the land upon one alienation shall go to one and upon another alienation shall go back again and so to and fro ad infinitum vide Dyer 14. 29. And afterwards all the Iudges agreed that after one brother had entred into the land by reason of the alienation that land was discharged forever of the limitation by the Will And Iudgment was given accordingly Trin. 27 Eliz. Rot. 190. Carter against Lowe IN an Ejectment the Case was A Termor devised his terme to I.S. and made his Wife Executrix and died the Woman enters and proves the Will and takes Husband who takes a Lease of the Lessor and after the Devisee enters and grants all his Estate to the Husband and wife and herein two questions were moved 1. If by this acceptance of the new Lease by the Husband the term which the woman had to another use viz. to the use of the Testator shall be deemed a surrender And the opinion of the Court was clearly without argument that it
Devise did occupy land for 20 years and after the Devise was adjudged voyd he that had right to the land brought an account against him and adjudged that it does not lye Harper contr For an account does lye against a Proctor and the Plaintiff may charge him as Proctor and it is no Plea for him to say that he did not occupy as Proctor no more than it is a Plea for him who occupies as Guardian to say he was not the prochein amy Dyer There are three Actions of Account 1. Against a Baily 2. Against a Receiver 3. Against a Guardian in socage and if an Account be brought against one as Receiver he ought to charge him with the receipt of money and I conceive that there ought to be a privity to charge one with the receipt of money but if one claim as Baily or as Guardian in socage he is chargeable in account but an Abator or a Disseisor is not because they pretend to be owners and in this case because by the setting forth the Tithes the property is in the Parson therefore he being Lessee for years he shall have an ejectione firma and not an Account Hillar 32 34 Eliz. Carter against Kungstead in C. B. Rotulo 120. IN a Trespass the Iury gave this special Verdict John Berry was seizin of the Mannour of Stapeley in Odiam and of other lands in Odiam and the 32 H. 8. suffered a common recovery of all his lands in Odiam Stapeley and Winkfield to the use of himself and his wife for life the remainder to the heirs males of his body quod â—lterius starent of the Mannour of Stapeley with the appurtenances to the use of himself for life the remainder to the heirs males of his body whereby they were seized prout Lex postulat The husband dyes the wife makes a Lease for 19 years and whether the Mannour of Stapeley were conveyed or not was the question Harris She shall have all for when the whole estate is limited at the beginning of a Deed it shall not be abridged afterwards Periam The estate is by way of use which shall be expounded according to the intent and will of the Limiter and if this had been done by will it is clear the woman should not have the Mannour of Stapeley Anderson If I devise my land to J.S. and afterwards by the same Will I devise it to J.D. now J.S. shall have nothing because it was my last Will that J.D. should have it But otherwise it is of a use for if I do limit an estate to the use of J.S. and in the last clause do limit the same estate to J.D. the limitation to J.D. is voyd for the repugnancy Periam As to the case of the Will I conceive it is voyd to both because it cannot be known who shall have it Anderson I am sure the Law hath been taken as I have said and there was a Case in the Vpper Bench where a man one day made part of his Will and another day made another part which was repugnant to the first part and adjudged that the last was good and the first voyd Periam I agree to this Case for here is a difference in time Anderson So is there in my Case for when I am writing my Will I am thinking how I shall dispose of my estate and it shall be intended that I have least advised concerning that which I have done last Walmesley A Vse is not to be compared to a Will for the Statute of 27 H. 8. hath made it an estate and then by the 19 of Edw. 3. If a man limits an estate at the beginning of a Deed he cannot after abridge it Periam I put this Case If a man covenants upon consideration to be seized to the use of himself for life and after to the use of his son but he further sayes that his meaning is his wife shall have it for her life this is not a voyd Clause but good to the wife and the Case was adjourned till next Term. And Harris argued again and said that a Vse was but matter of trust and for that it is apparent that the intention was that the wife should have nothing there is no reason that another construction should be made Walmesley The limitation of the Vse is but a declaration how the Vse shall be and does not give any thing and the opinion of the Court was against the Plaintiff who was Lessee of the woman and that the last Clause does countermand the first as to the Mannour of Stapeley Michael 31 32 Eliz. Brokesbyes Case in C. B. Rot. 18.15 BArtholomew Brokesby brought a Quare impedit and it appeared by his Declaration that the next avoydance was granted to him and one Humphrey Brokesby and then the Church became voyd and Humphrey did release to Bartholomew totum statum titulum c. and then Bartholomew being disturbed brought a Quare impedit in his name alone Harris The Plaintiff shall be barred for the other shall be named with him for the Release is voyd for when the Church becomes voyd it is a thing in action and of privity and confidence and cannot be released nor transferred Dyer 283. a. 28 H. 8.26 a. Where it is said that it cannot be granted over no more than an Executor may release his Executorship to his companion Beaumont In my opinion it is not a Chose in action but an interest which the Executors have and by the 14 H. 4. and 14 H. 6. If a man be seized of an Advowson in the right of his wife and the Church is voyd and the wife dyes yet the husband shall present which proves it is not a Chose in action for in the 49 Edw. 3.23 the husband shall not have an obligation that was made to his wife and in our case by this avoydance the Church is become an interest and a Chattell and therefore one Ioyntenant may release to another by reason of their privity although they have no possession Fenner The release is Totum Statum jus titulum but here he hath no estate nor possession and therefore the release is void And to prove that there is no estate nor possession it is proved by the pleadings of the grant of the next avoydance for he shews that the Church became voyd and that ea ratione pertinet ad ipsum presentare and not by force whereof he was possest and if none hath the advowson which becomes voyd and the Lord claymes the advowson yet he shall not have the present avoydance and as to the case of the Ioyntenants one cannot release to the other for default of possession for the release inanes by reason of their joynt possession which is out of them but release of the Demandant to the Vouchee is good by reason of the privity of Law that is betwixt them and in 11 H. 4. He who hath right after the Incumbent is instituted and inducted may confirme his
should do no other thing that should be forfeiture of the Copyhold that then c. The Defendant pleaded conditions performed the Plaintiff replyed and alledged waste committed in a shop that fell down during the term for want of reparation but the Defendant in rejoynder alledged that the shop was ruinous at the time of the Lease and by reason thereof fell down Tanfield It is no waste as the Books are 42 Ed. 3. 19 Ed. 3. 2 H. 7.3 a. 12 H. 8.11 a. If a house be ruinous at the time of the Lease and fall during the term it is no waste yet the Book in 7 H. 6. is otherwise And in the 12 H. 4. a man lets his house promiseth that the Lessee shall not suffer any voluntary waste if the timber be so good as it will endure the whole term although it be not covered yet is the Lessee bound to reserve it during the term Godfrey for the Plaintiff and agreed to all the cases aforesaid But here the Defendant is bound by his obligation and therefore it differs from the case in 42 Ed. 3.6 and of Perkins 142. where a diversity is between a waste and a covenant for if a man makes a Lease for years and by sudden chance waste is committed this shall excuse the Lessee but if he covenant to leave the house in as good a condition as he found it if the house fall down by tempest yet he ought to re-edify it Also in this case it is a waste in Law although the house were ruinous at the beginning of the Lease for in a waste brought in such case if he pleads nul waste fait he shall not give such matter in evidence but it is onely to excuse him And with him agreed all the Court and Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Austin against Courtney 30 Eliz. in B. R. Rot. 165. AUstin and his wife as daughter and heir of one Webb brought a Writ of Errour against Thomas Courtney to reverse a Fine leavied in a base Court by the said Webb to himself Cook assigned these errours 1. Because the Fine was levied de uno tenemento which is not good for the generality for it may be land or common or rent And in 3 Ed. 4. a Plea in Bar was rejected because it was pleaded that one was seized de uno tenemento for this is uncertain And in 38 H. 6. an Action is brought upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. for entry into certain tenements that is not good for it ought to be brought of so many acres The second errour was because Webb the Conusor did acknowledge the land to be his right whereas it ought to be the right of Courtney the Conusee The third errour was because the Fine was levied in a base Court which prescribes to hold Pleas but they cannot levy Fines there for then the King shall lose his silver 50. Assiâ— And so was it adjudged between Bambury and Peres that a Fine levied in Chester which had such prescription is not good wherefore Iudgement was given that the Fine should be reverst Trinit 30 Eliz. Ireland against Higgins Rot. 403 vel 43. IN an Action of the Case the Plaintiff declared that whereas a dog came to the hands of the Defendant which belonged to the Plaintiff the Defendant did assume to deliver the said dog to the Plaintiff upon request and that the Plaintiff had requested him and he did not deliver the dog ad damnum c. and hereupon the Defendant demurred Leigh for the Defendant Here is no consideration for when the Plaintiff is out of the possession of his dog he hath lost his interest in him for a dog is ferae naturae and therefore when he is out of possession he hath no remedy 22 H. 6. 10 H. 7. â— 6 Ed. 4. and he cited Fyneâ— and Sir Johâ— Spencers Case in Dyer where a Trespass will not lye for a hawk Also by the Grant of omnia bona catalla dogs do not pass nor are tithable nor are Assets Tâ—…field contra Horses cows and all cattel which are most profitable for service of man were at first ferae naturae and so were dogs also but since by use nothing is so familiar and domestick to man than is a dog and then he cannot be ferae naturae and therefore a Trespass will lye for a dog if he declare his dog for that word does imply it is his domestick dog and he much relyed on a Book the Roll whereof he had seen Trâ—nâ—t 15 H. 7. R. 35. where a man justified in a Trespass of Battery in defence of his dog And in 2 Ed. 2. Avowry 182. a Replevin was brought of a Ferret And in 23 Elâ—z Leeks Case where one had Iudgement to recover great damages for a blood-hound And as to the Case of Fâ—neâ— and Sâ—eâ—ce the reason why the Plaintiff had not Iudgement was because he did not shew that the hawk was reclaimed but after he brought a new Action and had great damages And at last it was adjudged by all the Court that the Action is maintainable and Iudgement commanded to be entred nisi c. Trinit 30 Eliz. Stone against Withepoole in B. R. Rot. 771. IN an Action of the Case the Plaintiff declared that J. S. wan indebted to him for velvet and other things to such a value and was bound in a Bond to pay money for them and that afterwards the Defendant being his Executor did assume and promise to pay the money The Defendant pleaded that the Testator was within age at the time of the making the Bond and hereupon the Plaintiff demurred Egerton S ll citor for the Plaintiff A Contract made by an Infant is not voyd but voydable and if the Infant at his full age had assumed as the Defendant hath it had been good and by the same reason the Executors assumsion is good 9 Eliz. 13. where the Lord Graâ— being heir to the former Lord Gray although he was not bound to pay the debts of his father upon simple contract yet in regard he did assume to pay them he was made chargeable And in 15 and 16 E iz it is a good consideration where an Administrator undertakes to pay debts upon a simple contract but admitting the Executor be not chargeable by Law yet in equity and conscience he is chargeable in Chancery and when he promiseth in consideration that the Plaintiff will not sue him that is a good consideration Cooke The consideration is the ground of every Action on the Case and it ought to be either a charge to the Plaintiff or a benefit to the Defendant 17 Eâ— 4 5. where a man promised and assumed to a Chyrurgean money for curing a poor man that was a good consideration for although it is no benefit to the Defendant yet it is a charge to the Plaintiff and where there is no consideration there can be no good action as where a man promiseth a debt that he never owed
If a Quare Impedit does lye of an Archdeaconary for it is but a function or dignity and therefore a Quare Impedit will not lie of an office of a Commissary but the 24 Ed. 3.42 is express in the point And 30 Edw. 3.21 a Qure Impedit did lye of a Priory And therefore notwithstanding this exception Iudgement was given for the the Plaintiff But there were two other doubts in the Case First If a Quare Impedit will lie for an Executor for disturbance done in vita Testatoris and that by the Statute of 4 Ed. 3.7 Snigge The action will lye by the Executors for in all Cases where damages are to be recovered they shall have an action by that Statute 11 H. 7.2 An action of trespass was brought for taking of goods in the life of the Testator but no action will lie for entrie into land in the life of the Testator for it ought to be such an action as will survive in damages and may be a damage to the Executor 7 H. 42. An ejectement lies for Executors upon an ejectment in the life of the Testator And if an ejectment be maintenable in which a Terme shall be recover'd it shall be also maintenable in a Quare Impedit in which a presentment may be recovered Drew cont At the Common Law Executors have no remedy for a personall wrong quia moritur cum persona for upon the death of the Testator Executors have no remedy for arrears of Rent at the Common Law but only the Statute of 32 H. 8. And it cannot be that the Executors in this case are within the Statute of 4 Ed. 3. For that Statute intends onely to remedy such things as are avaylable to the Testator and are assets to pay debts and although Executors may have a Quare Impedit that is intended of a disturbance fait al eux but contra if it be done in vita Testatoris Walmesley I conceive no actions will lie For the Statute gives an action for the taking of goods and such like things but here is no taking but only a disturbance which may be done by Parol Perryam Justice cont For the Statute says that they shall have an action of trespass for a trespass done to their Testator and not for taking goods so that the taking of goods is but by way of resemblance and not that they shall have an action of trespass for taking of goods onely Windham and Anderson agreed with Perryam and whereas it hath been said that this cannot be Assetts Put the case that the Testator had judgment to recover damages shall not that be Assetts and why may the damages here recovered be Assetts and why shall not the grant of the Advowson be Assetts in the hands of the Executor aswell as in the hands of the issue And so was the opinion of the Court. 32 Eliz. Foster and Wilson against Mapps in B. R. Rot. 71. THe Case on a speciall verdict was thus Mapps the Defendant made a Lease of the Parsonage of Broncaster by Indenture and Covenanted by the same Deed to save the Plaintiff harmless and indemnified and also all the proffits thereof and premisses against Philip Blount the Parson of Broncaster and hereupon a writ of Covenant was brought against Mapps and the breach assigned was that Blount had entred and ejected the Plaintiff And one point was if this shall be accounted the Deed of the Defendant because the Defedant delivered his part of the Indenture to the Plaintiff as his Deed but the Plaintiff did not deliver the counterpart to him But the opinion of the Court was that this was a good Deed of the Defendants and Gawdy said that the safest way had been to deliver his part as an Escroll to be his Deed when the Plaintiff delivered the Counterpaine But a great doubt was made in this case because it was not shewed that Blount entred by a Title and then he shall be taken to have entred by wrong and so the Covenant not broken for to save harmeless is only from legall harmes as it is in Swettenhams Case Dyer 306. Where the Warden of the Fleet suffered a prisoner to escape and took a bond of him to save him harmeless and then the Warden was sued upon an escape and thereupon he sued the Obligation and adiudged that the bond was not forfeit because the partie was not legally in execution and therefore the Warden could not be damnified for the escape Padsy cont The Diversitie is where the Covenant is generall and where it is speciall for in this case it being speciall to save harmeless from Blount he ought to defend against him his entry be it by good title or by wrong and so is Catesbies Ease Dyer 3.28 Where the Lessor covenanted that the Lessee should injoy his terme sine ejectione vel interruptione alicujus the Lessee brought an action of Covenant because a stranger entred and did not say he had any title and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Gawdy The Covenant is broke For if Blount disturbe him so that he cannot take the proffits this is a breach of the Covenant for hereby the Plaintiff is damnified 2 Ed. 4.15 where the Condition of a Bond was that the Obliger should warrant and defend the Obliged for ever and against all and the Defendant pleaded that he had such a Warrant and there it was held by Danby to be no plea because he cannot warrant unless the other be impleaded And there it was said by Danby and Needham that if the obligee be outed by a stranger who hath no title the Obligation is forfeit by reason of this word defend Wray agreed and said that this case was not like to the Ease of 26 H. 8.3 where the Lessor Covenanted to warrant the land to the Lessee for there he shall not have a Covenant if he be wrongfully outed but our case is to save harmeless which is of greater force than to warrant for to warrant Land is only upon the title but here be the Lessee outed by wrong or by title yet is the Covenant broken to which the other Iustices agreed Fenner Vouchf 18 Ed. 4.27 where a man is obliged to save J.S. harmless against me if I doe arrest J.S. although wrongfully the obligation is forfeit which the other Iustice denied And at last Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Pasch 33 Eliz. Elmer and his wife against Thatcher in C. B. Rot. 1125. And Cooks 1. Inst 355. IN a Quod ei deforceat of a third part of an acre of Land whereof the wife was tenant in Dower The defendant confesed she was tenant in Dower but shewed how she committed waste Statut Westm 2. cap. 4. wherefore he brought his action of waste to which she appeared and pleaded nothing for which he had Iudgment to recover The Plaintiff said that no waste was committed and the Defendant Demurred Owen for the Defendant a Quod ei deforceat lies not in this case for such
hac conditione si vixerit vidua inhabitaret super prâ—m ssos the woman dyed before the Lease expired and her Executors entred and being outed they brought this Action and the question was if the Lease were determined by the death of the woman by limitation or by condition or if it yet remain Gawdy It cannot be a condition because the sentence is imperfect for if a man makes a Lease for life rendring rent sub hac conditione that if the rent be behind without any further words this cannot be a condition by reason of the imperfection of the sentence and without doubt if a Lease for years be made to a woman if she so long live and inhabit the premisses this is a limitation so that the term is ended by her death Clench It is neither condition nor limitation for a condition ought alwayes to be a full and perfect sentence and not uncertain As a Lease for years upon condition that the Lessee shall pay 181. at the house of the Lessor this is a full sentence but a Lease made rendring rent and if it be behind and no more said this is no condition And in all cases where these words quod si do make a condition it is requisite that these words quod tunc do ensue Neither can it be a limitation because the words quod si spoyl the sentence And Popham was also of opinion that it was neither condition nor limitation but if the words had been sub conditione quod tamdiu vixerit inhabitaret c. this is a perfect sentence and by her death or not inhabiting the estate might be determined and he put this difference that if a Lease had been for 20 years si tamdiu vixerit super praemissos the Lease had been determined by her death but if a Lease had been for 20 years si tamdiu inhabitaret quamdiu vixerit vel durante vita super praemissos there if she dyes within the term yet the term continues for in the first case the limitation goes to the interest and in the other to the time and Iudgement was given that the Plaintiff should recover for that the term continued Michaelm 37 38 Eliz. Mark Ives Case in B. R. IN a Debt upon a Bond the Condition was that if the Obligee should go to Rome and return from thence again before the 5. of July after the date of the Bond that the Obligor should pay to him 20 l. upon the 20. day of July at Pauls And it was moved by Williams Serjeant that if the Obligee returned within the time whether he ought to give notice of his return to the Obligor for otherwise by his secret return he may make a forfeiture of the Obligation for if the Obligor of necessity be to tender this money without notice of his return inconvenience would ensue for perhaps the Obligee is not returned at the time the money is due and then the tender is in vain and the Law will not compell a man to make a tender unless it be to some purpose and therefore the Obligee ought to give notice to the intent that the Obligor may know whether the money he due to him or not And it is like a Mortgage upon condition that if the Mortgager does pay 20 l. before Michaelmas at Pauls that theâ— c. here the Mortgager ought to give notice at what day before Michaelmas he will tender the money or otherwise he cannot enter for the time that the Law prescribes to make the tender is the last instant before Michaelmas and if the Mortgager will make his election to tender it before the day he ought to give the Mortgagee notice thereof And the Case of one Gurney was cited by Cook Adjudge 27 Eliz. where a Lease was made for years and the Lessor made another Lease for years to commence after the surrender determination c. of the first Lease and then a private surrender is made to the Lessor of the first Lease the second Lease shall not begin untill the Lessee hath notice of the surrender of the first Lease But Tanfield said that the Case was ruled contrary and that the Lease did begin presently without notice ideo quaere and as to the principal point the Court was divided But Fenner said that if the Obliges should give notice perhaps the Obligor will not be found and therefore good reason that the Obligor should make tender to the Obligee at his peril Trinit 36 Eliz. Escot against Lanreny in B. R. IN an action on the Case the Plaintiff declared that the Lord Barkley by his Indenture dimisit ad firmam tradidit totam firmam suam tolnetum proficuum nundinarum dierum Faerialium infra manerium Bergum de Thetbury for 21. years and that the Defendant had disturbed and hindred him from taking of divers pieces of Wool infra manerium Burgum praedict c. and after Issue joyned exception was taken to the Declaration because he declared of a demise made by the Lord Barkley and did not set forth that the Lord Barkley was seised at the time of the Demise 7 H. 7.3.34 H. 6.48 But the exception disallowed by all the Court because the Plaintiff in this action is to recover damages only and the right or title of Land does not come in debate but contra if it were in such action where the right of the Toll did come in debate and to prove this Glanvill cited 20 A sis 3.47 Eâ— 3. and 33 H. 6. and upon this reason he said that the Plaintiff of necessity is not bound to set forth the Market day nor the quantity of the Toll 34 H. 6.48 Where it was pleaded that J.S. made a Lease to him and did not shew that he was seised and yet held good Clench took another exception because he did not set forth that Toll was to be payd by common usage for no Toll is due for Hens or Geese or for many other things of such nature and so it might be that Toll was not due for wooll Fenner was of the same opinion but Popham Contra who said that the Plaintiff had declared that the Defendant had disturbed him from the Toll of divers pieces of Wooll and by that is implyed that Toll ought to be payd for Wooll And at another day Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Pasch 36 Eliz. Sackford against Philipps in Camera Scaccarii Rot. 484. IN a debt this Case was moved by Williams Serjeant A. is indebted to B. in 10 l. upon a Bond and R. did promise to B. that if he would forbear A that if A. did not pay him he would B. for non-payment by A. does recover so much in damages upon the assumpsit against R. If in Debt upon this obligation against A A. may plead this recovery in Bar. Walmsley he cannot for he is a stranger to the recovery ideo Quaere And it was assign'd for errour that it was alledged in the
Declaration that the Defendant did promise to pay the 10 l. before Michaelmass in consideration the Plaintiff would forbeare to sue A. and that he hath forborn adhuc abstiâ—et and does not say that he made request as he ought to have done But the Court held it was well enough and there is a difference when the Defendant does promise to pay generally and at a certain day named there the Plaintiff ought precisely to alledge a request made in certain but when the Defendant promiseth to pay at a day certain he is bound to pay it at his perill without request and therefore to alledge quod saepius requisitus is sufficient without alledging a speciall request otherwise it is if the Defendant assume to pay it upon request for there it ought to be specially pleaded Another errour was because the consideration was that the Plaintiff should forbeare to sue A. and does not set forth for how long time for perhaps the forbearance was but for a quarter of an houre Peryam The consideration upon which an assumpsit is grounded ought to be of value but of what value is it where the forbearance is but for half an houre Fleming By his promising not to sue he is ingaged never to sue Peryam There is great difference between a promise not to sue and a promise to forbeare to sue for a promise not to sue excludes him from suing at all but a promise to forbeare to sue is only to forbeare for a time so that notwithstanding such promise he may sue after and it being not here exprest how long he will forbeare there is no consideration Walmesley There is a difference when the Defendant sâ—eaks the words and when the Plaintiff For if the Plaintiff sayes I will forbeare to sue you so you will promise to pay me and upon this the Defendant makes a promise accordingly the Plaintiff in this Case ought to forbear to sue him for ever But if the Defendant only speaks the words as here he does If you will forbeace to sue I will promise to pay you and the Plaintiff agrees and forbeares a certain time yet he may have his action afterward sed adjournatur Pasch 38. Eliz. Stroud against Willis in B. R. Rot. 66. IN Debt upon a Bond the Condition was If the Obligor shall well and truly pay the Rent or sum of 37 l. yearly at two feasts according to the tenure and true intent of certain articles of agreement indented and made between the Obligor and Obligee during the terme therein mentioned that then c. The Defend intâ—…eâ—ded that these articles ut supra contain that the said Stroud the Obligee Dumisit ad firmam tradidit to the Defendant Omnia talia doâ—…s tenementa terras in Parochia de Petminster de in quibus the sayd Stroud hath an estate for life by Copy according to the Customs of the Mannor Habendum to the Defendant for 21 years if Stroud should so long live rendring to the said Stroud during the said terme 37 〈◊〉 to be paid at the Castle of Canton and pleaded further that at the time of the making the said Articles the said Stroud had not any estate in any Lands houses c. in Petminster aforesaid for the term of his life or by Copy And upon this plea the Plaintiff demurred and Iudgment was given for the Plaintif in the Common Pleas and now was removed by Vrit of Errour And in this Case were two questions First If nothing passe by these Articles and so the reservation of the Rent is also voyd Secondly If the Obligation for payment of the said sum be also voyd and it was said that this could not be payable as a Rent upon the 14 H. 4. 4. 20 Ed. 4. 20 H. 6.23 for no Rent is reserved because there is no land out of which it can come and then the obligation is also discharged 2. Admitting the Rent is not vayable as Rent then whether it be an â—stoppell to plead as here is done against the Articles and therefore they took a difference where the recitall is generall and where not as if A. be bound to infeof me of all his lands of the part of his Mother and he hath no lands of the part of his Mother but otherwise if it were to infeof me of Black acre for he shall be estopped to say that he had not Black acre and so here he shall be estopped to say that there are no Articles but he may plead that he hath no land by Copie Cook 2. Rep. 33.6 Fenner When a man makes a voyd Lease rendring Rent the Reservation is also voyd because the land is the consideration and recompence for the Rent but where a man reserves Rent upon a grant or Lease which grant and Lease are good but the thing out of which the Rent is issuing cannot be charged with the Rent there the reservation is good as where a Rent is reserved out of an advowson or menaltie but in the Case at Bar the Lease did never begin and therefore Rent shall not then is it to be considered whether the Rent is to be payd by reason of the bond as a sum in gross or not and as to that matter the condition of the bond is to pay the Rent according to the true meaning of the Articles which is that if the Lessee have not the Land the Lessor shall not have the Rent therefore it shall not be paid as a sum in gross Popham cont But he agreed that the reservation was voyd for if no Land do pass no Rent is reserved and the reservation only does not make any estoppell and he took a difference upon the 14 Ed. 4. A man makes a Lease generally and the Lessee is bound to pay the Rent in such manner as it was reserved there such Rent ought to be demanded otherwise the Obligation is not forfeit and the demand ought to be upon the Land but if such Lessee for years do oblige himself to pay the Rent at a Collaterall place out of the land there he ought to pay it at his perill without any demand for now he payes it in another nature than as Rent so here if the payment had been limited at a place out of the Land the Obligor is bound to pay it although nothing were demised to him for by the bond he hath made it a sum in gross And it is altered from the nature of Rent upon the first reservation and he is bound also to pay the Rent or sum and if this be any of them he must pay it As to the second point he made this difference A his bound to J.S. to Release to him all his right which he hath in the Land descended to him on the part of his Mother there in Debt upon this bond the Obligee cannot plead that he hath no right descended to him on the part of his mother but must Release at his perill But if he binds
not a good Feoffment for White-acre Michaelm 29. 30. Eliz. Knowles against Powell in Scaccario THe Queen seized in Fee made a Lease for years to one who was out-lawed at the time of the Lease rendring rent and after he was out-lawed again and before seizure comes out the general pardon of all Goods and Chattels forfeited and in this Case it was agreed that a man out-lawed was capable of a Lease from the Queen as Farmer to the Queen And Manwood said that the pardon with restitution is sufficient to revive the term forfeited by the second out-lawry and it was also agreed that a man out-lawed and pardoned had property in his goods Egerton Sollicitor said that in the 4 Eliz. it was adjudged in the Common Pleas that if the Queen made a Lease under the Exchequer-seal to begin immediatly after forfeiture surrender or expiration of a former term and the Lessee is out-lawed shat the second Lease shall not commence for it is a Royal forfeiture Trinit 41 Elizab. Ferrers against Borough in B. R. Rot. 185. UPon a special Verdict the Case was thus A man makes a Lease for years upon condition that if he paid 10 l. before Michaelmas that it should be lawfull for him to re-enter and before Michaelmas he lets the land to another by Indenture for years and then performed the Condition and entred the first Lessee brought a Trespass and it was adjudged that it does not lye Trinit 35 Elizab. Lambert against Austen in B. R. Rot. 185. IN a Replevin the Case was thus A man seized of land in Fee grants a Rent-charge out of it to A. for life with a Clause of Distress and then makes a Lease to B. for years and grants the reversion for life to J.S. the Rent becomes behind the 15 of Eliz. untill the 18 of Eliz. and the Grantee makes the Defendant his Executor and dyes the term of B. ends in the 33 Eliz. and then J.S. enters and makes a Lease to the Plaintiff the Executor of A. distreyns for the arrearages and the Plaintiff brings a Replevin Gawdy and Fenner This Distress is well taken for the arrearages upon the Statute of the 32 H. 8. cap. 37. for the Rent doth not issue out of the term for years but out of the Free-hold and upon grant thereof as Littleton saith the Tenant of the Free-hold ought to attorn and not the Termor and so is it 9 H. 6. and if an Assize be brought for this Rent it ought to be brought against the Tenant of the Free-hold and all the Tenants of the Free-hold ought to be named in a Rent-charge by Cook 6 Rep. 58. but otherwise for a Rent-service for that is against the Termor onely and a Termor cannot give seizin of the Rent to maintain an Assize by Cook 6 Rep. 57. and for the same reason Executors shall have an Action of Debt at the Common Law for arrearages because the estate is determined Cook 4 Rep. 49. but an Avowry is given by this Statute Onely so long as the land shall continue in the seisin and possession of the said Tenant in demesn And they much relyed on this word demesn which ought to be intended of a Free-hold and of a Reversion upon a Lease for years it is pleaded quod seisitus in dominico suo c. and so cannot a Tenant for years say for which reasons it seemed to them that the Distress was well taken Clench contr For the Termor ought to pay it for he takes the profits of the land as if a Lease be made to a woman rendring Rent who takes husband and dyes the husband shall pay the Rent by the 10 H. 6. for he hath taken the profits and by the words of the Statute they are in the possession or seisin and seisin refers to the Tenant of the Free-hold and possession to the Tenant for years and the words are which ought immediatly to pay the Rent and so ought the Termor in our Case who is chargeable to the Distress of the Testator Popham chief Iustice of the same opinion The Distress is not well taken for he who hath the profits of the land ought to answer for the Rent Gawdy Although the Cattel of the Lessee be distreynable by the Testator that is onely because they are upon his land as a strangers Cattel may be so distreyned and therefore this proves not that the Lessee should pay the Rent And if a man grants a Rent-charge and lets the land at will afterwards the Rent is behind and the Grantee dyes and the Lease at will determines without question in that Case the Lessor is subject to the Distress of the Executor And in our Case if the Grantee had released to the Tenant for life this had extinguisht the Rent otherwise of a Release to Tenant for years Fenner If Tenant in Tail granta a Rent-charge and after makes a Lease for 21 years according to the Statute and dyes the Rent by the death of the Tenant in Tail is determined To which Gawdy agreed which proves that the Rent issues out of the Freehold Vid. Cook 5 Rep. 118. Hillar 37 Eliz. Butler against Ruddisley IN a Trespass the Defendant pleaded the Free-hold of Edward Devereux and so justified as his Bailiff without saying at his commandment the Plaintiff replyed that the said Edward was seized in Fee and made a Lease to him by vertue whereof he was possest absque hoc that the Lessor made the Defendant his Bailiff post dimissionem and hereupon the Defendant demurred Crook By this Lease a Free-hold passeth to the Plaintiff and then the Plaintiffs traverse is naught for he hath now traverst that the Defendant is Bailiff whereas he ought to traverse the Free-hold in the Lessor for that would have destroyed the justification of the Defendant And to prove that the Free-hold doth pass he cited the Case of Littleton where if a Lease be made to the husband and wife during Coverture they are Ioynt-tenants for life So in the 30 H. 6. a Lease to a woman dum sola vixerâ—t And 14 Ed. 2. a Grant to a man till he be promoted to such a Benefice or dummodo se bene gesserit all these are Free-holds And it is clear that a Tenant at will cannot assign over And also an estate at will is an estate at the will of both parties but here it is at the will of the Lessor onely when he will make a Bailiff Haughton contr An estate at will doth pass and not a Free-hold for here he hath not pleaded that Livery was made and Livery shall not be intended in this case unless it be specially alledged but if Livery had been made then he agreed that a Free-hold conditional had past and for the pleading of a Livery he took a difference that where an express estate either in fee or for life be pleaded there Livery shall be intended but where a Free-hold passeth by implication or operation of Law and not
by express words there Livery ought to be pleaded as a Lease to one for years the remainder to another for life there Livery ought to be pleaded So in the 21 Assi If a man pleads a Feoffment and Livery within the view he must plead Livery within the view expresly and so upon Grant of a reversion attornment ought to be pleaded And whereas it was said that it cannot be an estate by will because it was not the will of both parties Vid. 9 Ed. 4.1 and 15 Ed. 4. But Gawdy and Fenner denyed the diversity put by Haughton for in pleading of an estate for life all necessary circumstances in pleading shall be intended And so it was agreed that an estate for life should pass for Livery shall be intended Sed adjournatur Pasch 35 Eliz. Pendigate against Audley in B. R. Rot. 242. IN a Writ of Errour upon recovery of a Debt the Errour was assigned because the Action of Debt upon the Obligation was brought against the Father of the Plaintiff and in the Writ he was named the Son and Heir apparent of the Obligor for this implyes that the Father was alive for if he were dead then is the Plaintiff Heir in facto and not apparent Gawdy It is but Surplusage and in the 11 Ed. 3. the Writ was good although he was not named Son and Heir omnino But this was denyed and agreed that he ought to be named Heir and Iudgement was reverst Hillary 37 Eliz. Tanfield against Rogers in B. R. IN a Replevin the Case was thus Tenant in Tail seized of a Mannour with 3 Acres thereof in Demesn makes a Lease of the three Acres also of the Mannour habendum the three Acres and the Mannour for 21 years rendring Rent for the 3 Acres and all other the premisses therewith demised 5 l. The question was if this be a good Lease within the Statute of the 32 H. 8. Stephens This Lease is not within the Statute for this Lease of 3 Acres and of the Mannour whereof they are parcel is an entire Demise and not several as in 13 H. 4. Grants 88. A man seized of a Mannour with an Advowson appendant makes Feoffment of one Acre of the Mannour and then in the same Deed he grants the Advowson appendant and not in gross and yet they are in several clauses Vid. 48 Ed. 3.41 33 H. 8. Dyer 48. Gawdy and Clench When the Lease is of three Acres and of the Mannour although the Mannour comprehends the three Acres yet in construction of Law they shall be taken as several Demises Fenner I am of the fame opinion and as I remember in the 10 Assis is this Case A Lease is made of the Grist and also of the Mill reserving by the year 5 s. and for the other 10 s. they are several Leases and so is it here Note that Popham was absent But after in the same term he declared that he agreed with the other Iustices and Iudgement was given that the Lease was good for the three Acres Pasch 37 Eliz. Carus Case PEter Carus was indicted for drawing his Sword in Westminster-hall the Court then sitting in resisting the Sheriff who was making an Arrest and being found guilty upon his Arraignment it did appear that this fact was done upon the stairs of the Court of requests out of the view of the Courts yet it was held that being in the Hall it was as much as if it had been in view of the Court But because the Indictment was not good for it was not coram Regina as it ought to be the Iudgement was only to have perpetual Imprisonment and to pay 1000 l. Fine to the Queen But if the Indictment had been as we have seen a president in 1 Ed. 4. then the Iudgement ought to be to have his hand cut off and to forfeit all his lands and goods and to have perpetual Imprisonment 22 Ed. 3.13 Cromptons Justice 246. Mich. 3 Jacob. Walgrave against Skinner in B. R. Rot. 174 IN a Trespass the Plaintiff declared that he was robbed of 20 l. and that he pursued the Felon with hue and cry to such a Town where he discovered the Felon to the Defendant who was Constable of the said Town wherefore he apprehended the Felon and found the 20 l. about him which sum the Defendant fook and detained in his own possession The Defendant confest the taking the 20 l. ut supra but because the Town was of no strength he carried the 20 l. to the next Town and as he was going upon the High-way he was robb'd of it and so he concluded that he ought not to be charged in this Action Johnson for the Plaintiff It appears in 4 H. 7. that the Thief hath no property in the money which is found in his possession and in the 15 Ed. 4. it is resolved that if A robs B and C robs A yet C hath not gained any property and if the Constable takes this out of his possession he cannot seize it to any other use than to the use of the King and therefore if he takes Felons goods and does not keep them safe the first Owner shall have a Trespass against him for by the 21 H. 7. If a man does carry the Parsons tithe to the Parsons barn because it is like to perish yet the Parson may have a Trespass against him And by the opinion of Stanford 44 Assi If goods are taken from a Felon and he will give sufficient surety he himself shall have the keeping of them or else the Town and therefore the â—oâ—stable hath no authority to meddle with them Erby contr For a Constable is Conservator â—acis and 〈…〉 the peace does consist as much in keeping of goods as of 〈…〉 a Felon And here the Constable doubting of the 〈…〉 Town by reason of the Inhabitants who were riotous 〈…〉 he thought it the best course to carry them to the next Town and so no default was in him for his taking and meoling with them was lawfull And 22 Assi 96. If a Felon flying be taken in any Village the Bailiff thereof may take the custody of the goods and I suppose that a Constable may keep goods as well as a Bailiff for he is a Minister of the Law and if they be taken from him he is no more chargeable than if goods were taken out of the possession of my servant Williams Iustice Pasch 2 H. 7. Common same is enough to apprehend any man but if you arrest a person who is possest of money and he dye you are chargeable with the money And so here although the taking of the Felon by the Constable be justiciable yet he is to keep safe the money at his peril and because he hath not he is liable to this Action Popham He might have pleaded not guilty for he said that if a Town hath the possession of my goods a Detinue lyes und not a Trespass but if a stranger takes them out of their
possession there a Trespass lyes and therefore he conceived in this Case that the Plaintiff should have brought a Trover and Conversion and not a Trespass quod â—li Justiciaâ—… con esserun and therefore the Case was deferred till next term to be argued upon the general issue Mich. 3 Jacob. Jorden against Atwood in B. R. Rot. 561. THe Case upon the whole pleading appeared to be thus A seized of a Messuage called Bodswâ—en had a way appendant to it in the land of J.S. in a Close called Bâ—acâ—e after A purchased the said Close and infeoffed the Plaintiff thereof and this Action was brought by the Feoffee against the Feoffor for using the said way and the question was if the way were extinguisht or not and it was argued at the Bar that unity of possession doth make no extinguishment 3 H. 6.31 where 〈◊〉 prescribed to have a way to a Wood in a place called England against which was pleaded that time out of minde â— S. was seized of the said place and of the said Wood and held no plea. 2â— Ed. 3.2 11 H. 7.25 it was argued on the other side that the Case of 31 H. 6. was a quaere and because the Feoffor had not reserved a way it did pass by the Feoffment Tanfield Iustice Vnity of possession does not confound a way and he cited 19 Ed. 2. 21 Ed. 3.2 A way was appendant to a Mill which was alotted to one partner who assigned over her interest and the Assignee brought an Assize of nasance and unity of possession was pleaded in Bar but not allowed Yelverton Iustice conâ—r For the 21 Ed. 3.2 confirms my opinion for Brook in his abridgement of the Case saith that the partners have that as in case of ane oâ— Brant which proves if they had it as heir it should be gone And the Case of Gutter in 1 H. 7. is onely by reason of the Custome But here the Feoffor might have reserved his way upon the Feoffment and it was his folly he did not Williams of the same opinion And he took a difference between the Case of Gutter which is preserved by Custome and the Case of a way or Common which are extinguisht by way of unity of possession according to the 35 H. 6. Fenner contr For the case of a Way differs from the case of a Common for unity will extinguish a Common but not a Way for then he shall lose the profit of all the land to which the Way is appurtenant for without the Way he cannot use the Close and therefore there is no reason that the Law should extinguish it Popham accorded and took a difference between a Common appendant which is of necessity and a Common in gross for in case of a Common appendant if one Tenant of the Mannour doth purchase the Seigniory and then grants over the Tenancy the Common which he had before shall be still appendant for it is not extinguisht by the unity but shall pass with the Tenancy but otherwise of a Common in gross and so he said was the same difference in this Case for if the way be a way of ease or pleasure there it shall be extinguisht by unity but if it be a way of necessity there it is otherwise for without it a man shall lose the benefit of his land or house And he compared this ad viam Regiam which lyes by my house yet if I do make a Feoffment of the land I shall have a passage also And he said that if a man had three Fields adjoyning and makes a Feoffment of the middle Field the Feoffee shall have a way to this through the other Close where it shall be most easy and beneficial for him And at last because the two Iustices agreed although others were of the contrary opinion Iudgement was given Quod quaerens â—il capiat per billam and that the way is not extinguisht Vid. 11 H. 4 5. Michaelm 7 Jacob. Leigh against Burley LEigh sued Burley and Cradock in the Court of Admiralty whereupon a Prohibition was prayed The Case was thus Burley Master of a Ship gave money to Cradock to buy Sailors Cloaths for him Cradock bought such Cloaths for him of Leigh in the Parish of Saint Katherines near the Tower in London whereby Leigh delivered the Cloaths to Burley in his â—…ip that was in the â—hames adjoyning to Saint Katherines and because the money was not paid he sued Burley in the Admiralty Court and a Prohibition was awarded for two causes 1. because the Contract was made on land and infra corpus comitatus and therefore the Admiral can have no jurisdiction for the Statutes of the 13 and 15 of Rich. 2. and 2 H. 4. cap. 11. are that the Admiral shall not have conusance but of things done super altum mare Vâ—d Cook 5 Reâ— 107. And so was it resolved by the Iustices and then said that the 15 of Richard the 2. is mis-printed viz. that the Admiral shall have Iurisdiction to the Bridges for the Translator mistook Bridges for Points that is to say the Lande-end And Cook said that the Admiral should have no Iurisâ—iction where a man may see from one side to the other but the Coroner of the County shall enquire of Felonies committed there which was held to be good by all the other Iustices And he gave this difference that where the place was covered over with saltwater and out of any County or Town there est altum mare but where it is within any County there it is not altum mare but the Tryall shall be par vicenetum of the Town Doderidge serjeant demanded this Question The Isle of Lunday is de Corpore Comitatus of Devonshire and lyes twenty miles within the Sea Whether is that within the County Foster If the Sea there be not of any County the Admirall hath Iurisdiction or els not And note Cook and Foster said that the Statute 25 H. 8. cap. 15. for criminall offences upon the Sea is to be intended if Felony be super altum Mare for if it be committed in a Creek or a place where the Admirall hath not Iurisdiction the Commissioners have nothing to do to meddle with it And the Prohibition was granted Michaelm 7 Jacob. Mores against Conham in C. B. IN an action on the Case upon an assumpsit the Plaintiff declared that Lover was indebted to him in a certain sum for which he pawnd to the Plaintiff certain goods to the value of 100 l. and the Defendant promised the Plaintiff to pay the debt if he would deliver the pawn and hereupon the Defendant demurred And two points were moved one to the forme and the other to the matter First the Plaintiâ—f declared that the assumpsi was pro diversis bonis Catallis delivered to Lover without shewing what goods or of what kinde for this is the consideration of the contract and therefore ought to be pleaded in certainty But resolved by the Court that the plea was good
Administration it is at the election of the Plaintiff to sue him as Executor or Administrator 9 Ed. 4.33 21 H. 6.8 2 Rich. 2.20 18 Ed. 4. Walmesley agreed for the Statute of the 27 Eliz. hath made voyd the Testators gift and subâ—ata causa toll â—ur effectus and the gift being taken away the property is also taken away from the Donee and setled in the Donor as to any Creditor To which the other Iustices agreed and Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Trinit 43 Eliz. George Brooks Case in C. B. Rot. 1822. GIbson recovered in a Debt against Broâ—k as Executor to J.S. 60 l. and 6 l. damages and upon a scire facias to the Sheriff he returns no Assets and then upon the estate which was in Lâ—ndon which the Defendant had wasted and soâ—d a fieri facâ—as was awarded to the Sheriff of Lâ—…don with a Commission to the Sheriff of London to enquire if he had Assets at the day of the Writ c and by the inquest it was found that he had Assets at the day of the Writ purchased c. and that he had wasted the estate which was thus return'd by the Sheriff against which the Defendant took issue that he had not Assets and upon this was a a Demurr Walmesley A man may avert against the return of a Sheriff if the return be a matter collateral as if upon a Caâ—ias the Sheriff returns a Rescous there may be an averment against this 4 Eliz. 212. a. But if it be in pursuance of the Writ as non est inventus there no averment shall be taken against this but here the return is the saying of the Inquest and not his own saying Warburton I conceive he shall have an averment and traverse or else he shall be without remedy for he cannot have an Action on the Case against the Sheriff because he returns that which was found by the Inquest and so not like where the Sheriff returns falsly without such Inquest and no attachment lyes because it is but an Inquest of office and after it was moved at another day and a president shewn 33 Eliz. in B. R. between Westner and Whitenore and there it was adjudged that such return of the Sheriff was traversable and Anderson and Kingsmill agreed to it wherefore Iudgement was given for the Defendant and that the issue was well taken Day against Fynn IN an Ejectment the Plaintiff declared of a Lease for years of a house and 30 acres of land in D. and that J. S. did let to him the said Messuage and 30 acres by the name of his house in B. and ten acres of land there sive plus sive minus it was moved in arrest of Iudgement because that 30 acres cannot pass by the name of 10 acres sive plus sive minus and so the Plaintiff hath not conveyed to him 30 acres for when 10 acres are leased to him sive plus sive minus these words ought to have a reasonable construction to pass a reasonable quantity either more or less and not twenty or thirty acres more Yelverton agreed for the word 10 acres sive plus sive minus ought to be intended of a reasonable quantity more or less by a quarter of an acre or two or three at the most but if it be 3 acres less than 10. the Lessee must be content with it Quod Fenner Crook concesserunt and Iudgement was staid Smith against Jones IN an Action of the Case upon an Assumpsit the Case was that the wise of Jones was Executrix to J.S. and had Assets to satisfie all Debts and Legacies The woman dyes and the goods remained in the hand of her husband who was the Defendant and Smith the Plaintiff being a Legatee demanded his debt of the husband who said to him Forbear tâ—ll Michaelmas and I will pay you and if this was sufficient cause of Action was the question on a Demurrer Davies The promise is voyd because it is after the death of the wife Yelverton The Action will lye because he hath the â—oods in his possession and therefore is chargeable and must answer for them and therefore there is a good consideration And he cited Godfreys Case who laid claim to a Copyhold and the Copyholder in possession said to him If the opinion of the Lord Cook be that Godfrey hath a good title to it I will surrender it to him and because he did not surrender to him Godfrey brought an Action on the Case and it was adjudged that the staying of the suit was a sufficient consideration to have an Action on the Case Yelverton If the promise had been to pay this Legacy in consideration he would not sue him then it had been good Williams If there be no cause of suit there is no assumpsit and here is no just cause for he cannot be sued for Legacies Flemming of the same opinion for the husband cannot be sued by the Plaintiff and although perhaps the Legatee may sue him in the spirituall Court yet that is only for the temporall administration And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Defendant Michaelm 9. Jacob. Kempe and James against Laurence in C. B. Rot. 3648. IN a scire facias the case was thus Gant having two daughters made his wife Executrix untill his daughters came to the age of 21. years or should be married and then the Executorship should cease and that then his daughters should be his Executors and the woman did recover a debt upon a bond made to the Testator after which the daughters marryed the Plaintiffs and they brought the scire facias upon the said Judgment against the Defendants as terre-tenants and the Sheriff return'd the Defendants terre-tenants and no others and upon Oyer of the scire facias the Defendants pleaded that H. was seâ—sed of those lands die Judicii reddit and made a Lease for years to them Iudgment c. Nichols The daughters shall have this judgment as Executors for they are in privity and in by the Testator and are not like an Administrator who comes in by the Ordinary after the death of the Executor 6 H. 8.7 Cook 5. Rep. Brudnells Case and the daughters are Executors and subject to debts of the Testator And as to the plea he said that forasmuch as the Defendants are returned terre-tenants they cannot plead that they are but tenants for years and that their Lessor is not warned for the scire facias is a personall action to have execution but of the goods but in a reall action it is a good plea because the lessor himself cannot plead in discharge of such action 8 H. 6.32 And note that Michaelm 43 44. Eliz. Rot. 834. Iudgment in the very same point was given accordingly Trinit 9 Jacob. Information against West in C. B. Rot. 1246. IN an Information upon the Statute of the 5 of Ed. 6. cap. 14. for buying of wheate-meale and converting it into starch It was resolved by three of the
the Reversion Warburton I conceive he shall have the Ayde 7 H. 4.2 where ayde is prayed against him in the Remainder and Reversion and and he cited a Manuscript 11 R. 2. direct in the point that the ayde would lye But the other Iustices cont for the Tenant for life hath as high an estate as he in the remainder and may plead all that the other may but if there be Tenant for life the remainder in Taile there he shall have ayde of the Tenant in Taile 23 H. 6.6 11 Edw. 3.16 If there be Tenant for life the remainder for life the remainder in Fee tenant for life shall have ayde of them both for else he in the remainder shall not come in to plead 11 E. 3. ayde 32. Where it is resolved that tenant for life shall have ayde of the Reversioner for life Hillar 28 Eliz. VVatkins against Astwick A Man makes a feofment on condition that if he his heirs or Executors do pay the Rent of 100 l. before such a day that he may re-enter the Feoffer dyes his heire within age the mother without any notice of the son requests J.S. that he would pay the money for her son And all this was found by speciall verdict but it was not found of what age the son was Clinch If the Iury had found that the son was of the age of 17 years the payment had been good Wray If a Bond be upon condition that the Obligor or his heirs should pay 100 l. and the Obligor dyes his heire within age I conceive payment by the Guardion or by some other friend is good And afterwards all the Iustices agreed That if the Infant were within the age of 14. years the tender of the money by his mother had been good but contra if he had been more than 14 years and because no age was proved here but that he was within age it shall not be intended that he was within the age of 14. years and therefore they advised the party to begin de novo and that it may be found that the Infant was within the age of 14. years Trinit 25. Eliz. Moris against Paget in C. B. Rot. 2215. IN a Replevin a speciall Verdict was found that Sir Francis Ascough was seised of the Mannor of Castor in Lincolne which Mannor extended it self into four Towns v z. Castor North Kelsey Dale â—ale and that there were demesne lands and Freeholders in each of the said Towns and that Moris the Plaintiff held the land where c by Fealty and suit of Court to the Mannor of Castor and the lands did lie in one of the Towns viz. in Norch Kelsey And Ascough being so seised sold to the Defendant Totum illud Manerium sive Dominium de North Kelsey cum pertinentiis in North Kelsey ac omnia ac singula Messuagia redditus Herriot and all other things used or reputed as parcell thereof with all Courts c. To have and to hold to the Vendee and his heires and Moris the Plaintiff and other freeholders in North Kelsey did attorne to the Vendee The Question was if the Vendee had the Mannor of North Kelsey or not Peryam He has not yet by the feofment and attornment all the Tenants and services are conveyed to him but not as a Mannor for a Mannor is made and incorporate by continuance of time and this entire Mannor of Castor cannot be divided no more than other liberties as if the King grant to three partners who have three Mannors a Leet or Warren and one of them makes a feofment the Feofee shall not have the Leet and heâ—tted Dyer 362. a. and he sayd if I grant my Mannor of â—except certain Demesn lands and services the feofee shall have the Mannor and I shall have the Lands and services in grosse and so if I have a Mannor that extends into two Towns and I grant my Mannour to you in one Town you shall have no Mannor but the lands and services in gross Windham Iustice cont For where he grants his Mannor of North Kelsey in North Kelsey there it shall be construed his Mannor in reputation Ander on agreed for although a Mannor cannot be created at this day yet is it not so intire but it may be divided Hillar 30. Elizab. Sir Thomas Howards Case A Man makes a Lease for years the 10th of May and then the Lessor bargains and sells this to another by Deed enroll'd bearing date the 10th of Aprill and it was entred to be conveyed the 10th of Aprill before but in truth it was delivered and acknowledged and enrolled afterwards And it was held that the bargaine was without remedy at the Common Law for he cannot plead that it was acknowledged or delivered after the date of the day of acknowledging it and so was the opinion of Rhodes Peryam and Windham Anderson being absent for he cannot aver that it was inrolled or acknowledged at another day then it is recodred because it is contrary to the Record for it is entred that it was acknowledged the 10 of Aprill and then if such a plea should be admitted it would shake most of the Assurances in England Note Shuttleworth put this case A man makes a Lease rendring Rent at two Feasts and if the Rent be behind at any of the said Feasts or 40. dayes after and no distress to be found that the Lessor shall re-enter the Lessor comes upon the ground the last day of the 40. and demands his Rent and because no distress was sound on the land at the time of his demand he entred But it was averred that always before this day there was sufficient distress and the question was if his entry were good Fenner and Rhodes said they had seen a Report of the same Ease 8 Eliz. That the distress ought to be on the Land on the last day yea at the last instant of the day which is a legall time to make a demand or else the Lessor may enter Walmsley The same Ease was resolved a year agoe in the Kings Bench between Ward and VVare But if it were and no distress to be found at any time within forty dayes there if there be a distress found at any time it is sufficient Vid. 1. Inst 202. a. 28 Eliz. VVood against Ash IN a Replevin the Ease was thus Puttenham made a Lease of Land with a Stock of Sheep for 20. years rendring Rent and the Lessee doth Covenant to render back to him at the expiration of the Lease 1000 Sheepe of the age of three or four years and that the Lessor grants all his Chattells and this stock of Sheepe to Elizabeth Vavafor the Defendants now wife but in Truth the Sheepe of the old stock were all spent and others supplyed part by increase and part by buying of other Sheepe Walmesley for the Defendant The grant made by the Lessor is good for the generall propertie does remain in him although that the Lessee hath a speciall
shall present for there is no reason the patron should for by his precedent presentment he hath dismist himself untill resignation or death as if a man lets land for another mans life he shall not have the land during the life of Cestuy que vie great mischief would be if it should not be so for els all the presentments that the King hath made shal be usurpations The second matter was that no presentment is pleaded against the King by the Patron for it is pleaded that the Parson was admitted and instituted but not that he was inducted but the Court held it good notwithstanding that omission But as to the first point the Court asked Williams if he could shew presidents that the King should have such presentment for they said that the usage by the Pope is no argument at all for that he used to usurpe many things Walmesley I conceive this custome began by the Popes usurpation but he said there is a Book in the time of Edâ— 2. where this point is argued and adjudged that the Patron shall present and not the King VVilliams shewed eight or nine Presidents in the time of H. 8. that the King used to present in such case but all of them were between spirituall persons And the Court said they did not regard those presidents for all spirituall persons were the Popes servants vid. 6 Elizab. 72.8 South against Whitewit IN a prohibition the case was thus the wife of VVhitewit had spoken scandalous words of South and therefore the was excommunicated by the high Commissioners and by Letters Missive a Pursevant came at twelve of the clock at night and broke the house of VVoâ—tewit and tooke the body of VVhi ewâ—… wife who was rescued wherefore VVhitewit her husband was called before the Commissioners and hereupon VVhitew t prayed a prohibition And the question was if a Pursevant could break a house by such Commission or not And it was agreed that by the Common Law neither the Pope nor any other spirituall Iudge had any thing to do with the body and goods of any one for only the sword spirituall belongs unto them VValmesley At the Common Law after Excommunication a Capias Excommunicaâ—um was awarded and I conceive this writ is of force at this day and is not taken away by the Statute of 5 Eâ—…z Kingsmâ—ll agreed for this Statute gives power onely to correct the spirituall law and to take away the authority of the Pope but gives the same means to execute it as before and he further said that the Statute that did erect the Court of Wards doth appoint a Seale belonging to it and other process according to the course of the Common Law and therefore by the same reason if this Statute of â— Eliz. intended to give them such authoritie they would have appointed a Seale also and a course according to the Common Law but as the course is here used a man may be robb'd in his house by a beggerly Pursevant which is no Officer known by the Law And so was the opinion of the Iustices Pasch 40 Eliz. Goosey against Pot in C. B. IN a Replevin the Case was thus two Hundreds were adjoyning together to two several Mannoure of two several persons and the avowant was seized of one of them and he prescribed that all the Tenants of the other Hundred have used to make suit to the Leet within his Hundred and also that the Lord of the other Hundred used to appear or to pay him 4 s. pro anno futuro and if it were not paid the Defendant prescribed that he and all those whose estates he hath have used to distreyn any Inhabitant within the Hundred for the same and therefore for 4 s. not paid he did avow the Distress whithin the Mannour of the Plaintiff who was one of the Inhabitants Williams A man may prescribe by a que estate in a Hundred for a man may have it by disseisin and there are divers presidents which the Prothonotaries have shewed me to warrant this in a Replevin for the seisin is the matter of the title And to this Littletons rule may be added that of all things which lye in grant and whereof a man cannot be disseised against his will a man shall not plead a que estate Kingsmall A que estate cannot be pleaded of a Hundred unless if be appendant to the Mannour and a second matter was moved in this Case viz. that he prescribed to distreyn the Cattle of a stranger for the essence of the Lord. Williams It is not good by the 41 Ed. 3. but by the 47 Ed. 3. for suit and service the Cattle of the Lord may be distreyned on any land within the Hundred Anderson I do agree to the Case of my Lord Dyer that the Cattle of a stranger cannot be taken for a Herriot Walmesley In the 12 of H. 7. it is said by Fineux that a Lord of a Mannour may inlarge his services by prescription and so the Cattle of a stranger may be taken but for a personal matter as for amercement in default of suit no stranger may be distreyned And afterwards agreed by all the Iustices that the strangers Cattle could not be distreyned Holt against Lister IN a Replevin the Case was thus he in the reversion after Tenant in Dower grants it over to the use of himself for life the remainder to his nert son in Tail the remainder to the use of himself in Fee and after this he levyes a Fine to the Plaintiff and his heirs of land which he claimeth de haered tate sua after the death of the Tenant in Dower The Plaintiff brought a Quid Juris clamat against the Tenant in Dower and upon non sum informatus Iudgement was given that the Tenant should attorn and now he prayed that she should not attorn for if she atterns she will torfeit her estate Walmesley If he in the remainder for life grants over by Fine it is no forfeiture for he gives no more right than he hath and so hath it been adjudged in the time of my Lord Dyer Glanvill I agree to that but in this Case he grants that which he hath de haereditate sua and this recital will make a forfeiture and then if the Tenant in Dower attorn this is a forfeiture Anderson This attornment is no forfeiture because it is by judgement of the Court. Walmesley I agree for the Grant it self is no forfeiture unless it be by reason of the recital but the Attornment shall have relation onely to the substance of the Grant And it was much disputed between Walmsley and Glanvill If Lessee for life of a Rent grants this in Fee by Fine if this be a forfeiture and Walmesley vouched a Iudgement that it was no forfeiture and Glanvill voucht 31 Ed. 3. Grant 60. to the contrary and 15 Ed. 4.9 by Littleton If Lessee for life of a Rent grants this by Fine in Fee it is a forfeiture by reason of the
reverse a fine levies by them against both 21 VVhere two persons bring a writ of Error and the Tenant pleads the release of one it shall bind both 22 Against the stile of a Court for not saying secundâ—m consuetudinem 50 For want of the addition of the Defendants name 58 VVho shall have a writ of Error to a-avoid a recovery and whether the heir generall or speciall shall have it 68 VVhere the heire shall have this writ and where the Executors 147 Escheat No Escheat to the Lord where the Felony is pardoned before attainder 87 Estovers Turbary leased and the Lessee converts half to arrable and then grants totum turbarium 67 Execution VVhere the Sheriff delivers a Mannor cum pertinentiis in execution what passeth thereby 4 VVhere a writ of execution is good against one attaint of felony 69 Executors Where an action grounded on a simple Contract will be against Executors 57 VVhere the second administration shall repeal the first 50 In what case Executors shall have an action for things done in the life of the Testator 99 VVhere Executors shall be said to be Assignees 125 Where an Administrator or Executor shall be said to take by purchase 125 Extent VVhere the Sheriff extends a Mannor by the name of acres land Meadow and wood what passeth 4 Felony and Felons FElony of a Shepheard to steal Sheep 52 VVhat persons shall keep felons goods 121 Fine VVhere the husband and wife shall bring a writ of Error to reverse a fine levied by them 21. in error Where in a mistake in a fine shall be remedied 42 Fish Whether the Heire or Executors shall have the fish in a Pond 20 Where waste will lye for taking fish 19 Forfeiture Executors cannot forfeit goods to charritable uses 33 Frankmarriage The necessity of the word Frankmariage in the gift and the nature and quality of the estate 26 Gift in Frankmarriage after the Espousall good 26 Where a gift in Frankmarriage shall be by matter ex post facto be made an estate in tail or other estate 27 Grants WHat passeth by this grant PanagiuÌ„ by the grant of acorns 35 What passeth by the grant of pastura terrae 37 Grant to I.S. and there be many of that name to whom it shal be intended 64 Habendum LEase of a Mannor habendum with all the members what passeth 31 Lease to one habendum to three others for their lives and the longer liver successively what estate 38 39 Lease to husband and wife primogenito what estate 40 Heire Where the heir shall have the rent reserved in a Lease for years 9 Where the Heir Tenant of the King in Socage shall enter without livery 116 Inditement FOr drawing a Sword in Westminster-hall the Courts then sitting 120 Infant Where payment or tender of money for an Infant is good and at what age 137 Inrolement Where the Bargainee shall be accounted Tenant of the land before the Inrolment 69 When the use passeth by the Inrolm 149 Joynt-tenants and Tenants in Common Lease made by them rendring rent to one of them both shall have the rent 9 Many cases declaring what acts are good by one Joynt-tenant to another and what not 102 Joynture Where an assurance made to a woman for her Joynt-ture shall be good by averment although not expressed in the Deed 33 Judgment Reverst in an action of debt for declaring less then is alledged in the writ 35 Jury Jury eat before verdict the verdict good 38 Jury finding out of their Issue 91 Jury-man returned that is no freeholder 44 Leases LEase to a man by these words Dedi concessi confirmavi 9 Of a house excepting one Chamber 20 Of him that hath nothing in the land 96 Sub hac conditione si vixerit vidua habitaret super pramiss the Lessee dies how the term continues 107.108 Of three acres and of the Mannor habend three acres and the Mannor for 21. years severall Demises 119 Lessee assigns over and continues possession 142 Lord and Tenant Feoffment of the Tenant to the Lord 31 Where the Tenant enfeoffs the Lord of a Moyety and the Seigniory is extinct how to be observed 37.73 Mannor WHat passeth by this word Cite of a Mannor 31 Lease of a Mannor habend all the Members what passeth 31.138 How a Mannor may be divided 138 Grant of a Mannor in one Town that extends it self into two Towns 138 Master and Servants Where the Master may justify for the man and where the man for the Master 151 Nobility VVHere the woman shall lose her Nobility or Dignity by marriage 81 By what act a man shal lose his Nobility 82 Obligation Statute-merchant and Staple Recognizance WHere tryall on a Bond shall be within the Realm though the Condition to be performed without 6 Two bound in a Bond and the Seale of one taken away yet the Bond good 8 Action brought againg the Heir of the Obligor as heir apparent the Father being dead not good 17.119 Obligation wants in cujus rei testimonium good 33 Where an action of debt on a bond for money to be paid at severall times shall be sued before the last payment and where not 42 One bound by a wrong name 48 What shall be said to be no delivery of a bond althoug the Defendant seal it and layes it on the Table and the Obligee takes it up 95 In what case the Obligee shall be accounted a party to the cause why the Obligation cannot be performed 104 Where two shall joyn in Audita quaerela on a Statute and where not 106 Where Conditions on Bonds shall be void in Law 143 Outlawry A Disseisee outlawed shall not forfeit his Lands 3 Where an Outlawry pleaded shall be taken for a Dilatory plea where not 22 Pious uses GOods given to pious uses not forfeitable by Executors and what remedy gainst the Executors 33 34 Pawne He that hath a Pawn hath no interest therin to deliver it one to another 123 How a man may make use of Goods or Cattell pawned to him 124 Parceners and Partition Where they shal joyn in waste 11 The writ of Partition returned how good 31 Payment Demand Tender Amends Where request to pay money must be made and where not 7 Where the Law will expound to whom a tender must be made 10 Who shal tender for the heir within age 34 Where payment of rent to him that extends the land shall save the Condition against the Lessor 38 Where severall actions for payment shal be brought on a Bond or Contract at the severall dâ—ies and where not till all the da es are past 42 Payment in debt on a bond pleaded at the day and given in evidence before the day good 45 Tender in trespass not good otherwise in Replevin 48 Where the Obligor shall give the Obligee notice when he will tender the money and where not 108 Where on Bonâ— given for payment of rent the Lessee shall demand the rent where not 111 Pleas
607. Replevin WAkefeild brought a Replevin against Cassand who avowed for Damage-feasant And the Plaintiff prescribed that D. is an ancient Town c. and that all the Inhabitants within the said Town except the Parâ—ion Infants and some particular houses have used to have Common to their houses c. The Avowant shewed that the house to which Common was claimed was built within thirty years last past And whether he shall have Common to this new erected house was the question on a Demurrer Shuttleworth he shall have this Common by prescription but not of common right Gawdy the Prescription is against common reason that he should have Common time cut of mind c. to that which hath not been thirty years and he hath excepted the Parson Infants and such particular houses and by the same reason may exceptall and therefore it is not good But it was adjudged no good Prescription for if this be a good Prescription then any body may create a new house so that in long space of time there will be no Common for the ancient Inhabitants Periam By such Prescription the Lord shall be barred to improve the Common which is against reason Anderson The Common is intire for if H. hath Common appendant to three Messuages and enfeoff one of one Messuage another of the second and another of the third the Common in this case is gone But all agreed that it is impossible to have a Common time out of mind c. for a house that is builded within the thirty years Mich. 29 and 30 Eliz. Rot. 2299. Bishop of Lincolns Case Quare Impedit THe Queen brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Lincoln and Thomas Leigh to present to the Church of Chalsenut Saint Giles in the County of Bucks The case was thus H. being qualified took two Benefices which were above the value of eight pounds and after took a third Benefice above the said value whereby the first Benefice became void and so remained for two years whereby Title of Lapse accrued to the Queen and before presentment made by the Queen the Patron did present one A. who being admitted instituted and inducted did refuse to pay 38 l. 2 s. ob due to the Queen for the Tenths which matter was certified by the Bishop into the Exchequer whereupon and by force of the Statute of the 26 H. 8. the Church is ipso facto void wherefore the Bishop the now Defendant being Patron in right of his Bishoprick did present Thomas Leigh the other Defendant against whom the Queen brought her Quare Impedit And it was adjudged by the Court that the Quare Impedit very well lies for the Recusancy to pay the Tenths was his own act and is a Resignation and by that reason she Church is void and this shall not hinder the Queen of the Lapse But if A. the Incumbent who was presented dies being presented by usurpation upon the Lapse to the Queen yet afterwards the right Patron shall present again But when A. the Incumbent doth resigne and make the Church void by his own Act viz. by Recusancy as in this case is done this may be done by Collusion and by such means the Queen may be deprived of her Litle by Lapse for if this Collusion between the Bishop and the Incumbent be suffered then may a stranger present upon the Title of the Queen and presently such Recusancy and Certificate may be made by which the Church shall become void and so the Queen deprived of the Lapse Fenner this Lapse is given to the Queen by her Prerogative but on condition that she take it in due time for such is the nature of the thing Lapsed as is in this case adjudged viz. That when the Queen hath Title to present by Lapse and doth not present but the Patron presents and after the Church becomes void by the death of the Incumbent In this case adjudged by the Court also the Queen cannot present but in this case the avoidance being by privation and not by death Iudgment was entred for the Queen Trin. 19 Eliz. in Com. B. Hales Case Debt on â— Bond. SAmuel Hales brought an Action of Debt on a Bond against Edward Bell and the Condition of the Bond was that if the said Bell should pay to the said Hales forty pounds within forty daies next after the return of one Russell into England from the City of Venice beyond the Seas that then the Obligation to be void and the Defendant pleaded in Bar that the said Russell was not in Venice upon which the Plaintiff demurred And adjudged by all the Iustices that it was no good plea for in such cases where parcell is to be done within the Realm and parcell out of the Realm the tryall shall be within the Realm 7 H 7.9 Trin. 28 Eliz. in Com. Ban. Haveringtons Case 1974. Debt by an Administrator HAverington and his wife as Administratrix of one Isabell Oram brought an Action of Debt against Rudyand and his wife Executrix to one Laurence Kidnelly the Case appeared to be thus Farmer for thirty years did devise to his wife so long as she shall be sole and a Widow the occupation and profits of his terme And after her Widowhood the Residue of the terme in the Lease and his interest in it to Reynald his Son the Devisor dies and the wife enters according to the Devise And afterwards he in the Reversion by Indenture Dedit concessit vendidit Barganizavit totum illud tenementum suum to the wife and her Heires and did also covenant to make further assurance and to discharge the said Tenement of all former Bargains Sales Rights Joyntures Dowers Mortgages Statute-merchants and of the Staple Intrusions Forfeitures Condemnations Executions Arrearages of Rents and of all other charges except Rents Services which shall be hereafter due to the Lords Paramount And then the Reversioner and his wife levied a Fine to the uses aforesaid and after the Devisee takes husband and thereupon the Son enters in the terme And the Administrator of the wife brought an action of debt upon an Obligation for the performance of the Covenants of the Indenture against the Administrator of the Reversioner And Judgment for the Plaintist And it appeared by the Record that these points following were adjudged to be Law although that the latter matter was onely argued 1. That the wife of the Reversioner who had Title of Dower in the Land is concluded of her right of Dower by the Declaration of the uses of the Fine by the husband onely which Fine is after levied by them joyntly because no contradiction of the woman appears that she doth not agree to the Vses which the husband selely by his Deed of Indenture had declared 2. To Devise that the wife shall have the occupation and profits during her Widowhood is a good Devise of the Land it self during such time See Plow 524. And that no Act which she can do