stand seised to the use of Adams untill he made default of paiment of the said sum and then they should stand seised to the use of the Queen untill she were satisfied and payed and then to the use of Adams and his Heirs And after Adams by deed enrolled sold the Land to a stranger in Fee and after the said stranger failed in paiment of the said yearly sum whereby the Queen seised the Land and so continued untill she was satisfied now the question was who should have the Lands Adams or the Bargainee Anderson Ifyou will take the case according to the words it is short tell me what Estate had Adams by this Limitation Puckering A Fee determinable Anderson How then can the Bargainee have it when the Estate is determined Puckering But the Fee was limited to Adams and his Heirs Possibility cannot be granted nor released Anderson This is but a possibility which cannot be granted over And if I were a Chancellor Adams should not have the Land but upon the words I tell you my mind alii Justie conticuerunt 3. DAniel Bettenham Plaintif against Debora Harlackendon Reversion upon a devise the case was this one Harlack was seised and deviseth it to the Plaintif for years the Remainder to the Defendant being his Wife for life and provided that the Lessee should pay the Wife xx l. a year for Rent at two Feasts and after the Plaintif failed of payment wherby the Wife entred for the Condition broken Anderson Wherefore may not a man make Reservation upon a Devise Peryam A man may reserve to himself or to his 〈◊〉 but this is to a stranger Anderson Every man which takes by a Devise is in in the per by the Devisor quod fuit concessum wherefore then shall not this be as a Reservationto the Devisor and as a grant of the Reversion to the Wife Gandy If it shall be a firm in gross Sum in gross yet I think that she ought to demand it which she hath not done Anderson and Rodes denyed that case clearly and that the contrary hath been adjudged Anderson If I Devise Lands to a man for years rendring Rent to me and mine Heirs Devise of a Reversion after a Term. And after I Devise the Reversion he shall have the Rent as incident to the Reversion Peryam This may be agreed but the cases are not like adjornatur 4. IN debt by Rostock Waging of Law the case was that the Plaintif and another made a Contract with the Defendant and the Plaintif alone brought the Action and Walmisley moved the Court if the Defendant may wage his Law for it is not the same Contract and he cited 20 Hen. 6. account before Auditors where it was but before one Auditor he may wage his Law 35 Hen. 6. is an express case in the point And so was the opinion of the Court Anderson absente 5. A Writ of Entry sur diss Voucher was brought by Sir Thomas Sherly against Grateway who vouched one Brown and he entred into the Warranty saving to himself a Rent issuing out of the same Land and this was allowed by the Court and the Voucher was in a Writ of entry for a Common Recovery to be had 6. EDward Smith brought his Action of the case against Winner Slander for words viz I was robbed of goods to the value of 40. l. they were stollen by Smith and his Houshold ipsum Edwardum ac quosdam Eliz. xuorem ac L. F. servientem ejus muendo and the issue was found for the Plaintif And the Defendant spake in arrest of Judgement because S. alone brought the Action But all the Court said that the Action is well brought for the slander is severall And Peryam that if 〈◊〉 a man say that three have robbed him Vno flatu and name them uno 〈◊〉 every of them may have a severall Action 7. IN an Assise by Thatcher where he was Redisseised Redisseisin the Redisseâ—â— was found in part and thereupon the Court was moved if Redisseisin will lie in as much as it is not but of part and the Writ is if he be Redissesitus de â—odem teneâ—â—nto then Redisseisin lieth but the Court held that Redisseisin lieth of part and that he shall recover damages as they are assessed by the Jury and not by the 〈◊〉 Then it was moved if Redisseisin lieth in Middlesex or 〈…〉 Fleetwood saith that the ancient Expositors have taken it that it doth not lie there because it is not coram lustic itinerant but all the Court held the contrary And Walmisley said that there be Writs in the Register accordingly 8. THe Earl of Kent brought debt upon an Obligation indorced with Condition Time convenient that if the Defendant do permit the Plaintif his Exâ—cutorâ—s and Assignes not onely to thresh the Corn in the Defendants Barn but allso to cary it away from time to time and at all times hereafter convenient with free Egress and Regress or else to pay 8 l. upon request that then c. and in truth the Defendant permited the Corn to be there two years in which time Mice and Rats had devoured much of it and then the Defendant threshed the Residue and the Earl brought his Action and there was a demurrer entred Walmisley the Bond is not forfeit for the Earl hath not taken it out in time convenient for he ought to take it in time convenient and time convenient is that which is not prejudiciall to any person which the Justices privily denyed and here it is a prejudice to the Defendant if the Plaintif will not carry away his Corn and thereupon he cited many cases that things shall be done in time convenient Arbitrement as in 21 Ed. 4. arbitrement ought to be made in time convenient Anderson Your cases are by act in Law but here you have bound your selves and the Condition is at time convenient and if he will come in the night or on the Sabbath day this is no convenient time but allthough that he come in a long time after yet it may be at time convenient and the words are not within time convenient and so was the opinion of the Court. And Windham said that if it had been within time convenient there would have been a difference 9. MIchael Hare and 3 others brought an Action of Trespass quare clausum fregit Trespass and Assigned the place in sixteen Acres of Land called Churchclose Contents of a new assignment and the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Jury found a speciall Verdict that Churchclose conteyneth fixty Acres whereof those sixteen were parcell and that diverse men were seised of divers other parcells of the said close and that Hare only was seised of the said sixteen Acres in which c. exposuit eas to the three other Plaintifs to be sown and that he should find half the seed and they three should find the other
by Verdict tryed for the Plaintif And Gerrard pleaded in arrest of Judgement for that there is no bail entred for the bail is for Gerrat and his name is Gerrard Cook Attorney He may be known both by the one name and the other For in Norfork there is a Knight which in Common speech is called Barmeston but his right name is Barnardiston And if he by the name of Barmeston put in bail in this Court it is good being knowen by the one and other and so it seemed the Court did incline for the dangerousness of the President For otherwise every man impleaded may give a false name to his Attorney by which he will be bailed and then Plead that in arrest of Judgement but Judgement was giuen for the Plaintif 49. IN debt upon an Obligation Notice of a retorn from beyond sea the Condition was that if the Obligee retorned from beyond Sea before the 22 of Aprill and the Obligor pay to the said Obligee 200. l. before the twenty seventh of Aprill then the Obligation to be void Otherwise to stand in force Cook moved that the Obligee ought to give notice to the Obligor of his retorning from beyond Sea before the two and twentith day of Aprill or otherwise the Obligor is not bound to pay him the money For when a thing resteth in the will of another to be done and the time is uncertain when it shall be done Then notice ought to be given to him which ought to do the thing as 18 19 Eliz. 354. placiâ— 32. 17 Eliz. A man made a Lease for years And after made a new Lease to Commence after determination Forfeiture or Surrender of the first Lease with clause of Re-entry for non payment of the Rent And after the Lessor took a secret surrender of the first Lessee and after that surrender a Rent day incurred and the Rent was not paid by the second Lessee and yet adjudged that his Estate is not void because the other ought to give him notice of the Surrender Gawdy The case is not alike for 8 Edw. 4. a man ought to take notice of an Abitrement Fenner It shall be as dangerous for the Obligee if he ought to give notice as for the other to take notice 50. STafford brought an Action of Trespass against Bateman Distress for issues for of a strangers beasts Levant for taking of a Cow The Defendant said that the Land where the Trespass was supposed to be made is the Land of one Iohn Dean The which I. D. hath lost iiij l. issues to the Queen and there came a Warrant out of the Exchequer to the now Defendant being undersherif to levy the said iiij l. in the Lands of the said I. D. And because this Cow was Levant and Couchant within the said Land he took her as lawfull was for him to doe Gawdy Fenner The Sherif may not take Beasts of a stranger in the Land of him that hath lost issues to the Queen Popham By way of distress he may take Beasts of a stranger if they be Levant and Couchant upon the Land of him that hath lost issues but not to sell them and so to levy the Issues 51. ERror was brought by An. Latham Error upon a Judgement given against him in a Writ of Debt in the Common place and the Error assigned was for that the Originall Writ was purchased against him by the name of A. L. nuper de London Yeoman alias A. L. de Sherbâ—â—â— in Com. Ebor. Variance in the alias no error Yeoman And upon that the said An. L. appeared and pleaded and was condemned and after a Capias ad satisfaciend issued against him by the name of A. L. nuper de L. Yeoman alias A. L. de Shelbâ—â—â— in Com. Ebor. Yeoman and so he assigned the variance between the first Originall and the Capias ad satisfaciendum Shelbone for Sherbone but for that this variance was not in the first name but in the first Addition therefore it was adjudged no Error by the opinion of the Court. 52. LAugford and Bushy did present by turns to the Advowson of Norwinkfield Quare imp Langford presented one A. which was instituted Pasch 43 Eliz and inducted and dyed Bushy presented one C. which C. was lawfully deprived by the Bishop of Coventrey and Lichfield without giving any notice to Langford who had the next turn The Bishop made Collation and after Collation Langford sold his moity to Lee Collation before notice and Lee to the Earl of Shrewsburie The question was whether by the Collation Langford hath lost his turn The Court seemed to incline that by the Collation the turn is lost for if it had been by usurpation it had been lost without any question And yet it seemeth that upon deprivation the Patron ought to have notice Vide Statut. de 13 Eliz. 53. YElverton the Queens Serjeant demanded the opinion of the Court Devise if a man be seised of land in Fee and have two Daughters onely and deviseth his land to his Daughters in Fee if now the two Daughters shall be Joyntenants or take by descent as parceners and the opinion of the Court was that they are in by the Devise and not by descent and so they shall be in as Joyntenants and not as Parceners but otherwise it shall be if there were but one Daughter and the Father devise the land to her so if he devise the land to his Son and Heir in fee. 54. NEcton and Sharp Executors of Throward sued a Prohibition against Gennet and others Prohibition for a Legacy and the case was that one that had a Legacy devised unto him sued the now Plaintifs being Executors for the sayd Legacy in the Spiritual Court and the Executors there pleaded that the Testator in his life time made a certain Obligation sufficient in Law to J. S. the which is not yet satisfied and the Spirituall Court would not allow this Plea for which he had a Prohibition Makin Attorney of Essex sayd to me that this is the second case in question of this point but he doubted that the pleading was so vitiouâ— that the matter in Law would not come in question Executors represent the person of their Testator and therefore if a release be made by one of them Action confessed by one Executor by admittance this shall bind all and so if an Action is brought against one Executor where there be divers Executors and he admit the Writ and confess the Action this shall bind all the goods of the dead as well as if they were all named Per Hâ—rn 55. GReningham brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation against Ewer Election The Condition was that if the said Ewer doe deliver unto the said Greningham certain Obligations which the said Ewer hath of the sayd Greninghams or else doe seale such a release as the said G. shall devise before Mich. that then c. The Defendant
for it is a maxim Nullum tempus occurrit Regi Peryam If the Freehold be in the Alien untill office found Trespass if a trespass be committed who shall punish it for he shall have no Action Fenner That is true and so it is of a Monk if he be a disseisor Monk and yet the freehold is in him Shuttelworth And so it is of a person atteinted Atteynted person and yet before office found the freehold is not in the Queen Rodes It is Dyer 11 Eliz. fol. 283. Feoffment to use If a man enfeoffee an Alien and a Denison to his use that the Queen shall have the moity whereby it seemeth that the confirment is voyd Anderson I hold this rule for certain that in every feoffment there is feoffer and feoffee and if there be a feoffee he must of necessity take wher by I think the confirmation is good Rodes Is this case hanging in this Court Fenner No Sir Windham Wherefore then doe you move it in this Court And afterwards the question being demanded of Shuttelworth by divers Barristers he made answer Truly in my opinion it is not in the Queen before office found and therefore I think the confirmation is good Quaere 5. AN Attorney of the Common Pleas brought an action of debt against another Misdemeaner whereupon he was arrested in the Country and when he came to London the Attorney caused him to be arrested in London for the same debt and this was shewed to the Court and the Attorney called to whom Anderson said if a man be sued here for a debt and after be arrested in another Court for the same debt the penaltie is fine and imprisonment and that is both the law and the custom of this Court wherefore then have you done this surely we will send you to the Fleet for your labour Attorney I beseech you my Lord consider my estate Anderson I have well considered it and that is that you shall goe to the Fleet and therfore Warden of the Fleet take him to you Windham We will punish such gross faults in you more severely than in others because you are an Attorney here and your fault is so much the greater by how much you are skilful in the law and customs of this Court wherefore you shall goe to the Fleet. De Term. Mic. Anno xxix Eliz. 1. IN the case of Sellenger Annuity it was said by Anderson and agreed by the Court that if a man grant an Annuity out of Land and hath nothing in the Land that yet this shall be good to charge the Grantor in a Writ of Annuity and in the same case it was allso agreed by the Court that if a man grant an Annuity to a Woman who takes a Husband and after Arrerages do incur and the Wife dye so that the Annuity is determined that the Husband shall have an Action of debt for the Arrerages by the Common Law Shuttleworth This is not remedied by the Statute of Arrerages of Rents and then at the Common Law it is but a thing in Action Peryam An Annuity is more than a thing in Action Windham He may grant it over and so the opinion of the whole Court was that debt was maintenable 2. AT the same day it was said by Anderson Executor and not gainsaid that if an Executor plead ne unque administer come executor yet afterwards he may take the Administration upon him and well enough be Executor 3. IN a Replevin by Bosse against Hawtrey Triall by provise they were at Issne Termino Mic. An. 28. 29. And Bosse had a venire facias in Termino Mic. retournable in Termino Hill and after in Termino Hill took an alias retournable in Termino Pasch and so awarded it in the Roll of Mic. to the intent that the matter should not be tried at the Assises in Kent and thereupon Hawtrey which was Avowant moved the Court and prayed expedition whereupon the Court caused the Roll to be brought in and notwithstanding that it was a Roll of Mic. Term yet because it was awarded the same Term they mended the Roll and awarded the alias retournable the same Term of Hill 4. WYlgus brought an Action of Trespass against Welche quare clausum fregit Travers Welche said Trin. 28. Eliz. rot 537. that I. W. was seised and enfeoffed May and so conveyed a title to himself the Plantif replyed that A. his Auncestor was seised and so the Land descended to him Absque hoc that I. W. was seised and upon this Issue the Court was moved Anderson the seisin is not traversable but where it is materiall and therefore clearly the Traverse is not good but Fenner cited a book in 2 Edw. 6. that the Travers shall be good but he stood not much upon it Snagg 27 Hen. 8. 4. Bro. pleadings 1. is contrary but the opinion of all the Court clearly was that the Travers is not good 5. A Man makes a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his Wife VVast alterius eorum diutius viventis absque impeticione vasti durantibus vitis ipsorum the Husband dies if the Wife shall hold without impeachment of wast or no was moved by the Serjeants And the opinion of all the Court was that she shall not be impeached of Wast because of the severance but otherwise if it had been Joyntly 6. FUlwood brought an action upon the case against Fulwood Action upon 〈◊〉 case and declared that whereas a motion of mariage was between the Defendant and a Widow in London in consideration that the Plaintif should give his assent that the Father of those Fulwoods should convey to the Defendant all his Lands and Chattells the Defendant promised to pay the Plaintif such a sum of money as their Father should assign Ac licet that the Plaintif had given his consent and that their said Father had assigned him to pay 37. l. yet the Defendant c. and he pleaded non assumpsit and it was found for the Plaintif and now Fenner spoke in arrest of Judgement for four causes First there is no consideration for the declaration is assensum suum daret so that he is at liberty to give his assent or no and so no perfect consideration The second is ac licet the Plaintif c. and doth not say in facto that he gave his assent The third is that he doth not say that he gave his assent when the Father had those Lands and Chattells The fourth is that in consideration the conveyance should be made to the Defendant and it appeareth that it was made to the Defendant and his Wife Shuttleworth To the contrary we have alleged in deed that he gave his assent and that is as much as if he had said in consideration that he gave his assent And allthough that the conveyance be to both yet it is in tayl to them and so the inheritance given to both And therefore that
Defendant shall be taken and shall make a Fine wherefore forasmuch as he shall recover no land the entry into the land cannot purge the offence and wrong which is made punishable by the Statute and so was the opinion of the whole Court And the Court then held opinion likewise that if a man be disseised and after re-enters and is disseised again Assise that he ought to have an Assise of the last entry and not of the first 27 Ass pl. 42. 4. ONe Powell was sued in the Common-Pleas Privilege and as he was coming to Westminster he was arrested in London and thereupon had a common Writ of Privilege surmising that he was coming to retain Counsell and Walmisley prayed that he might be examined whether he did so or no but the Court would not Walmisley It is no reason that if he be going about other matters he should have the privilege of this place Curia A hundred Writs have been allowed without any examination Walmisley In 10 Hen. 6. 4 Hen. 7. such an examination was made Anderson But that was not de rigore Juris and all the Court refused utterly to examine him But Walmisley sayd privily that it was against the Law 5. DOrothy Millington brought Debt against J. Burges for 9 l. and declared that he bought certain Oad Wager of Law and the truth of the case was this Oad was sold to him upon condition that if she did not prove it to be good and sufficient then he should pay nothing for it and all this was disclosed by the Defendant upon his Wager of Law Detinue Windham If the case be so then you may wage your Law and it was sayd that she must have detinue for the Oad 6. IN an Avowry made by the Lady Rogers Title in avowry it was sayd by the Court Anderson absente that it is sufficient for the Avowant to plead his Freehold but if the Plaintif will traverse the same he ought to make himself a title Nelson Pronotary so are all our Presidents Peryam It is not sufficient to make it of his own seisin but he must make it Paramount his own seisin 7. WAlmisley moved for Judgement in the case of Richard Hanington for the Plaintif For he sayd that it was not clearly discharged because of the possibility of the charge ensuing allthough the charge were not then presently executed in proof whereof he sayd that it is not all gone by the acceptance of the Feoffment and then it is a bargain for a Lease for years is a bargain for there he hath quid pro quo Allso it is a Title as in Nichols case in the Commentaries And then allthough he had nothing which he could release because it was casuall whether it shall happen or no yet now when it happens it is a charge ab initio and thereupon he cited 9 H. 6. where one which had nothing but a possibility may maintain And so where a man makes a Feoffment and covenants that it shall be discharged as here and afterwards his Wife recovers her Dower the Covenant is broken and yet it was but a possibility And 8 Eliz. where a man covenants that it shall be discharged and he had granted a Rent charge to begin twenty years after this was not discharged Fenner argued to the contrary for the reasons moved by him before Peryam Here allthough it be no charge at the time of the Feoffment yet it is not discharged for if it were discharged then it shall never be charged afterwards And so was the opinion of all the Court Anderson absente and after at the end of the Term when Anderson was present they were all agreed that it was an incumbrance and not discharged of the incumbrance and therefore they gave Judgement for the Plaintif 8. IN Avowry by Johns of Surrey Esquire Tenure it was sayd by Anderson for Law that if a man before the Statute of quia emptores terrarum makes a gift and reserveth to himself upon every alienation the value of the Land by a year this shall be adjudged according to the value of the Land at the time of the tenure and not that whereunto it is enhauâ—ced at this day for a tenure ought to be certain when it is made 9. â—Aven brought Debt upon an Obligation against Stockdale who pleaded non est factum Statute 23 H. 6 and the Jury in Norfolk found this specially Verdict that the Defendant was sued by the Plaintif and made a Bond to the Plaintif endorced with Condition that if the sayd S. did personally appear in the Queens Majesties Court called the Kings bench and then and there make answer to such matter as the Plaintif should object against him the sayd Plaintif giving him warning that then c. And the Plaintif was neither Sherif nor Sherifs Officer for the pretence of the Defendant was to avoyd it by the Statute of 23 Hen. 6. And now the Plaintif prayed Judgement Anderson The case is no more than this A man is bound to another to appear at his suit in the Kings-bench and doth not so if this Obligation shall be avoyded and I see no colour to avoyd it for it is not within the Statute and all the Judges agreed clearly that it is not within the Statute and therefore they gave Judgement for the Plaintif 10. BLosse brought Trespass vi armis against Halmon for taking of his Goods Possession the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Jury found a speciall Verdict that the Plaintif at the time of the Trespass supposed was of the Mystery of the Grocers and that the Defendant was his servant and put in trust to sell res mercandisas detempore in tempus in shopa sua existen and he took those goods and carried them away c. and they prayed the advise of the Court The doubt was because the action was vi armis whereas the Defendant had the custody or if this shall be called a custody Shuttleworth for the Plaintif and he cited the case in Littleton fol. 15. if I deliver my sheep to compost your land Sheep and you kill them I shall have trespass whereto the Justices agreed and held clearly that he shall have this action well enough Auctority Peryam he hath but an auctority only and not any custody or possession v. 2. E. 4. 22. 2 E4 8. 22 E. 4. 5. 13 E. 4. 9. Tenant at will ought not to cut down trees nor abate 3. H. 7. 12. 21 H. 7. 14. the case of Butler 11. TRespass by Foster against Pretty and his wife Title who justified that I was seised and made a lease to them for yeares c. the Plaintif replied de son tort demeasne Absque hoc that he leased c. Peryam Will you take a Traverse and not make your self a title Curia without question you ought to make your self a title otherwise it is if the Defendant claym a Common or such like and no
and did not say praedict Edward Seymour And all the Justices agreed that this was amendable And so the first judgement was affirmed 18. ANother Writ of Error was there brought upon a judgement which Rawlyns had to recover lands in the Kings bench Rent suspenpended and the Case was such A man makes a lease of ten acres for ten yeares rendring rent upon a Condition the Lessee grants 5. acres thereof to a stranger for five years and after grants the residue of the years in the five acres to the Lessor And after the Lessee broke the Condition whereby the Lessor re-entred and if he may do so or if the Condition was suspended or no was the question because he accepted a future interest in parcell Future interest Tenant wayves for it was adjudged in the Kings bench that the Condition was not suspended and now this was assigned for error And all the Justices except Anderson and Peryam held that it is not suspended before he had entred by force of his lease Anderson If I make a lease as here upon Condition and waive the possession this may be suspended before his entrie Cook This is another case Peryam But the reason thereof commeth well to this case And afterwards because the said two Justices dis-assented from the rest it was adjourned over 19. ANother Writ of Error was there brought upon a judgment given in the Kings bench Trover And Cook the famous Utter-Barrester of the Inner-tem moved this question to the Justices If a man lose his goods which come to the hands of another he converteth them to his own use and after the owner dye Day and place of conversion whether his Executors shall have an action of the Case for this Trover and whether he ought to shew the place and the day of the Conversion or no And the Counsellours at the bar said that he ought to shew both for so it was adjudged where an Alderman of London brought an action upon the Case against oue Staynsham upon Trover of an Obligation and it was found that he had broken the seales c. and because he did not shew the time and place of the Conversion he could never get Judgement And now the Justices were of the same opinion but yet Anderson seemed to doubt Peryam Executors at the Common Law shall not have Trespass for a Trespass done in the life of their Testator and the doubt is if they shall have an Action upon the Case Manwood if a man hath another in Execution for debt and the Gaoler suffer him to escape and after the Recoverer dyes shall his Executors have an action against the Gaoler Cook No. Peryam So it seemeth But Anderson Manwood and VVindam clearly to the contrary and that they shall have debt upon this Escape Cook But not an Action upon the Case at the Common Law and here by his own shewing he might have Trespass vi armis and therefore not this action De Term. Trinitat An. Reg. Eliz. xxx 1. RAlph Heidon brought a Writ of Right against Smethwick and his Wife Droit of two parts of forty Acres of Land in Surret and they pleaded that one Ibgrave was seised and devised it to his Wife now one of the Tenants for term of her life the remainder to Benjamin Ibgrave in fee Praying ayd in an Assise which was his heir and dyed and they prayed in ayd of B. I. who came and joyned to them and thereupon they came and pleaded to the grand Assise and the first day of this term the Assise appeared and sixteen were sworn whereof four were Knights and the residue were Squires and Gentlemen and the title was all one as before in T. 28 Eliz. for this same Ibgrave was Tenant in that other Action for the third part And the opinion of all the Court clearly that it is not ayded by the Statute for there is not any certainty in the Grant Name certain but if he had given it a certain name as green Acre then allthough he had mistaken the Parish yet it had been good enough Peryam The Assise may goe their way and they did so and after they being agreed came again to the Bar and the Demandant was called and did not appear whereby the Tenant prayed the Court to record the Nonsuit and it was done Curia All is one as if he had appeared Non-suits for this Non-suit is peremptory for ever the issue being joyned upon the meer droit aliter if the issue had been joyned upon any collaterall poynt 2. IN Trespass by Blunt and Lister against Delabere they were at Issue ' and now the Inquest appeared ready to pass Challenge VValmisley This Inquest you ought not to take for it is favourably made by the Sherif which is within the distress of one of the Plaintifs and shewed how the Sherif held certain lands of a Mannor now in question whereof Lister hath possession and allso hath certain lands for term of years of him and the Plaintifs moved that he ought to take one cause onely 1 Cause Curia He may allege both for the challenge is that he is within the distress and the allegations are but evidence to prove it and then the Plaintif sayd not within his distress whereupon the Court appointed Tryers and the Defendant sayd that all the Jury are favourable Tryors refused and prayed Tryers de circumstantibus Gawdy That cannot be but onely in an Assise and cited 9 Edw. 4. Curia We cannot appoint other Tryers in this case but only of the Jurors wherefore let the fourth and seventh be Tryers but you may refuse them and take others if you will and thereupon the Defendant refused the fourth whereby the third was appointed and they found the Array favourably made and therefore it was quashed 3. A Recovery was had by Arthur Mills against Sir Owen Hopton of divers lands twelve years passed Amendment and by the negligence of the Attorney Warranty of Attorney no Warrant of Attorney was entred for him and now suit was made to the Justices that it might be entered and they all consented thereunto and so it was entered incontinently but first the party made a corporall Oath that he had retained an Attorney and that this was the negligence of his Attorney 4. IN the Exchequer chamber Cook shewed that a Writ of Error was brought between Bedell and Moor Arbitrement and sayd that there was an Error in the Record Error not assigned which was not assigned and prayed that it might be examined allthough that it was not assigned because that it appeared in the Record which was agreed to by the Court. And then he shewed the case that two had submitted themselves for all quarrels ultimo die Novembris An. 24. to stand to the Arbitrement of two others and they Arbitrated that the Plaintif in this Writ of Error should release to the now Defendant all Actions which he might
the Land should pass by this words Appurtenances For allthough that in late Books Lands shall not pass by this word Appurtenances yet this is good authority to prove that they shall pass as 7 Hen. 5. 41. T. 21 Ed. 3. 18. Allso Wills shall be taken by meaning and here upon this devise 4. l. Rent is reserved and the antient Rent is but 45. s and if the Land should be racked it is all worth but v. l. a year and because they are held in Capite therefore by the Statute we shall have but two parts And it cannot be intended that it was his meaning to have us pay 4. l. for the Lands in Ebney Valew wich are not worth so much therefore somtime the valew is considerable in a Will and cited 4 Ed. 6. 7 Ed. 6. and so he thought the Plaintif ought to recover And at this time the Court seemed to be of the same opinion for they gave day over to the Defendant at which day if nothing were said Judgement shall be given for the Plaintif 4. GAwdy prayed Judgement in an Action of Trespass by Hambledon against Hambledon Survivor the case was such H. was seised in Fee and had issue Mic. 29. 30 three Sonnes Eliz. râ—t 2325. John VVilliam now Plaintif and Richard now Defendant And by his last Will devised Lands to Iohn and to the Heirs Males of his body ingendred and devised other Lands to William in like sort and other Lands to Richard in like sort And that if any of his Sonnes died without issue Male that then the Survivor shall be each others Heir Afterwards the eldest died without issue Male And if William shall have all his part alone or else he and Richard between them was demurred in Law and day was given over to argue it 5. WAlmisley shewed how an Action was brought by Berdsley against Pilkington Impounding upon the Statute of 2 3 P. Mary for driving a Distress out of the County And shewed the truth of his case that the Distress was taken in the Hundred of Offlay in Staffordshire and the City of Lichfield was sometime within this Hundred And by Letters Patents of 1 Mariae the City was made a County of it self and he which took the Distress impounded them within a pound in the County of the City of Lichfield now whether he hath incurred the penalty of the Statute or no was the question And because the Court had not a Statute Book there to see the Preamble therefore they would give no resolution Anderson The meaning of the Statute was because the Bailif of the Hundred might make deliverance Allso I think it is within the compass of the Statute because the City was a County severed before this Statute made And the Serjeants at the bar said Same Hundred that the party may drive the Distress as far as he will within the same Hundred but he ought not to drive it above three miles without the Hundred 6. IOhn Slywright exhibited an information upon the Statute Champerty for buying of Titles Pasch 30. Eliz. rot 1532. against Page and declared how Joane Wade demised to Page for 60 yeares the Defendant pleaded not guilty And now a Jury of Sussex appeared at the bar And upon Evidence it was moved â—if a man have a lawfull Title to enter into Lands Lawfull title but hath not been in Possession and he entreth and makes a Lease for yeares thereof if this be within compass of the Statute Anderson It is within the Statute for the mischief was that when a man had a Title to Land he would let it to another to have maintenance and imbracery and make contentions and Suites for remedy whereof the Statute was made For if a man have a Title he may recover according to his Title Recovery Peryam The mischief hath been truly recited and therfore it is reason to restrain such bargains But if a man Recover by Formdon or Cessavit and make a Lease this is not within compass of the Statute A pretended Right allthough that he hath not been in Possession by a year and in my opinion the Plaintif need not prove that it is a pretented Right because the Statute expoundeth what is a pretented Right viz. if he hath not been in possession And so I have delivered my opinion before this time Anderson If a man hath not been in Possession and cometh to me and saith that he will make me a Lease and demands if I will take it and I agree thereto whereby he maketh me this Lease Ignorance if I do not know that he hath not been in possession I am not within the Statute And then the Defendant shewed that he was brother of the halfblood to the Wife of the Lessor whereby he might take the Lease well enough For Fleetwood cited 6 Ed. 3. if one brother maintain the other this is not within the Statute of Champerty which case the Court agreed this is for speciall cause vide statut de articulis super cartas Maintenance Champerty Difference Anderson One brother may travell for another and maintain him but if he take a Lease of him he is within the Statute of 32. Hen. 8. for this is a generall mischief and the mischief is as great if the brother take a Lease as if another take it The case quod Periam coucessit clearly but because it was the case of the Defendant the Jury found a speciall Verdict viz. that the Lands were conveyed by the Husband of Joane Wade to the use of himself and his Wife in Tail-speciall the Remainder to the Husband in generall-Tail the Remainder to the Wife in Fee and after the Husband Enfeoffed diverse men thereof and the Feoffees continued in Possession diverse years After the Husband died and then the Wife by indenture sealed and delivered of the Land made a Lease to Page which knew all this matter Knowledge from the fift day of Jenuary last past for 60 years if the Wife should live so long and that the Wife was Sister to Page the Defendant by the Mother and found the valew of the Land as if it should be sold and they prayed the advise of the Court c. And the morow after the like information being brought against the woman being Lessor the like Evidence was given and the like case found 7. FEnner moved this case to the Court. Recovery An Alien born purchaseth Lands in Tail the Remainder to a stranger in Fee The Alien suffereth a Common Recovery to his own use in Fee And after an Office is found of all this matter if the Remainder shall be to him which had it before or no was the question Anderson I think the Queen shall have a good Fee-simple Tenant sufficient to the praecipe for if there be a good Tenant to the praecipe then is the Remainder gone and you will not deny but that
Muskets and Callivers delivered into the Tower for which money Walton took a Debenter from the Queen in the name of a stranger and afterwards dyed and made Leveson Executor who procured the stranger to release and surrender the former Debenter to the Queen and took a new Debenter for the same hundred pound to himself this was adjudged no Assets nor devastavâ—t in the hands of the Executor Leveson upon a speciall Verdict but otherwise it should have been if the first Debenter had been taken in VValtons own name for then it had been a devastavit by the Executor 9. BAcon Plaintif against Selling in an Ejectione firme Assets de judgement the originall bare teste 13 Aprilis An. 39. and the Plaintif declared upon a Lease made to him 22 Apr. An. 39. Trin. 39 Eliz. rot 1345. so that it appeared to the Court that the Plaintif brought his Action before he had an interest in the Land and by all the Court a Rule was given for stay of Judgement after a Verdict but afterwards the Plaintif came and shewed that after Improlance he filed a new originall 10. HEnry Earl of Lincoln brought a Scandalum magnatum against one Michelborn for these words Scandalum magnatum viz. The Earl of Lincolns men by his commandement did take the Goodt of one Hoskins by a forged Warrant c. And the Earl recovered great damages by Verdict and now it was spoken in arrest of Judgement that the words were not sufficient to maintain the Action because it was not averred that the Earl knew the Warrant to be forged and of the same mind was the Court at this time 11. WIlloughby brought an Action of Debt against Milward Debt and declared that the Defendant bought Timber of him for ten pound solvend modo forma sequenti viz. five pound ad festum Pasch proxime sequentem and saith nothing when the other five pound should be payed and the Plaintif recovered the whole ten pound by Verdict and now it was spoken in arrest of Judgement for the cause aforesaid but yet by all the Court it was good enough for the Law intendeth the other part of the money to be due presently if no certain day of payment bee alleged 12. KItchin brought an Action of Debt against Dixson Debt Executor of Craven Mich. 36 37 El. rot 1028. or 1021. the Defendant pleaded ne unques Executor and the Jury found a speciall Verdict viz. That Craven in his life time made a Deed of Gift of all his Goods to Dixson and they found likewise that this Deed was to defraud Creditors against the form of the Statute and that the Defendant by colour of this Deed did take the Goods after the death of Craven and if this Deed vvas good then they found for the Defendant if not then they found the Defendant was Executor of his own wrong and so for the Plaintif and by all the Court Judgement was given for the Plaintif 13. IT was sayd by Drew arguendo That if the Grantee of a Rent charge release parcell of the Rent to the Grantor or his heires Rent charge the residue may be apportioned and the Land shall remain chargeable still for that residue but if he release in one Acre parcell of the Land charged then all the Rent is gone 14. IT was said by Glanvile in the argument of the case between Cromwell and Andrews Provisâ— that a Proviso in a conveiance to be performed on the part of the Lessee implies a re-entry allthough there be no speciall words of re-entry but otherwise it is when it ariseth on the part of the Lessor and Vouched bendlowes case where there was a Covenant going between the Habendum and Proviso But where the Proviso standeth substantively as where I grant a Rent charge Proviso that he shall not charge my person Condition this is no Condition but a Qualification Allso where a Feoffment is made upon Condition to grant me a Rent Charge payable at Easter and Christmas if the grant be not made before the first Feast which shall next happen the Condition is broken and he put a difference where the Condition must be performed by none but himself and where it may as well be performed by his Executors as himself And Drew said then that if there be a Feoffment upon Condition to Re-enfeoff the Feoffer there ought the Feoffor to make a request otherwise if it be to enfeoff another 15. SMith against Bonsall Common in effect the case was such In an Action of Trespass the Defendant pleaded his Freehold Hil. 39. Eliz. rot 1753. and the Plaintif replyed that A. was seised of a yard-Yard-land to which he had Common of Pasture for all maner of Beasts Levant and Couchant upon the same Yard-land and of the Moity thereof did enfeoff the Plaintif the question was whether this Common may be apportioned or else it be extinct alltogether In the argument whereof Drew said that Common sans number cannot be granted over because if it should be granted to a rich man he may surcharge the Common then and leave none for the rest of the Commoners so of estovers uncertain for so the Grantee may burn all the Wood quod Walmisley concessit and he vouched 17 Eliz. in Dyer that a Commoner may purchase parcell of the Land out of which his Common is issuing Purchase after that it be improved by the Lord and not extinguish his Common thereby And he said that if parcell of the Common be inclosed Inclosure a Commoner ought to make but one gap to put in Cattell but Anderson said that he may make as many gapes as he will And it was said by Anderson and Beamont Appendant may be apportioned that Common appendant cannot be for all manner of Cattell but onely for such â—attell as compass the Land and that such Common may be apportioned into twenty parts Append. quid as any Common certain may be Walmisley Owen If my Land to which I claim Common belonging can yield me stover to find a hundred Cattell in Winter then shall I have Common in Summer for a hundred Cattell in the Land out of which I claim Common and so for more or fewer proporitionably which they did expound to be the meaning of pertinen Moity of a Mannor levan and cuban Walmisley If I grant away the moity of my Mannor we shall both keep Courts so if I be disseised of a Moity or that the Moity be in Execution by elegit and we shall both have Common and in apportionment of Common respect ought allwaies to be had to the quality of the Land unto wâ—ich it is alloted Copiholder And a Copyholder may prescribe for Common in the Lords Land within the same Mannor by usitatum fuit but if he claim any other Common he must lay the prescription in the Lord. De Term. Hill An Reg. Eliz. xliii 1. WAlter Ascough prisoner
date of the sayd Obligation whereof the Action is brought if the said W. A. do save and keep harmless the sayd T. A. of and from the said Obligation that then c. The Defendant pleaded payment secundum formam effectum condition is praedictae and upon this Plea the Plaintif demurred in Law and Judgement given for the Plaintif for the Defendant ought to plead non damnificatus 91. HUntley brought a Writ of Accompt against Griffith Account Baron Feme and the case was that one devised a certain sum of money to a Feme covert And the Husband and Wife made a Letter of Attorney to the Defendant to receive the same money of the Executor who did receive it accordingly to the use of the woman And the Husband and Wife both dye and the Administrator of the Womans Husband brings this Action Tanfeild argued that the Action is not maintainable for when the Legacy was devised to the woman the Husband and Wife ought to joyn in the Action and if the Wife dye the Husband hath no remedy And when the Husband and the Wife make a Letter of Attorney to receive the money this principally is to be sayd the act of the woman and the Husband joyneth with her but for conformity and for that it appears in 19 Eliz. 354. if Baron and Feme levy a Fine of the Wives land and the Wife onely declares the use of the Fine it is good and by 16 Ed. 4. 8. If a man be a Receiver to a woman sole which afterwards takes a Husband and he and his Wife assign Auditors to the Receiver they both shall joyn in an Action of Debt for the Arrerages Altam è contra and sayd that the concourse of all our Books are that when money is delivered to deliver over to another Letter of Attorney by the Husband only Debt due to a Feme sole that other shall have an Action of Accompt allbeit that before that time he had not any property And 6 Ed. â— 1. that proveth Gawdy It seems to me the Action is well brought for the matter whereupon you stand is the Letter of Attorney and I say if the Husband sole had made the Letter of Attorney For by the entermartage the duty became the husbands if he could attain it in the life of the wife which he did by the receipt of his Bayly it had been well enough and when the money is received to the use of the Husband and the Wife now by that the Husband hath interest Popham I am of the same opinion for if Debt be due to a woman sole upon an Obligation and after she take an Husband and the Husband sole makes a Letter of Attorney to J. S. to receive that and J. S. receives the same now the Husband sole shall have an accompt against J. S. Fenner accord so Judgement was given for the Plaintif 92. THe Lady Gresham brought a Scire facias upon a Recognisance against William Man as terr Verdict in a Scire fac upon Recognisance Tenant The Defendant pleaded in abatement of the Writ that one Bedingfield was seised in Fee of three Acres of land not named Judgement si execut c. And the issue was if the aforesaid three Acres of land were the land of the aforesaid Bedingfeild or not and the Jury found that B. and J. S. were Jointenants of the said three Acres and whether this Verdict hath found for the Plaintif or Defendant was the question Whether Joyntenancy shal be sayd a Seisin Gawdy I think it may never be said the Land of Bedngfield onely And to prove that he vouched 28 Hen. 8. Dyer 32. in debt for Rent the Plaintif declared of a demise of 26 Acres rendring the said Rent The Defendant pleaded that the Plaintif demised to him 26 Acres and 4 Acres more without that that he demised the twenty Acres onely And the Jury found that he Leased but 22 Acres and there that was good for the Defendant hath confessed a demise of 26 Acres and then the Verdict should have been that the 4 Acres ultra were not demised and allso he said when two men made a Feoffment the Feoffee shall be in by both the which is a strong proof that the one sole is not seised Fenner According to the matter in question I think it is found for the Plaintif for the pretence of the Defendant is to have a companion against whom the Scire facias shall be as well brought as against himself And in 46. Edw. 3. That in casu proviso if issue be taken upon an Alienation in Fee Forfeiture by alienation and the Jury find an Alienation pro Termino vitae this is a Verdict good enough and the Plaintif shall recover for the Alienation to the Defendants Inheritance is the question And whether it be in Fee or for life it is but form and so in this case Popham by pleading of the truth the Defendant might have been holpen but not as he hath pleaded here as if one plead his Freehold and another say his Freehold absque hoc that it is the Freehold of the Plaintif and upon that they are at issue And the Verdict finds that the Plaintif and Defendant are Tenants in Common Now this Verdict is found for the Plaintif for he that makes the first lie shall be triced and this was the Defendant Fenner In this case one Tenant may not have an Action against an other Iointenants make a statute and it was agreed in this case if there are two Jointenants and the one make a Statute and after joines with his companion in a Feoffment of that Land now the moity of the Land may be extended upon this Statute Godfry When it appears unto the Court that there is another against whom the extent shall be then the Plaintif his Writ shall abate Gawdy No truly for by 44 Edw. 3. if a Writ of Dower be brought against the issue in tail which is remited and the Defendant plead ne unques seisi que Dower and the Verdict find the remitter yet the Plaintif shall have the Judgement for the Tenant if he will have advantage of that ought to plead it 93. THe Parson of Ramesey â—ued in the spirituall Court for Tithes of Asp Prohibition for Asp and a Prohibition was awarded And Fenner said that it was adjudged before that time that Asp should not pay Tithes and also it was agreed if a man cut trees for Housboot No Tithes for housboots c. or other usuall bootes Hedgboot Ploughboot Cartboot and Fireboot Tithes shall not be paid of them 94. NOta per Fenner Justice Account that an Action of accompt shall be maintainable against a servant but not against an Apprentice 95. HOme was indicted for that he had spoken against the book of Common prayer Depravation upon endictment Yelverton The Indictment as it appears is taken before the Lord Anderson and Baron Gent Justices of
the Statute 134. NOta per Cook Attorney Generall Distinct grants that the Lord Keep 〈◊〉 that is was of Counsell in a case inter Harlakenden and A. where it was adjudged that if a man make a Lesse for years of Land excepting the Wood and after the Leasor grants the Trees to the Lessee and the Lessee assigned over the Land to another not making any mention of the Trees now the Trees shall not pass to the Assignee as annexed to the Land for the trees and Land are not conjoined for the Lessee had severall interests in them by severall Grants 135. THomas against King Ejectment and the Title of the Land was between Sir Hugh Portman and Morgan And the Ejectment was supposed to be of 100. Acres of Land in Dale Sale and the Jury found the Defendant guilty of 10 Acres but did not shew in what Town they lay whereupon Haris Serjeant moved in arrest of Judgement for that it doth not appear where the Sherif may put the Plaintif in Possession Et non allocatur for the party at his perill ought to shew unto the Plaintiff the right land for which Judgement was given for the Plaintif 136. O Land against Bardwick and the case was this that a woman being possessed of Coppihold land for her Widowes estate sowed the land Forfeiture of a particular tenant and after took the Plaintif to Husband and the Defendant being Lord of the Mannor entred and took the Corn and the Husband brought an action of Trespass Clinch I think the Woman shall not have the corn Lease by Tenant for life but if the Wife had Leased the Land and the Lessee had sown it and after the Wife had maried and the Lord had entred yet the Lessee shall have the Corn. But in the case at bar the Woman her self is the cause of the Determination of her estate for she committeth the Act and therefore shall not have the Corn no more Forfeiture than if Lessee for life sow the Land and after commit forfeiture and the Lessor enter in this case the Lessor shall have the Corn. Fenner At the first the State of the Woman was certain viz. for her life but yet determinable by Limitation if she mary And if a man which hath an Estate determinable by Limitation sow the ground and before severance the Limitation endeth the state yet the party shall have the Corn which he hath sown And in the case at the bar there is no Forfeiture committed which gives course of Entry nor no dishinheritance or wrong made to the Lord as in the case where Tenant for life after his sowing commits forfeiture and if a man enter for breach of a Condition Entry for condition broken he shall have the Corn and not he that sowed the same for that his entry over-reacheth the state of the other but in this case the entry of the Lord doth not overâ—ach the Title of the Woman for he shall take that from the time that the Limitation endeth the Estate and not by any relation before For the Act of the Woman is Lawfull and therefore no reason he shall lose the Corn Popham Chief Justice It is cleare Forfeiture if Tenant for life sow and after commit a Forfeiture And the Lessor enter he shall have the Corne 〈◊〉 the like is it if the Lessee after the sowing surrender his Term the Lessor Surrender or he to whom the Surrender was made shall have the corn but if Tenant for life make a lease for yeares Lease by Tenant for life and after commit a Forfeiture and the Lessor enter now the Lessee shall have the Corn and in the case at bar if the woman had Leased for yeares and the Lessee had sowed the land and after she had taken Husband now the Lessee and not the Lord shall have the corn for the act of the Woman shall not prejudice a third person but when she her self is the party Knowledge and hath knowledge at the time of the sowing what acts will determineâ—er estate then is it reason if she by her own act will determine her estate that she shall lose the Corn For if Lessee for life sow the land Lessee praies in aid and after pray in aid of a Stranger now if the Lessor enter he shall have the Corn And so if Tenant at Will sow the Land Tenant at will determines his own Will and after determine his own Will the Lessor shall have the Corn but otherwise it is if the state be determined by the act of law or of a third person so that no folly was in him that sowed Fenner If the Husband and Wife were Lessees during the coverture Determination by the act of the Law of a third persoâ— and after the Husband sowes the land and then the Husband and Wife are divorced yet the Husband shall have the Corn for that the Husband at the time of the sowing had no knowledge of the Act which determined his interest Divorce So in this case the Woman at the time of the sowing did not know of the future Act which determined her interest and therefore no rason she should lose the Corn for the Corn is a Chattell in her Grant for if she had either granted them or been outlawed after the sowing and then had taken a Husband Now the Queen in the case of the outlary or the Grantee in the other case and not the Lessor Outlary shall have the Corn. Popham I will agree the case of the divorce to be good Law For that is not meerly the Act of the party but allso of the Court but in the case at bar the taking of the Husband is the Voluntary Act of the Woman per que And after Judgement was given against the Husband which was the Plaintif 137. A Scough brought a Writ of Error against Hollingworth upon a Judgement given in the Common place in a Writ of Debt brought upon a Statute Merchant Statute Merchant And the case was that Ascough came before the Maior of Lincoln and put his seal to the same Statute and the Kings seal was also put thereunto but one part did not remain with the Maior according to the Statute of Acton Burnell And it was adiudged a good Obligation against the Partie albeit it is no Statute Godfrey I think the Judgement ought to be affirmed and he cited 20. E. 3. accompt 79. And it is clear that a thing may be void to one intent and good to another by 10. Eliz. but Popham and Fenner were of opinion that it was hard to make it an Obligation for in every contract the intent of the parties is to be respected Intent in every contract And here the intent of the parties war to make it a Statute for the Kings seal is put to it and a Statute needs no deliverie butan Obligation ought to be delivered otherwise it is not good
REPORTS Of that Learned and Judicious Clerk J. Gouldsborough Esq Sometimes one of the Protonotaries of the Court of COMMON PLEAS OR His Collection of choice Cases and matters agitated in all the Courts at Westminster in the latter yeares of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth With Learned arguments at the Barr and on the Bench and the grave Resolutions and Judgements thereupon of the Chief Justices ANDERSON and POPHAM and the rest of the Judges of those times Never before Published And now Printed by his Original Copy With short Notes in the Margent of the chief matters therein contained with the yeare Terme and Number Roll of many of the Cases And Two Exact Tables viz. A Briefer of the Names of the severall Cases with the Nature of the Actions on which they are founded and a Lâ—rger of all the remarkable things contained in the whole Book By W. S. of the Inner Temple Esq Ubi est nulla Lex ibi est nulla transgressio Sed ubi lex est nullum ibi abundat Iniquitas LONDON Printed by W. W. for Charles Adams and are to be sold at his Shop at the Signe of the Marygold over against Fetter Lane in Fleetstreet Anno Dom. 1653. TO THE Studious and Ingenious READER TWO things usually make new Books famous the Name of the Authour and the Approbation of the Judicious neither of these are here wanting for thou seest that this Book as part of its Title challengeth the Name of that Learned and Judicious Clerk John Gouldsborough A Name so well known even in this our Age that I should but trifle away time in multiplying words to tell thee what he was and to inlarge upon his worth and allso discover too much mine own weakness by endeavouring to prove so known a Truth that it is by all allready taken for grantld For the second I am assured that the Copy hath been communicated to the view of many knowing men in the profession of the Common Law whose unanimous consent in a fair Testimony of the excellency thereof hath been not only a chief cause of the now making it publique but allso of heigthning the Publishers hopes that this Book will be perused with as much content and received with as generall an Applause as any thing of the like nature that these latter yeares have afforded And that his great care and hazard in this his Edition may receive thy candid construction and himself reap if not a fruitfull yet at least a saving return for his better encouragement to adventure further hereafter in this kind for thine and the publique good For thy further satisfaction know that thou hast not here a spurious deformed Brat falsly fathered upon the name of a dead man too too usuall a trick played by the subtile Gamesters of this Serpentine Age but thou hast presented to thee though I cannot say the Issue of the Learned Gouldsborough's own Brain yet I dare say the Work of his own Hand and that which were he living he would not blush to own A Work I say not roughly drawn and cast by in neglected Sheets till time should give leave for the perfecting thereof but carefully transcribed by himself in a fair Manuscript destined as it should seem either for the Press and publique view or to be preserved as a pretious Jewell to be privately made use of in succeeding Ages That this is true there want not many living Testimonies of persons of worth who doe and have very good reason to know his Hand-writing that if need required might be produced to say as much I shall adde but one thing more and that in brief is this As the Authour was very careful in Transcribing and Correcting his Copy that he might leave it fair and entire to Posterity so hath the Publisher spared neither pains nor cost in the Printing thereof that the Book may not come foul and imperfect to the hands of thee it 's courteous and ingenious Reader W. S. A Table of the Names of the severall Cases with the Nature of the Actions on which they are founded  pag. pl. Wast COnstance Fosters case 1 1 Return of a Writ 1 2 Wast 1 3 Devise 2 4 Battery Webster against Payn 2 5 Trespass Nelsons case 3 6 Quare impedit Moores case 3 7 Dower Tristram Ascough and Eulalia his wife 4 8 Quid juris clamat Justice Windham against the Lady Gresham 4 9 Verdict in an Ejectione firme 5 10 Avowry Capel against Capel 5 11 Trespass Baintons case 6 12 Replevin Colgate against Blith 12 13 Ejectione firme Knight against Brech 15 1 Writ of Right Heydon against Ibgrave 23 2 Debt upon the Stat. of Winchester Tyrrels case 24 3 Quare impedit Mores case 24 4 Action on the Case for words 25 5 Trespass Leonards case 25 6 Scire facias Owens case 26 7 Dower 27 8 Arrest of Judgement in an Action for words 28 1 Partition by word 28 2 Debt for Rent 29 3 Lands purchased by an Alien 29 4 Misdemeanours of an Attorney 30 5 Annuity Sellengers case 29 1 Plea by an Executor 31 2 Râ—plevin Boss against Huntley 31 3 Trespass VVilgus against VVelch 31 4 Ejectione firme 31 5 Action upon the case Fulwood against Fulwood 32 6 Replevin Gibson against Platless 32 7 Battery Lees case 33 8 Copyhold Smith against Lane 34 9 Quare impedit Specot against the Bishop of Exeter 35 10 Replevin Brooks case 37 11 Replevin Knights case 37 12 Replevin Wakefield against Cossard 38 13 Debt The Earl of Kents case 39 14 Debt Mounsay against Hylyard 39 15 Debt The Purveyors case 39 16 Trespass Justice Anderson against VVild 40 17 Error in debt Sir Wolstan Dixy against Spencer 40 18 Attaint Husseys case 42 19 Quare impedit 42 10 Pleading in Battery 43 21 Ejectione firme Clayton against Rawson 43 22 View Hoo against Hoo 44 23 Debt Wiseman against VVallinger 44 24 Quare impedit Beverley against Cornwall 44 25 Quare impedit Gerrards case 45 26 Debt Bingham against Squire 45 27 Lords Chancellors solemnity 46 1 Quare impedit The Queens case 46 2 Ejectione firme Kent against King 47 3 Ejectione firme Hurlestones case 47 4 Assumpsit 47 5 Action on the case VVhorwood against Gibbons 48 6 for words Action for words 48 7 Action upon a promise Bodyes case 49 8 Assault and Battery 49 9 Action of covenant 49 10 Debt upon a bond Sir Will. Druries case 50 11 Estrepment 50 12 Perjury 51 13 Conspiracy Hurlstone against Glascour 51 14 Quare impedit Specots case 52 1 Replevin Board against Henley 52 2 Quare impedit The Queen against Lee 53 3 Kimptons case 53 4 Estopple 53 5 Debt upon a bond Hasels case 54 6 Trover and Conversion 54 7 Vtlary Beverleys case 55 8 Hue and Cry Comberfords case 55 9 Hue and Cry Ashpools case 55 10 Action for words Normans case 56 11 Debt upon a bond Hayles case 57 12 Attornment Moore against Hills 57 13 Wager of Law 57 14 Prohibition Pierce
against Davy 58 15 Robbery Burnels case 59 16 Debt upon a bond to perform covenants Hannington against Richards 59 17 Action upon the statute of Hue Cry Ashpooles case 60 18 The Mayer and Commonality of Norwichs case 61 19 Debt upon a bond Lassels case 61 20 Debt upon a bond Gewen against White 62 21 Replevin Goverstones case 62 22 Action of Wast Constance Fosters case 63 23 Debt upon a bond Bret against Andrews 63 1 Devise 64 2 Redisseisin Thatcher against Elmer 64 3 Privilege of Court Powels case 64 65 4 Wager of Law Millington against Burges 65 5 Avowâ—y The Lady Roger case 65 6 Debt upon a bond to perform covenants Hanington against Richards 65 7 Avowâ—y Johns of Surries case 66 8 Debt upon a bond Raven against Stockdale 66 9 Trespas vi Armis Bloss against Halmon 66 10 Trespass Foster against Pretty 67 11 Debt upon a bond Bret against Shepheard 67 12 Replevin Colgate against Blith 67 68 69 70 13 Action for a Robbery The Hundred of Dunmows case 70 14 Assumpsit Cogan against Cogan 71 15 Trespass ejectment Cock against Baldwin 71 16 Trespass vi armis Walgrave against Somerset 72 17 Trespass vi armis Bloss against Halmon 72 18 Wast Taire against Pepiat 72 19 Debt upon a bond May against Johson 73 20 Quare impedit Sir Thomas George against the Bishop of Lincon 72 22 Debt upon a bill Goore against VVingfield 73 23 Ejectione firme Michell against Dunton 74 1 Fine Adams case 74 2 Betenham against Herleckonden 75 3 Wager of Law Bostocks case 75 76 4 Entry sur disseisin Sir Thomas Shirley against Grateway 76 5 Action for words Smith against Warner 76 6 Redisseisin Thachers case 76 7 Debt upon a bond The Earl of Kents case 76 77 8 Trespass quare clausum fregit Haires case 77 78 9 Quare impedit The Queen against the Bishop of Linc. 78 10 Trespass Harper against Spiller and Drew 78 11 Quare impedit Brokesby against the Bishop of Linc. 78 79 12 Avowry 79 13 Debt Hare against Curson 79 14 Debt against an administrator 79 80 15 Ejectione firme Cleyton against Lawsell 80 16 Debt Saundersons case 80 17 Debt Sibill against Hill 80 18 Quare impedit Kemp against the Bish of Winchester 81 19 Escape Cheny against Sir James Harington 81 20 Assumpsit Tayler against Falkam 81 21 Covenant Plane against Sams 81 82 22 Ejectment Staples against Hacke 82 23 Disseisin 82 24 Annuity 83 1 Debt upon a bond Michell against Stockwith 83 2 Debt upon a bond Weghtman against Chartman 83 3 Quare impedit The Queens case 83 84 4 An Action for words 84 5 Replevin Clothurst against Delues 84 6 Action for words Cuts case 85 7 Writ of entry Carleton against Carre 85 8 Quare impedit The Queens case 86 9 Plea to a Writ 86 10 Action for robbery The Hundred of Glocesters case 86 11 Dower 87 12 Formdon Lennard VVhites case 88 13 Formdon in discender 88 14 Error in the Exchequor-Chamber 88 15 A Writ of Error Lord Seymour against Sir John Clifton 89 16 Error Rawlins case 89 17 Â Error in an Action of Trover 89 18 A Writ of right Heydon against Smithwick 90 1 Trespass Blunt against Lyster 91 2 Recovery Mills against Hopton 91 3 Errror in the Exchequor-chamber Bedell against More 91 4 Trespass Mounson against West 92 5 Ejectment Ashby against Laver 93 6 Trespass Johnson against Astley 93 7 Error in the Exchequor-chamber Rawlins case 93 8 An assumpsit Brown against Garbery 94 9 Surrendâ—r of a Copyhold Rippings case 95 10 Resceit 96 11 Audita querela 96 12 Action on the case Mathewes case 6 13 Partition Tamworth against Tamworth 105 10 Action of debt Hughsons case 106 15 Ejectment Johnson against a Carlile 107 16 Action of Dower Hunts casa 108 17 Extent 100 18 Trespass quare clausum fregit 109 19 Speciall Verdict Devise 111 20 Retorn of a Sherif Hockenhalls case 111 21 Debt upon a bond Hooker against Gomersall 111 112 22 Quare impedit Brooksbies case 112 23 Maintenance Tysdale against John Atree 113 1 Consultation Brown against Hother 113 2 Amendment Broughton against Flood 113 3 Venue Avowry 114 4 Prohibition 114 5 Extinguishment Rotheram against Creen 114 6 Debt upon a bond Adams against Oglethorp 114 7 Speciall Verdict Eveling against Leveson 115 8 Ejectment Bacon against Snelling 115 9 Scandalum magnatum The Earl of Lincons case 115 10 Debt Willoughby against Millward 116 11 Debt Kitchin against Dixon 116 12 Rent-charge 116 13 Condition Cromwell against Andrews 116 14 Trespass Smith against Bensall 116 15 Habeas corpas VValter Ascoughes case 118 1 Price against Sands 118 2 Action for words Hugh Halls case 119 3 Administration VVilloughby against VVilloughby 119 4 Speciall Verdict Extent 120 5 Debt Overton against Sidall 120 6 Speciall Verdict Sherborn against Lewis 120 7 Disceit Russell against Vaughan 123 8 Tender of Reut Burrough against Taylor 124 9 Debt VVelcome against S. 124 10 Trespass for braking his close Nevell against Sail 124 11 Action for words Somerstailes case 125 12 Monstraus de droit 125 13 Debt upon a bond Hamond against Hatch 125 14 Debt for Rent Bow against Broom 125 15 Formdon Downall against Catesby 126 16 Action for words Palmer against Boyer 126 17 Libel for Tythes Prohibition 127 18 Latitat Bayle 127 19 Scire facias Midleton against Hall 128 20 Action for words Martin against Burling 128 21 Error Collet against Marsh 128 22 Ejectione firme Portman against Willis 129 23 Trespass Gray against Trow 129 24 Debt Thyn against Cholmeley 129 25 Action for words Parlor against S. 130 26 Action on the case Earl of Pembroke against Buckley 130 27 Action for words Lassels against Lassels 131 28 Indictment 132 29 Action on the case Peirce against Barker 132 30 Indictment Arundels case 133 31 Error in Debt Slaughton against Newcomb 133 32 Ejectione firme Bulleyn against Bulleyn 134 33 Action for words Bury against Chappel 135 34 Arraignment 135 35 A Writ of Error VVilkinsons case 136 36 Assumpsit Skelt against VVright 136 37 Debt Ford against Glaubile 136 38 Information Sir Christopher Blunts case 136 39 Condition of an Obligation 137 40 Mortgageo The Duke of Norfolk and Rowland 137 41 Action for words Redfrem against J. S. 137 42 Action for words Megs against Griffith 138 43 Action upon a Statute Revell against Hare 138 44 Error in Debt VVinch against VVarner 138 45 Assumpsit Petties against Soame 138 46 Devise of lands 139 47 Arrest by Latitat VVilliam Gerrards case 139 48 Debt upon a bond 139 49 Trespass Stafford against Bateman 140 50 Error in Debt Anne Lathams case 140 51 Quare impedit Langford against Bushy 141 52 Devise of Lands 141 53 Prohition Necton and Sharp against Gennet 141 54 Debt upon a bond Greningham against Ewer 142 55 Execution of a Writ 142 56 Action of debt VVoodcock against Heron 142 57 Action for words
6. the Priors case Note that Puckering then said privily to Shuttelworth is not the book contrary to that which he hath vouched for he vouched the Book contrary to that which Puckering had done before Shuttelworth No Sir but the record is contrary to the Book quod nota and when she granteth ex certa scientia it shall be taken beneficial for the party 1 H. 7. 13. omnia debita released to the Sherif and 29 Ed. 3. the King seised the lands of a Prior alien c. Difference per enter interest prerogative Touts droits poss per fine Fine puis disseisin ou discont alit de recovery and there is a difference between the cases put and this case for when the Queen makes a Grant all matters of interests may pass by the words but matters of prerogative as in the cases put by my brother Puckering cannot pass for they are not within the words but interests are To that which hath been sayd that he was not seised of any estate tayl this is not any argument for if he had three rights by the Fine all are gone and passed to the Conisee for if he be disseised or discontinue and then levy a Fine this is a bar but otherwise it is of a recovery Lessee purâ—ans en reversion poss diversity for that is no bar but of an estate tayl And as to the case of Saunders that lessee for years need not to make claim the case was not so but the case was of a lease inreversion and he had never entred and therefore it was but as a common or a rent but if it be a lease in possession he is bound as in Zouches case Then because the King is in possession it hath been sayd that it is no bar but this seemeth to be no reason for the Statute began with the King and the Preamble seemeth to induce it and the third saving of the Statute is by force of any gift in tayl so this is generall And because he cannot discontinue therefore can he not make a bar Non sequitur For he cannot discontinue and yet a Fine levyed is a good bar and the Statute of 32 Hen. 8. doth not impair this opinion but it was to take away the doubt moved in 29 Hen. 8. Allthough indeed the Law was all wayes clear in the case as it was agreed by all the Judges in Stowels case and the words of the Statute of 34 Hen. 8. that the recoveries shall be no bar doth not extend but to the words going before as in the case in Dyer that a man had not done any act but that c. And the Queen in this case hath not any prejudice for she shall have the rent with the reversion And as for Jacksons case that maketh for me for the question of the case there was that the remainder shall be gone and we ought not to take regard to that which is sayd indirectly in the case but the point of the Judgement is the matter and for authority it is direct in Dyer fol. 26. pl. 1. and therefore it seemeth that the entayl is barred and so the action maintainable Anderson You have well argued but for any thing that I see none of you shall have the Land Grant for the Queen is deceived in her grant and therefore the Patent is voyd and then it shall be seised into the Queens hands And therefore you had best to be advised and we will hear what can be sayd for this point at another day And note that it was sayd by the Justices 3 Costs in forcible entry that if a man recover in a Writ of forcible entry upon the Statute of 8 Hen. 6. by confession or by default he shall recover his treble costs 22 Hen. 6. 57. 13. ONe Colgate brought a Replevin against Blyth who avowed the taking Replevin and thereupon they were at Issue in Kent and the Jury found a speciall Verdict The case in effect was this Husband and Wife are seised of Lands in right of the Wife And she by Indenture in her own name agrees that a Fine shall be levyed and limits the uses by Indenture After the Husband by another Indenture agrees that a Fine shall be levied and limits other uses and afterwards a Fine is levied by them both now whether the uses limited by the Husband shall bind the Land of the Wife in Perpetuity The Jury prayed the advise of the Court c. For if they be good they found for the Plantif if not then they found for the Defendant Shuttleworth Serjeant It seemeth that Judgement shall be given for the Plantif For the use limited by the Husband shall be a good limitation in Perpetuity Rent ch ou Lease per feme covert and first the Wife only cannot limit any use for her Acts are of no Validity And therefore if a Wife grant a Rent charge or make a Lease and the Grantee enter this is a Disseisin 43. Ed. 3. Deeds given by a Feme Covert are void 17. lib. Ass a VVife levies a Fine Executory Fine executory executed per feme covert sur grant render as a sole Woman and after a Scire fac Is brought to Execute this Fine the Husband shall extort the Execution and if it were a Fine Executed then it is a Disseisin to the Husband Vse quod For an use is a Declaration how the Land shall continue in Perpetuity and the Feoffees are nothing but Instruments or Organs to convey the use for the Land yields the use and not the Feoffees then when the Wife which is under the Power of her Husband Limitation per infant quaere limits an use this is void for I hold for Law if an Infant limit uses and after levy a Fine and do not Reverse it during his Nonage yet the limitation shall not bind him and so of a man non compos mentis Non compos mentis And so it was ruled in the Court of Wards where a naturall Ideot made a Declaration of uses and levied a Fine accordingly Ideot naturall that yet it shall be to the use of himself And then in our case the Limitation by the Wife cannot be good but her Will depends upon the Will of her Husband and the expressing of the use by the Husband shall be good Estate disseisin assumsit al feme For if an Estate be made to a Wife if the Husband seaven years after agree it is good and so it is of a Disseisin to a use so ofan Assumpsit to the Wife 27 Hen. 8. in Jordans case 1 Hen. 7. in Doves case and in a Praâ—cipe quod reddat the default of the Wife shall be the default of the Husband Default del feme because she is Compellable to the Will of her Husband by the Intendment of the Law 21. lib. Ass A man seised of Land in Right of his Wife makes a Feoffment in Fee
me for the reason wherefore he shall be barred is because the recompence goeth according to the Estate which the Wife had and then it is reason that he shall be barred but in the same case if the Husband survive it is said in the same Book that the Issue shall be at large for that the recompence goeth to the Survivor but let it be as it may be the reason of the case is for the recompence And I think Com. 5. 14. that this case here will be proved by Snowes case in the Commentaries Recovery had against Husband and Wife where the Wife had nothing all the recompence shall be to the Husband 10 Edw. 3. Dower brought against husband and wife Dower and the husband vouch to warranty c. 38 Ed. 3. Praecipe against Tenant in tayl 8 Eliz. in Dyer fol. 252. where the husband was tenant for life the remainder to the wife in tayl the remainder in fee to a stranger and a recovery suffered and about 15 El. was a case in the Exchequer where lands were given to Norrice and his wife and to the heirs of the body of Norrice Remainder the remainder in fee to a stranger and a recovery suffered against Norrice he in remainder was attainted and Norrice and his wife were dead before and by the opinion of Sanders then chief Baron Recompences the moity shall be forfeit by the atteynder And recompences are but as exchanges Exchange executed and Bracton calleth them Excambia and I think if an exchange be executed in the one part and not in the other it is not good and so I think the recovery shall be no bar 8. IN a Writ of Dower brought Joynture Gawdy Serjeant shewed how that the husband of the demandant had given certain lands to her in lieu of her Joynture upon condition that she should make her election with in three moneths after his death and she made her election to have the Joynture and now she had brought her Writ of Dower against the heir by covin Covin and he hath confessed the Action to the intent that Thynne who had a lease for yeares of the first husband should lose his term and prayed ayd of the Court. Fleetwood for the demandant There is not any such Joynture as you speak of for that which was given to the wife was but a lease for yeares and that you know cannot bar her of her Dower Rodes Justice If the case be so then is there no cause to bar her of her Dower for a lease for years cannot be a Joynture Ease for years Quod Peryam concessit clearly and sayd that the Joynture ought to be a freehold at the least or otherwise it is no bar to the Dower whereby Gawdy moved another matter De Term. Mic. An. Reg. Eliz. xxviij xxix 1. AN Action upon the case was brought for calling the Plaintif false perjured Knave Jeofayle the Defendant justified because the Plaintif had sworn in the Exchequer that the Defendant had refused to pay the Subside where in truth he had notso done The Plaintif replyed de injuriâ— sua propria absque tali causa the Action was brought in London and there it was tryed for the Plaintif and great damage found and this matter was alleged in Arrest of Iudgement because the triall was in London whereas the Perjury was supposed to be made in the Exchequer Triall locall The Court said that the matter is tryable in both Counties and it was answered again London cannot joyn that London cannot joyn with any other County Anderson Then is your Issue vitious for when an Issue is tryable by two Counties if they cannot joyn then ought you to make such an Issue as may be tryed by one onely And by all the Court this ought to have been tryed in Middlesex for there the Perjury is supposed to be committed whereupon the Issue is taken Peryam to the Serjeant of the Plaintif See if you be not ayded by the Statute of Jeofayles Walmisley It hath been allwayes taken that if the triall be evill it is not ayded by the Statute of Jeofayles Peryam Then are ye without remedy for you shall have no judgement Et sic fuit opinio Curiae 2. GAwdy came to the Bar Joyntenancy and shewed how a man devised his lands to his two Sons Partition and their heirs and they had made partition by word without writing 18 Eliz. 350. Tota Curâ—a What question is there in it the partition is naught without doubt Rodes It hath been adjudged here that if the partition be of an estate of inheritance it is not good by paroll Joyntenant by devise Gawdy But I think that when a man deviseth his lands to his eldest Son and his youngest Son in my opinion they are Tenants in common because the eldest son shall take it by descent Peryam But I think not so for if a man make a gift in tayl to his eldest son Devise in tayl of an heir the remainder in fee c. Is not he in by the devise Gawdy This is another case Peryam In my case he shall take by the devise for the benefit of the issues and in your case he shall it take by the devise for the benefit of the survivor and therefore I think that they are Joyntenants Anderson There is but small doubt but that they shall be Joyntenants and there is authority for the case And this at length was the opinion of the whole Court 3. IN an Action of Debt for Rent Apportionment it was sayd by Anderson If a man make a lease of years reserving rent and the Lessee for years make a feoffment in fee of parcell of the land the rent shall be apportioned 4. FEnner came to the Bar Alien and sayd to Anderson that in his absence he had moved this case An Alien born purchaseth Lands and before office found the Queen by her Letters Patents maketh him a denison and confirms his estate the question is who shall have the lands Anderson The question is if the Queen shall have the lands of an Alien before office found Fenner True it is my Lord. Anderson I think they are not in the Queen before office and then the confirmation is good Rodes It seemeth that he shall take it onely to the use of the Queen Neis purchase lands and then the confirmation is voyd Fenner In 33 lib. Ass is this case If the Neise of the King purchase lands and takes a husband who hathâ— issue by her and she dye he shall be tenant by the curtesie Anderson and all the Court denied that case of the Neise Fenner I have heard lately in the Exchequer that an English man and an alien purchased lands joyntly Joynt purchase by an alien and the alien dyed it was adjudged that the other should have all by surviving Anderson and all the Court Surely this cannot be Law
of the wife For if the Husband have an Advowson in right of his Wife and the Church become voyd and the Husband dye the Executors shall have the presentation and the Serjeant sayd that there be many Books in that point Anderson I know it well but I doubt of the Law in the case Allso I would have you to argue if this be within the Statute of Demurrers in 27 Eliz. For if this be not matter of substance then it shall goe hard with the Plaintif therefore let it be argued again another time 11. ONe Brook was Plaintif in a Replevin Copyhold the Case was such Tho. Speek was seised of a Mannor in which were Copyholds according to the Custom and the place in which the taking was supposed was a Copyhold and the sayd Tho. Speek being so seised took to wife one Anne B. and died seised after whose death the sayd A. in the time of King Edw. 6. demanded the third part of the Mannor for her Dower by the name of Cent. Messuagiorum Cent. Gardinorum tot acr terrae tot acr prati c. and was endowed accordingly of parcel of the Demesns and parcel of the services of the Copyholds and after she granted a Copyhold and if this be good was the question for if she had a Mannor the Grant was good and otherwise not And the opinion of all the Court clearly was against the Grant for when she demanded her Dower she was at liberty to demand the third part of the Mannor or the third part of Cent. Mes Cent. Gard. Cent. acr c. and when she demanded it per nomen Cent. Mes c. Mannor a corporation she could have no Mannor For a Mannor cannot be claimed except by his name of Corporation as Anderson termed it and not otherwise and then Cent. Mes and Cent. acr c. cannot be sayd a Mannor and then the Grant of a Copyhold by her which had no Mannor was utterly voyd and this was the opinion of the Court clearly Quod not a. 12. SHuttelworth shewed how one Knight was Plaintif in a Replevin Visne 〈◊〉 Ass pl. 42. and they were at issue upon a prescription for Common in Newton appendant to land in another place and the venue was of Newton onely and it was found for the Plaintif and he prayed his judgment for the tryall may be in the one place as well as in the other as in annuity where the seisin is alleged in one County Annuity and the Church in another it may be tryed in any of the Counties Anderson But we think otherwise for it ought to be of both places when the matter ariseth in both and if they had been in severall Counties Counties joyn the Counties ought to have joyned Shuttelworth So is 10 Ed. 4. fol. 10. But our case being after a verdict I think we ought to have judgement Anderson and Windham The verdictdoth not amend the matter if it be mis-tried as this case is Rodes agreed that it was a mis-triall Mis-trial and therefore evill and that mis-trialls are not helped by the Statute of Jeofayles Shuttelworth I agree to that if you say that the triall is not good Windham So we say New Venire facias Then Shuttelworth advised his Client to take a new Venire facias 13. WAkefield brought a Replevin against Costard The Lord. who avowed for damage fesaunt Comptons case and the Plaintif prescribed for Common that all the inhabitants of Dale except the Parson and infants and such a house Prescription for Common have used to have Common in the place The Avowant sayd that the house whereunto the Plaintif claimed Common was built within thirty yeares last past and if he may have Common to this new house by prescription or no was demurred in judgement in Michaelmas Term and then Shuttelworth argued for the Plaintif that he should have his Common by prescription but not of common right And Gawdy argued for the Avowant that the Plaintif shall not have Common because the prescription is against all reason that he should have Common time out of mind to that which is but of thirty years continuance And allso he excepteth the Parson and infants and such a house and by the same reason he may except all which is not good Then one of the Judges sayd that if this be good Antient inhabitants hereafter there shall be no Common for the ancient inhabitants Improvement Peryam By such a prescription he shall for ever barre the Lord from improving any Common Common entire which is no reason Anderson All Common is intire for if a man have Common to three Mesuages and he infeoffee one man of one Mesuage and another of the second and another of the third the Common is gone And by this reason allso the new house cannot have Common And now this Term Gawdy demanded of the Court if they were resolved in the poynt Anderson We are all agreed that the prescription is utterâ—y voyd for it is impossible to have Common time out of mind for a house which was built within thirty yeares and then he commanded to enter judgement if nothing were sayd to the contrary by the next day Shuttelworth We have sayd all that we can say my Lord. Anderson Then let judgment be entred against the Plaintif 14. SNagg shewed how the Earl of â—Kent had brought an action of debt against a Londoner for rent behind Grant and shewed how the Countesâ— of Derby was tenant in Dower of this land and took to husband the Earl of Kent and that Henry Earl of Derby had granted it to the Earl of Kent habendum after the death of the Countess for certain yeares and he shewed how the grant was made by the name of a reversion also Lease in reversion Grant in reversion difference and that the Tenant had attorned and alleged the death of the Countess And the Court said that the Attornment is not necessary for it is but a lease in reversion and then no rent passeth thereby Anderson If you had been privy to the case of Talboys in the Kings-bench you would not have moved this doubt Peryam It is allso the very case of Throckmorton in the Commentaries Snagge But here in my case he hath granted it by the name of the reversion allso and then the reversion will carry the rent Curia Then is your grant voyd for a man cannot grant his reversion habend after the death of another and therefore quacunque via data you shall have no rent And thereupon Snagge conticuit cum rubore 15. MOunsay was Plaintif in debt upon an obligation against Hylyard Jeofayle and the Defendant pleaded the Statute of Usury because it was made for the sale of certain Copperas and he took more than was limited by the Statute and that it was made by shift and chevisance and other matter he alleged to prove it within the Statute the
and the one with force and the other not as if I command one to make a Disseisin and he makes a disseisin with force and allso if one enter with force to my use and after I agree he is a Disseisor with force and I am not so and those cases will answer the Books of Assises for in those cases they were present Present but in these not and so I hold that he which is present when force is made is a Disseisor with force Then it was moved if the Statute of 8 Hen. 6. doth extend to fresh forces VVyndam It doth extend to them by express words and Fleetwood cited a case in 44 Edw. 3. 32. that an Attaint lieth of fresh force Then for the other matter of trebling of damages increased the Court made no doubt but that they shall be trebled and they said that so it was lately adjudged here in a case of Staffordshire 19. PUckering shewed how an Attaint was brought upon a false Oath made in a Replevin Challenge where the Defendant made Conusance as Bayley to one Hussey and in the Attaint surmise was made that the Sherif was Cosen to Hussey and thereupon prayed Process to the Coroners and Puckering moved that no Process should issue to the Coroners for Hussey was not party to the Attaint and then this is but matter of favour and he cited 3 Hen. 7. And all the Court accorded with him that it is but matter of favour onely and no surmise to have a Writ to the Coroners but VValmisley would have put a difference between Lessee for years and a Bayley Lessee pur ans for as he pretended in the case of a Bayley it shall be a principall challenge but not in the other case but all the Court was against him and that it is no principall challenge in the one case nor in the other The last day of the Term it was moved again and the Court was of the same mind as before 20. IN a Quare impedit Adverson it was said by Anderson and agreed by all the Court that if a man make a Feoffment in Fee of a Mannor without deed and without saying with the appurtenances yet the Advowson shall pass and cited 15 Hen. 7. where it is adjudged that it is parcell of the Mannor and lieth in Tenure 21. IN an Action of debt Anderson cited a case which was before him at the Assises in Somersetshire Pleading an Action of Battery was brought in London and a Justification made in Somersetshire Absque hoc that he was guilty in London and the Plaintif replyed de injuria sua propriae absque tali causa and Anderson said that a man shall never plead de son tort demeasne where the matter ariseth in a Forein Country 22. AN ejectione firme was brought by Clayton against Lawson Bar. the Defendant pleaded in Bar a Recovery had in the Kings Bench against the Lessor of the Plaintif And Fenner moved that it should be no Bar no more than in Trespass Anderson I think it to be a good Bar. For this Action is as strong to bind the possession as a Writ of right is to bind the right VVyndam I think it is no Bar no more than in Trespass Anderson This is more than an Action of Trespass for in this he shall recover his Term. Rodes This case was moved the last Term and the opinion of the Court then was that it was a good Bar. Fenner True it is if it were between the parties themselves but here the Plaintif is but Lessee to him which was Barred Anderson Allthough that it be so yet he claymeth by the Lease of him which was Barred and during the Lease of the other his Lessor could have no right and what shall he have then Fenner That which is between the parties cannot be an Estoppell to the Plaintif here which is but a stranger Estoppell Anderson I know that he shall not plead it by way of Estoppell but he shall conclude Iudgement si Actio Peryam If in an Assise a Recovery in another Assise be pleaded in Bar Assise he shall not conclude by way of Estoppell but Iudgement si Actio and there he is driven to a higher Action and so here and the Law shall never have end if after a man is Barred in his Action he may bring the same Action again therefore I think it a good Bar and that he is driven to a higher Action VVyndam Lessee for years can have no higher Action Anderson Peryam If one which hath a Lease for years and no more Tenant for years disseisor of tenant in Fee simple enter upon him which hath a good title he is a disseisor of all the Feesimple Wyndam If two claim by Lease from one man and one bringeth an Ejectione Firme and is Barred what Action shall he have then Anderson None for he hath no Right VVyndam That is hard Anderson What Action shall he have which is Barred in Formdone surely none Fenner This is another case Anderson Aliquantulum incensus truly it is a plain case that he shall be Bared whereunto Peryam and Rodes agreed clearly 23. IN a praecipe quod reddat View the Tenant demanded the view and an habere facias visum issued and the Tenant came not to the Sherif to take the view it was said by the whole Court that the Sherif may retâ—urn that none came to take the view and he shall never have the view again Anderson The habere fac visum is the suit of the Tenant and then when he doth not come to take the view this is a default and then good reason to exclude him from the view Gawdy Such a retourn was never seen before and therefore it is to be noted the case was between Hoâ— and Hoo for Lands in Norfolk 24. IOhn VViseman of the Inner Temple Apportionment brought an Action of debt against Thomas VVallenger the case was this A man seised of three acres of Land in Fee makes a lease reserving xxx s of Rent and after devised the Reversion of two acres to a stranger and the third acre descended to the Heir and he brought an Action of debt for xij d. being behind and Puckering moved if they were agreed of their judgement in the case Rent extinct by the grant of part of the Reversion Anderson If a man let two Acres of Land rendring Rent and grant the Reversion of one of them all the Rent is gone as it is in Dyer and at the Common Law before the Statute of W. 3. there was no apportionment and the Statute speaketh of no such apportionment as this is Rodes Surely no Book in all the Law will warrant this apportionment Fenner Yes Sir 5 Ed. 3. If a man have a Rent of xx s and grants parcell thereof and the Tenant Attourns this is good Rodes This is another case But shew us the case which was in the Kings Bench
party from his advantage given him by the Statute But all the other Justices held opinion against him for they sayd that a man ought to appear in proper person upon a Latitat which Anderson denyed and sayd that the Latitats are not but of threescore yeares continuance which the other day Peryam had affirmed and he seemed to mislike with the Latitats And the Serjeant moved for their resolution in the case Anderson All my Brethren are of opinion against me wherefore take your judgement accordingly And so judgement was entred for the Plaintif 21. GAwon brought Debt upon an Obligation against White Traverse with condition that if the Defendant suffer the Plaintif his Tenants and Farmers to enjoy such a Common that then c. And the Defendant pleaded conditions performed and the Plaintif assigned for breach that he did not suffer A. B. his Tenant to enjoy c. Absque hoc that he performed the condition And it was sayd by the Court that this Traverse was not good no more than if one be bound to perform the covenants in an Indenture and the Defendant pleads that he hath performed all generally if the Plaintif assign his breach he shall not say further Absque that the Defendant hath performed the covenants for so much he had sayd before But Walmisley would have put a difference between the cases because in the one there were divers covenants to be performed but not so here Anderson If a man plead a Plea which is sufficient of it self and take a traverse allso you will grant that this Plea is not good quod fuit concessum and this Plea had been sufficient of it self onely quod fuit concessum ergo the traverse was not good without question Et sic opinio totius Curiae 22. GOverstone brought a Replevin against B. Rent charge who avowed the taking for a Rent charge granted to him by the Duke of Suffolk And this was the case The Duke was seised of three parts of a Mannor and granted a Rent charge to the Avowant And one Pole was seised of the fourth part and Hatcher purchased the Dukes three parts and the part of Pole allso and demised a fourth part to the Plaintif but the Serjeants could not agree whether it was Poles fourth part or otherwise the fourth part generally and as it seemed to the Court if it were the fourth part of Pole then the Avowry is not maintainable but otherwise if it were the fourth part generally And after in Michaelmas Term the case was rehearsed again and it was that he demised eandem quartam partem to hold at will And all the Justices agreed that it shall be discharged because it was never charged allthough once he might have distreined in all the Mannor Vnion of possession for that then there was no fourth part for all was alike in the hands of the purchaser but now when the fourth part is in the hands of a stranger it is no reason that it shall be charged Walmisley But the Tenant at will hath nothing but the profits by the way of taking Tenant at wil. and not any land but if Hatcher had made a Feoffment then I agree that it shall be discharged â—eryam And as well shall Tenant at will take the profits in his own right as long as the will doth continue wherefore judgement was given for the Plaintif 23. LEssee for years Wast the reversion in fee to Constance Foster and the Lessee granted over all his term and interest to A. B. Pasch 18 El. reserving and excepting all trees growing in and upon the premisses Rot. 420. the Lessee makes wast and destruction in the trees and C. F. brought Wast against the assignee and if this action will lye or no was the question wherein it was disputed whether this exception and reservation made by the Lessee be good or no for if the reservation be voyd then the action will lye well against the Assignee and thereupon these cases were put to shew both what interest the Lessor and Lessee have in the Trees viz. 33 Hen. 8. 2 Hen. 7. 42 Ed. 3. 21 Hen. 6. 46. 27 Hen. 6. Wast in Slatham 2 Eliz. fol. Danseyes case 7 Hen. 6. 12 Ed. 4. but to prove the reservation voyd Fenner took this ground That thing which a man cannot grant he cannot reserve and the Lessee cannot grant the Trees ergo he cannot reserve them And afterwards judgment was given for the Plaintif for default of pleading on the part of the Defendant but for the matter in Law two Judges were against the other two so that they could not agree De Term. Mic. An. Reg. Eliz. xxix xxx 1. AN action of Debt was brought by Bret against Andrews upon an Obligation indorced with condition to stand to the arbitrement of A. B. Request who did arbitrate that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintif xxâ—l and appointed no certain day of payment and the Defendant in pleading confessed the arbitrement but he sayd further that the Plaintif did never require him to pay it and thereupon the Plaintif demurred in Law and upon reading of the Record the Court held clearly that it was no plea because the Defendant at his peril ought to make payment within convenient time and the Plaintif needeth not to make any request And Anderson commanded to enter judgment accordingly 2. FEnner moved this case Possibility of Interest a man deviseth lands to his Wife for term of her life and if she live untill his sonne come to the age of 24 yeares that then he shall have the lands and if she dye before he come to that age that then I. S. shall have it untill his sonne come to that age and dyed then I. S. dyed before the wife and after she dyed before the sonne came to 24 years if the Executors of I. S. shall have the land untill the sonne come to that age or no was the question And the opinion of all the Court was that they shall not have it because their Testator had never any interest vested in him Fenner But here was a possiblity of an interest Curia But that is not sufficient Rodes cited the case of Bret and Rigden in the Commentaries Grant Anderson If I grant you that if you pay me xxl. at Easter then you shall have an Annuity of xl s to you and your heirs if you dye before Easter now your Heir shall never have it and so in this case 3. THatcher recovered in an Assise of Novel disseisin against Elmer for Lands in Hackney in Middlesex Redisseisin and after Elmer re-disseised him and Thatcher re-entred and Elmer disseised him again And Fleetwood moved the Court if Thatcher may have re-disseisin because that after action accrued to him he had re-entred Anderson What is the Judgement in this Action Judgement Surely it is not that he shall recover any land but double damages and that the
in arrest of Judgement after Verdict for the Plaintif and the Court seemed prima facie that they are not But after the case was moved by Harris for the Plaintif and then by the consent of all the Court Judgement was given for the Plaintif And Popham said that to say that an Attorney will overthrow his Clients cause is an Actionable slander 22. COllet brought a Writ of Error against Marshe Error for non summons upon a Judgement given in the Common place in a praecipe quod reddat And assigned for Error for that by the Statute de 31 Eliz. cap. 13. it is inacted for the avoiding of secret summons in reall Actions without convenient notice of the Tenants of the Freehold that after every summons upon the Land in any reall Action fourteen daies at the least before the Retorn thereof Proclamations of the summons shall be made on a Sunday at or near the most usuall door of the Church or Chapell of that Town or Parish where the Land whereupon the summons were made doth lie and these Proclamations so made as aforesaid c. ut in Statuto And in this case there was not any Proclamation made at the Church door And whether the Plaintif shall have an Averment against the Sherifs Retorn was the question And adjudged that the party shall not have the Averment against the Retorn of the Sherif No averment against a Sherifs retorn For if the Retorn be false the party shall have an Action upon the case against the Sherif 23. POrtman brought an ejectione firme against Willis and a speciall Verdict was founâ— that Roger Hill was possessed of a Lease for years and gave divers personall Legacies to severall persons and gave all his other goods and Chattells to his Wife and whether the Wife shall have this Term being a Chattell reall or not was the question 24. GRay brings Trespass against Trowe Fish in a pond for entring into his Close and taking of Fish out of a Fish-pond with nets and other Engines The defendant pleaded that long time before the Trespass was done one Thomas Grey was seised of the Close and Pond and put the Fishes into the Pond and after the said Thomas Grey made the Defendant his Executor and died And he as Executor took the said Fishes Chattells descendable and upon that the Plaintif demurred and it was adjudged that the Heir shall have the Fishes in the Pond and not the Executors Felony for they are Chattells descendable but by Clinch it is Felony to take them Popham If they be in a Trunck so that they may be taken out by the hands of men without nets or other Engins there it is Fellony but otherwise it is not Fellony 25. THynn brings Debt against Cholmeley for 300. p. of arrerages of a nomine poenae Nomine poenae against an Assignee and declared of a Lease for years made by him to one Agar rendring Rent And if default of payment be made of payment of the said Rent at any day in which it ought to be paid that then so often the said A. his Executor and Assignes shall pay 3. s 4. p. for every day untill the aforesaid Rent so behind shall be satisfied And shewed how the Rent was behind and not payed for two years But doth not say that he demanded the Rent Jackson The sum demanded is by computation more than is due reckoning but iij. s iiij d. for every day that the Rent is arrear And if that be his intent he demands too little for in two years that will be infinite Gawdy It seemeth that he shall not have but onely iij. s iiij d. for every day Fenner I think he ought to make demand of the Rent or otherwise he shall never have the nomine poenae Gawdy No truly no more than in debt upon an Obligation and he cited 21 Hen. 6. 21 Edw. 4. 22 nomine poenae Fenner The cases are not alike In demand for in debt upon an Obligation there is a duty but otherwise it is of Rent And it was agreed that the action well lieth against an Assignee in this case 26. HUmphrey Parlor brought an Action upon the case for words against I. S. And the words were these Slander viz. Parlor was in Prison in a Jail for stealing of Mr. Piggots Beasts and it was pleaded in arrest of Judgement that the Action doth not lie forasmuch as it is not presciely alleged and affirmed that he stole the Beasts But by Implicatior Nevertheless Judgement was given for the Plaintif for by Fenner if he had said he had been in Prison for suspition of stealing Mr. Piggots Beasts no Action will lie for a treue man may be suspected But here is a direct affirmance of stealing For a man cannot be imprisoned for stealing if he do not steal 27. THe Earl of Pembrâ—ok brought an Action upon the case against Henry Barkley militem Proviso and the case in effect was such that the late Earl of Pembrook Father of the now Plaâ—ntif was seised in Fee of the Mannor of D. in comâ—tatu Somerset and by reason of that he had the Office of Liuetenantship in the Forrest of Cromcelwood and of all the Walks in that And by reason of the said Office had all the commandement of the game within the Forrest and he so seised the Earl granted to Sir Maurice B. Father of the now Defendant and to the Heirs Males of his body the Keepership of a walk called S. in the West part of the Forrest and in the said Deed of grant were such words Provided allwaies and the said Sir Mawrice B. doth Covenant and grant to and with the said Earl of Pembrook that it shall and may be lawfull to and for the Earl his Heirs and Assignes to have the preheminence of the game within the said Walk Provided allso and the said Sir M. B. doth further Covenant and grant to and with the said Earl That neither he the said Sir M. his Heirs or Assignes shall or will cut down any Timbertrees growing within the said Walk And after Sir M. B. died and the said Sir H. was his Son and Heir and cut down Trees within the Walk And the Lord of P. commanded his servants to enter into the said West-walk and there to Walk And Sir H. B. did disturb them and upon that the Action was brought and the point of the case was if the wordes in the second Proviso make a Condition or but a Covenant Gawdy I doubt of the case for all the question of the case is if it be a Condition or but a Covenant And as I am now advised â—â—hit is but a Covenant and no Condition For in all cases where this word Proviso ought to make a Condition there ought to be a perfect sentence to explain the meaning of the parties or otherwise it is no Condition As if the wordes are provided allwaies that if the Rent be behind and
say no more now this is no Condition And here all the sense comes in after the words of Covenant and these words are the words of Sir M. B. And for that it seemeth no Condition for if the words had been And it is provided by Sir M. B. there it is clear no Condition But if in a Lease for yeares be words and the Lessee do provide that if the Rent be behind that then the Lessor shall re-enter there I agree that this makes a Conditon And in the case put by my Brother Williams a Lease made provisum est quod non licebit to the Lessor to grant over upon pain of forfeiture there is a good Condition But otherwise it shall be if sub poena forisfacturae were omitted Fenner I think it is a a Condition for all the words put together explain the meaning of the parties as if he had said upon Condition And the Lessee doth Covenant and grant and none will deny but that this is a Conditidition Clinch seemed that it is no Conditon for the words may not be used as a Covenant and allso as a Condition As where a grant is by Deed by words of Dedi concessi confirmavi the Deed may be used as a Grant or confirmation at the Election of the party But it cannot be used in both sorts Popham I think that the Proviso as it is here placed will make a Condition and yet I will agree that a Proviso shall be sometimes taken for a Condition and sometimes for Explanation and sometimes for a Covenant and sometimes for an Exception and sometimes for a Reservation and it is taken for a Condition As if a man Lease Land provided that the Lessee shall not Alien without the Assent of the Lessor sub poena forisfactura here it is a Condition and if I have two Mannors both of them named Dale and I Lease to you my Mannor of Dale Provided that you shall have my Mannor of Dale in the Occupation of I. S. here this Proviso is an Explanation what Mannor you shall have and if a man Lease a house and the Lessee Covenanteth that he will that maintain Provided allwaies that the Lessor is contented to find great Timber here this is a Covenant and if I Lease to you my Messuage in Dale provided that I will have a Chamber my self here this is an Exception of the Chamber and if I make a Lease rendring Rent at such a Feast as I. S. shall name Provided that the Feast of St. Michael shall be one here this Proviso is taken for a Reservation and in our case if the words had been provided allwaies that the Donees shall cut down no Trees and the Lessee doth Covenant he will not fell any here every one will agree that it is a Condition and allso a Covenant And in this case in my opinion this tant amounts Serjeant Williams and Cook Attorney for the Plaintif Atkinson and Tanfield for the Defendant 28. LAssels the Father Sâ—ander brought an Action upon the case against Lassels the Son for words viz. he quendam Thomam Lassels fratrem ejusdem Def. innuend stole a Mare and you innuend querent knowing the same conveyed her into the Fenns to my Brother B. his house Clinch and Gawdy seemed the Action maintainable Fenner econtra 29. A Man was indicted for stealing of a hat and a band and other such things Indictment And the Prisoner said that he was before that time indicted for goods stolen the same day and time and acquitted Gawdy said he may not be severally indicted for goods stolen at one time As if a man steal a dozen of silver spones he may not be indicted for two in one Indictment and for other two in another sic de singulis Clinch accord Fenner Yes truly for it was the case of Thomas Cobham the which was indicted for goods taken in two shipps and acquitted and after condemned for other goods taken at the same time 30. PEarce brought an Action upon the case against Barker Prescription by a Copy-holder and delared how within the Mannor of Dale time out of mind there had been divers Copyholders and during the same time there hath been a usage within the said Mannor That every Copyholder for every Acre of Land shall have Common in such a Wast of the Lords for two Beasts And shewed how the Plaintif is possessed of twenty Acres and by reason of those ought to have Common for forty Beastâ— And there hath the Defendant being Lessee for years of the same Mannor one Conigray within the same Wast by which the Conies have so digged the ground that his Beasts cannot have Common as they were wont to have Fenner A Copyholder may not prescribe but in right of his Lord but now the Lord pro tempore is party to the action and whether this will alter the case or not I doubt Glanvile Albeit the Copyholder may not prescribe but in right of his Lord yet by way of usage as this case is it hath been adjudged that he may make his title 31. A Ruudell was heretofore arraigned upon an Indictment of willfull Murder for the death of one Parker Indictment and was found not guilty of Murder but guilty of Manslaughter for which he pleaded the generall pardon de 35 El. And the Queens Attorney alleged That in the sayd generall pardon there is an exception of all persons being in prison by the commandement of one of the Privy-counsell and said that the sayd Arundell was committed by the Lord Chamberlain for suspition of the sayd Felony and for the same in prison at the time of the Parliament Commitment and so a person exempted To which it was sayd by the Defendant that long time before the sayd Parliament and after the sayd commitment by the Lord Chamberlain there went out of this Court a Corpus eum causa by force of which he was sent into this Court with the cause of his commitment and was for the sayd offence committed by this Court to the Marshalsey and there was remaining at the time of the Parliament by force of the commitment of this Court and it seemed by the better opinion of the Court if a man be committed by a Privy-counsellor and removed by Habeas corpus and committed by this Court he shall be now sayd imprisoned by commitment of this Court and not of the Privy-counsellor 32. STaugnton brings a Writ of Error against Newcomb upon a Judgement given in Debt in the Common-place Error and the first Error assigned was for that the originall Writ was xx l. and all the mean Process were so likewise but when the Defendant appeared to the Exigent the entry was quod defendens obtulit se in placitâ— debitâ— decem librarum where it ought to be xxl. Dodderidge I think it shall be amended for it is the misprision of the Clerk and to prove that he cited 37 Hen. 6. 44. Ed. 3. 18. But upon
the Kings-bench against one Fuller And the said Felix Marshall became Bail for the said Fuller in the said suit Scilicet That if the said Fuller should be condemned in that Action and did not either pay that condemnation or yield his body to prison that then Felix Marshall should pay the condemnation for him according to the ordinary course of Bailes But yet in pleading of this Recognisance he said further Et si defecerit in solutione tuuc vult concedit quod pradictum debitum levetur de terris et tenementis suis And Gawdy Justice said he did not use any such wordes when he took Bail And after this Bail taken and before Judgement given in the said suit the said Hoo the Testator released to the said Marshall all actions and demands And after Judgement was given for the said Hoo the Testator against Fuller and thereupon the Testator brought a Scire facias against M. as appears before and M. pleaded the said release and hanging this Plea Hoo the Testator dyed and then the Executors brought another Scire facias against the said M. And he pleaded this release again in barr Learning for releases Gawdy I doubt of the case for 5 Eliz. 217. the Covenantee released all actions suits quarrels debts executions and trespasses and this was before any Covenant broken And it is there holden that it is no barr to an action of Covenant afterwards brought upon a Covenant after broken Annuity And per. 4. Ed. 4. 40. If a Grantee of an Annuity release all actions to the Grantor before the day of payment Read against Bullock this will discharge the arrearages before accrued but not those payments after And by Read and Bullocks Case a release is not available to any other right or action than such as a man hath at the time of the release for it is against the nature of a release to take effect in tempore futuro and in the case in question there was no action nor demand before judgement given against Fuller Difference where the first delivery is void and where not And I doubt of the case cited in 27 H. 6. 7. where an Obligation is delivered as an escrowl and the Obligee release to the Obligor all actions after the Obligation is delivered as the deed of the party whether this release do that discharge or not it shall not by P. 5. H. 7. fo 27. Infant So there are many other cases there put as if an Infant deliver a deed as an Escrowl to be delivered as his deed when he comes of full age There I take the Law clear that if the condition be performed at ful age of the Infant yet this is not his deed And so of a Feme Covert which delivers a deed as an Escrowl to be delivered upon Condition when she is sole Feme â—oveâ—t if after the deed be delivered when the Woman is sole yet this is not her deed for in these two last cases the first act which was the delivery as an Escrowl was meerly void And if a man be indicted by conspiracy and after release to the conspirators all actions and after that the party indicted is arraigned upon this Indictment and by Triall is acquitted I doubt whether this release shall barr him in an action of conspiracy or not Fenner said that the Recognisance is immediatly a Debt and for that this release shall be a Barr for by Lytt a release of all actions is no bar in a fieri fac to have execution within the year but in a Scire fac after the year it is a good bar Release after delivery is an Escrowl and so in this case it is a barr which was not a bar at the first And I see not any reason forwhich if the King release a Recognisance which is not yet broken it should not be a discharge of the Recognisance Except it be for that that the generall words in the Kings grant shall not extend to discharge such a Recognisance without speciall words And I think that a deed which is delivered as an Escrowl is not a deed but onely after the delivery of that as a deed and shall not relate to be a deed ab initio And for that a release made before the delivery as a deed albeit that after that it is delivered as an Escrowl shall not discharge it Pas 5. H. 7. 27. Clinch I think that this release shall be a good barr for if the Defendant at the time when he entered bail had had his land and had sold it afore the Judgement given against Fuller for whom he was bâ—il none will deny but that this land shall be lyable which proves that this is a Recognisance and a Debt immediately Popham This is aprettie case but there will be a difference between a duty upon a contingent and a duty absolute for if I covenant to â—ufeoff you of the mannor of Dale before such a day Duties absolute contingent differece and bind my self by Obligation to perform the covenants and before the day you release to me all actions there the Obligation is discharged but not the Covenant for the Obligation was an absolute duty and the Covenant but contingent Obligation to perform covenants discharged but not the covenant and it seemeth that a deed delivered as an Escrowl may not be discharged by release made before that the Escrowl be delivered as a deed And in the case at bar there is no duty but upon a Contingent that is to say if the party be condemned and do not satisfie the Debt nor render his body to prison And for that before that it become a duty such a release will never be a discharge being but a possibility for it hath been adjudged that where a lease hath been made to two for their lives A possibility cannot be discharged or surrendred the Remainder which shall first happen to dye for forty yeares that neither the one nor the other nor both together may grant this term of 40. yeares before it be setled if I release all demands before that the rent is due the rent is gone But it is otherwise of a release of all actions Gawdie I agree that a release of all demands will discharge rent due Release of demands actions difference Popham If I make a lease to I. S. for so many yeares as I. K. shall name this I. S. may not surrender his term before that I. K. name the yeares And he denyed that the land of Marshall the manucaptor which he had at the time of the Bayl should be bound being sold before the Judgement against Fuller as Justice Clinch did affirm in his argument Fenner There is a difference between an Action and an Interest And after Judgement was given that the release was no bar 99. MAckerell brought an Assumpsit against Bachelor Necessary apparell and declared that in consideration that the Plaintif did deliver unto
as primo Mar. 100 is Then if the Sherif inquire of one term and sell another as our case is the term sold was never found by our Inquisition and for that the sale not good quod Fenner concessit yet the Lord Popham sayd that if it had been found by the Inquistion generally that he is possessed of such land for term of divers years adhuc ventur which they have prised to such a sum this had been good insomuch as they have not any means to come to the knowledge of the certainty of the term But when by Inquiry a Term in particular is found Que estate refers as well to the estate as to the person they may not vary from that and sell another and he sayd that these words Cujus statum Henrici Fry shall be referred as well to the state precedent found as to the person of Fry And so is the common intendment in pleading of a que estate And he said to Mr. Tanfield that if he had taken any note of their first opinions that he should raze that out of his Book again and after the parties agreed in Court that Hauger should give to Fry 200 Marks more for his term and then Fry should make assurance to him of the term for confirmation of the sale 106. NOta per Cook Attorney Generall Difference between Feoffmenâ— to an use and covenant to raise an use If a man Covenant in consideration of naturall love to his son to stand seised of certain Land to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the same son in Fee with a Proviso that it shall be lawfull for himself to make Leases for 21 years or three lives Now he may not make such Leases notwithstanding this Proviso being by way of Covenant to raise the use And so it hath been resolved Contra Peradventure if it were by way of Feoffment to uses After Mr. Walter said that now lately in one Sharingtons case it was adjudged in this Court upon a Writ of Error That if a man Covenant with his Eldest son in consideration of naturall love A proviso with speciall limitaâ—n good to stand seised to the use of himself for life the remainder to his Eldest Son in tail with Proviso that he himself might make Leases to his second son or to any other of his kindred for 21 years or 3 lives and he made Leases to him accordingly this was holden good for they to whom the Leases are made are within the consideration to wit of the blood and for that the use may well rise to maintain those Leases But if the Proviso had been to make Leases to any man howbeit that after he made Leases by force of that to his second son These Leases are void for they are not within the consideration of the Covenant by Intendment of Law at the first for the Law at the beginning adjudged the Proviso meerly void quod nota 107. RObinson brought Debt upon an Obligation against May Counterbond the Condition was that the Defendant should discharge or save harmless the Plaintif of an Obligation for which the Plaintif as surety with the now Defendant was bound to I. S. The Defendant by way of bar pleaded Vsury that the Obligation made to I. S. by him and the Plaintif was upon a corrupt and usurious bargain and pleaded the Statute of Usury and concluded sic non daâ—â—ificatus It was moved at the bar that this was no plea for the Condition is that the Defendant shall discharge or save harmless c. And the Plaintif was impleaded by I. S. for that debt and hath paid the condemnation Tanfield Contra For if this shall not be allowed for a good plea the Statute of usury will be utterly defeated For by a compact between the surety and the Usurer the surety shall pay the usurer and the surety by that counterbond shall have double recompence against the Principall which will be mischievous But the whole Court held the plea not good sed quare 108. HObbs sued an Audita querela in the Kings Bench against Tedcastle Audita querela for a speciall bail and upon a demurer the case was recited by Moor of the Temple to be this Tedcastle sued a bill of debt in this Court against one Hallaway in Custodia Marescali which found bail the said Hobbs and an another which entred bail according to the common course of bail And after Hallaway was condemned in the said Action and then the said Hallaway died without paying the condemnation or rendring his body to Prison for which a scire facias was sued against the bail and upon two nihils retorned Execution was awarded against them Whereupon they sued this Audita querela supposing that the death of Hallaway hath discharged the bail Moor argued for the Plaintif that the bail ought to be discharged upon the matter for Hallaway had Election to discharge the bail by paying the condemnation or rendring of his body to Prison Now by the Act of God it becomes impossible to perform the one to wit to yield his body to prison And therefore the Law will discharge him of the other and by consequence his bail And that he proved by Arundells case 9 Eliz. 262. 6. 7 Eliz. 231. Sir Edw. Walgraves case Popham Quemodo constat here but that there was convenient time after the Judgement to perform the one or the other Kemp Secondary The course is allwaies here after Judgement to award a Capias against the Defendant and if upon that he do not render himself or pay the condemnation then to sue Execution against the bail and not before but here there was never any Capias awarded against Hallaway the Defendant in his life time Popham Gawdy Fenner This seemeth very reasonable not to sue Execution against the bail untill a default be retorned against the Principall and the recognisance of the bail which is that the Principall shall yield himself c. is intended to be upon Process awarded against him But no Process was awarded against him in his life and now it is impossible that he should yield himself to Prison being dead Iudgement and therefore the bail is discharged And so they awarded Judgement for the Plaintif in the Audita querela 109. MAtures brought an Action of Covenant against Westwood And the case was such Covenant for an assignee of a reversion for years Adams Lessee for 20 years made a Lease for 10 years of the same Land to Bowes by indenture whereby Bowes did Covenant at the end of his Term of ten years to avoid and to leave peaceable possession to Adams his Executors or Assignes Adams granted over his Reversion to Matures the now Plaintif The question is if the Plaintif by the Statute of 32 Hen. 8. cap 34. as Assignee may maintain an Action of Covenant for his Covenant broken or not Nota that this case was moved divers times And first it was moved if
a Grantee of a Reversion for years be within the Statute or not Gawdy Well enough For the words of the Statute extend to that quod fuit concessum Then it was moved that this was a meer collaterall Covenant between the persons and not concerning the estate of the land and for that not within the Statute Popham sayd Covenant reall which concerneth the estate If nothing be sayd to the contrary intretur Judicium for the Plaintiff afterwards the case was moved again Gawdie It seems the case is Assigne which in regard of his reversion as of a Covenant may well maintain this action by the Statute of 32. Fenner This Covenant is not any Covenant to be performed during the estate or terme of the Defendant but it is a Covenant to doe a thing in the end of his term and for that is not a Covenant of which the Assignee of the reversion shall have benefit by the Statute for that he hath not any reversion depending upon any estate when the Covenant is alledged to be broken for the Defendant when he breaks that Covenant is but Tenant at sufferance Gawdie contra the Covenant is not to doe a thing after the terme determined but at the instant of the determination of the term and therfore it is a Covenant annexed to the State and runnes with the Land and therefore the Plaintiff shall have advantage over it 110. TRespasse and assault was brought against one Sims by the Husband and the Wife for beating of the woman A Child born living but bruised Cook the case is such as appears by examination A man beats a woman which is great with child and after the child is born living but hath signes and bruises in his body received by the said batterie and after dyed thereof I say that this is murder Fenner Popham absentibus cateris cleerly of the same opinion and the difference is where the child is born dead and where it is born living for if it be dead born it is no murder for non constat whether the child were living at the time of the batterie or not or if the batterie was the cause of the death but when it is born living and the wounds appeare in his body and then he dye the Batteror shal be arraigned of murder for now it may be proved whether these wounds were the cause of the death or not and for that if it be found he shall be condemned 111. GOodale against Wyat in trepasse The speciall verdict found that Sr John Pagginton was seised of the land in question in Fee Mortgage and morgaged it to one Woodliff upon condition that if he or his Heires did pay to the Heires Executors or Administrators of the said W. within one yeer after the death of the said Woodliff 50 l. That then the said deed of Feoffment and the Seisin thereupon given should be void and afterwards Woodliff infeoffed Goodale of the same land and gave notice of the said Feoffment to Sr J. P. and after Woodliff dyed and Sir J. agreed with the heir of W. to wit one Drew Woodliff to take 30 l. for the said 50 l. but when the 30 l. was to be paid Sir J. paid to the said Drew VV. all the fifty pounds and after such payment made Drew VV. gave back to the said Sr. J. 20 l. parcel of the 50 l. Altam 2. points are in the case The first is to whom the payment of the money as this case is ought to be made and I think to the Feoffee because the Heir hath nothing to do in the land and to prove that he cited fundamenta legum 17. Ass 2. 6. R. 2. Plesingtons case and the case of one Ramsey 19. Eliz. was such a man infeoffed three Ramseys case upon condition that if the Feoffor paid to them or their heires 100 l. that then he might re-enter and after one of the Feoffees dyed and the Feoffor tendred the money to his Heir and adjudged a void tender And also Littleton proves that but tif the condition might be performed to the Heirby payment that ought to be precisely performed for he is now as a stranger having nothing in the land and the Covin between the Feoffor and the Heir must not hurt my Olient for by 4. E. 2. câ—i in vita 22. If cui in vita be brought against a Prior and hanging the action he is deposed by Covin this shal not abate the Writ and it was adjudged in this Court where a man was bound by Obligation to deliver a bond and after he got a judgement upon it and then delivered the bond and holden no performance of the condition because the intent was not performed and 20. E. 3. accompt 29. in accompt the Defendant pleaded a Deed whereby the Plaintiff granted that if the Defendant made a Recognisance to him that then the Writ of accompt shall be made void and he shewed how he made a Recognisance But the Plaintiff said that after the making and before deliverie of that to him Composition by Executors the Defendant took it from the Clerk and therefore was adjudged to accompt Precisely named and by 18. E. 4. 20. If a man be bound to license another to carrie a 100. Oakes if he do license him and then disturb him the condition is broken and the common case of Executors will prove this for if an Executor have but 20 l. assets in his hands and is in debt to two men in 20. l. to either of them if he pay but 10 l. to the one and have an acquittance of him for the whole debt of 20 l. yet the other 10. l. that remains in his hands shall be assets to the other for no compacting between strangers shall prejudice my right per quo c. Payment upon a mâ—rgage good to the Executorrs cleelry Gawdy I think cleerly if the payment had been intirely made to the Heir without collusion it had been good for that he is preisely named for none will deny but that if the payment had been made to the Executors it had been good but the Covin between the Heir and the Feoffor peradventure will make no payment Father enfeoff the son and for that 34. E. 1. Warrantie 88. If the father infeoff the Son to the intent that this land shall not be assets to the Sonne to bar him in a Formdone this Covin will not serve to aid him Covin by administration and 2 3 Mar. the Husband dyed intestate and administration was committed to the wife which tooke another husband and the second husband and his wife as Administrators brought an action of Debt hanging which suit the Sonne of the intestate by fraud and covin between him and a Debtor obtained other letters of Administration to him and the woman joyntly and after judgement the sonne by covin to defeat the execution released to the Debtor all demands and executions and after the Husband and
lawfull to sell such an Office 114. IN an Action of Debt upon an Escape Escape Popham Clinch and Gawdy sayd P. 36. Eliz. if a Prisoner in Execution escape and the Jaylor make fresh suit and before the re-taking the party bring his Action against the Jaylor now the Jaylor may not re-take the Prisoner as to be in execution for the Plaintif again but onely for his own indempnity but if the party doe not bring his Action then the Jaylor may re-take his Prisoner and he shall be in Execution again for the Plaintif Wast For by Popham this Case is like to Wast the which if it be repaired before the Action brought the party shall not have an Action 115. A. B. was Utlawed after Judgement Elegit after Vâ—lary and an Elegit was awarded against the Defendant Mr. Godfrey prayed a Supersedeas quia erronice emanavit for the party may not have any other manner of Execution but a Capias for a Fieri fac he may not have for the Queen is intituled to all his goods and an Elegit he may not have for by the Utlawry the Queen is intituled to all the profits of his Lands Feoffment by an outlaw Gawdy It appeares by 21 Hen. 7. 7. a. That the party Outlawed may make a Feoffment and so out the King of the Profits and so it seemeth in this Case But it is good to be advised 116. SR Henry Jones Knight Error in fine and remedy and I. his Wife the Wife being then within age levied a Fine of the lands of the Wife and a precipe quod reddat was brought against the Conusee which vouched the Husband and the Wife and they appeared in person and vouched over the common Vouchee which appeared and after made default whereby a Recovery was had and now the said Wife and her second Husband brought a Writ of Error to reverse the Fine and another Writ of Error to reverse the Recovery by reason of the nonage of the woman and the court was of opinion to reverse the Fine but they would advise upon the Recovery for that the said Henry Jones Knight and his Wife appeared in person and vouched over and so the Recovery was had against them by their appearance and not by default and so it seemeth no Error Generall warranty destroieth titles and conditions and to prove that Gawdy cited 1 and 2 Mar. Dyer 104 and 6 H. 8. 61. Saver default 50. Also as this case is it seemeth that by generall entry into warranty the Error upon the Fine is gone as where a man hath cause to have a Writ of right or title to enter for a Condition broken or any other title to land and in a praecipe quod reddat of the same land is vouched and entreth generally into warranty by that the condition or other title is gone but upon examination it was found that the Recovery was before the Fine for the Recovery was Quindena Trin. and the Fine was tres Trin. And so the Recovery doth not give away the Error in the Fine 117. IN Evidence between Tutball and Smote the case was such Condition extinguished P. 36 Eliz. that a Termor for years granted his Term to I. S. upon condition that if the Grantee did not yearly pay x l. to Q. R. that the grant should be void after the Grantor died and made the Grantee his Executor and whether the Condition be extinguished or not was the question Popham and Gawdy said the Condition is extinguished for it is impossible for the Executor to enter upon himself Clinch Fenner è contra The debtor marrieth the Executor for he hath the Term jure proprio and the Condition as Executor and so he hath them as in severall capacities Cook It hath been adjudged where a man is indebted and marryeth with the Excutor and the Executor dyes yet this is no devastavit for the Husband hath been charged 118. RIchard Thorn Administrator of an Administrator and Jane his Wife as Administratrix of one I. Gime brought Debt of xx l. against I. S. And alleged that the Testator was Administrator of one Mary Gime which Mary Gime lent the money to the now Defendant Trin. 36. Eliz. and Judgement was given in the Common place against I. S. And upon the Writ of Error Error was assigned for that that the now Plaintif as Administrator of an Administrator brought this Action where the Administration of the first Testatators goods ought newly to have been committed by the Ordinary to the next of Kin and he to whom the Administration of the goods of the first Administrator is committed hath nothing to doe with them And so the Iudgement was Reversed 119. HUmble brought Debt against Glover for arrearages of rent Privity determined of both parts and the case was this that a man made a lease for term of years and after granted the Reversion to the Plaintif and after the Lessee for yeares assigned over his whole estate and interest and after this assignment rent was behind and the Grantee of the Reversion brought Debt against the first Lessee for rent due after his estate assigned over and whether Debt will lye against the Lessee after the assignment was the question and the opinion of all the Judges was that no Debt lyeth for the Grantee of the Reversion against the first Lessee after the assignment of his term for when the privily of the estate is determined of both parts no Debt lyeth and so the Plaintif was barred 120. IN Evidence between Maidston and Hall Maintenance Popham said that it was agreed in the Star Chamber if two are at issue in any Action It is not lawfull for any stranger to labour the Jury to appear for for such an Act one Gifford was fined in the Star-Chamber Giffords case Gawdy Truly the Law is so for labouring of Juries is maintenance 121. DIckâ—ns brought an action of trespass against Marsh Estaâ—e by Devise and a speciciall Verdict was found that R. D. being seised of certain lands in Fee had issue three children to wit John Toby and Mary and by his Will devised that after his debts paid he giveth all his goods lands and moveables unto his three children equally between them Altam There are two matters to be considered in the case the first is what estate the children have by this devise whether Fee simple or but for life the second is whether Joyntenants or Tenants in commn and as to the first point I think they have but an estate for life for it appeares 22 H. 6. 16. If I devise land to one without expressing what estate he shall have Dyer 23 Eliz. 371. he is but Tenant for life but if it be expressed in the devise No estate expressed that the Devisee shall pay 20. s to John S. there as the book is 24 H. 8. R. 125. the Devisee shall have Fee simple For the