dyes after R. enters and dyes 18. Eliz. the executor of T. enters and assignes to J. S. the Successor of the Rector enters and Leases to B. who upon ouster brought an Ej. Firmae Resolved for the Plaintiffe and that the Lease to T. is voyd Argued for T. that his demise was good and a difference taken betwixt terminum annorum and tempus annorum as in this case of the demise to T. during so many yeares of the fourescore yeares c. not of the terme of fourescore yeares if a Lease be made for 21. yeares and after another Lease to commence from the end and expiration of the said terme of yeares and after the first Lease is surrendered the second terme shall commence presently not so if it were from the end of the said 21. yeares Resolved that the demises to R. and W. are voyd because the terme that El. had was sub modo if she should so long live which is determined by her death ergo no residue can remaine to R. and W. and so 't was adjudged between Greene and Edwards and the Court agreed the diversity betwixt the demises to R. and W. and the demise to T. 't was argued that the demise to T. was voyd 1. Because that the Lessor had not power for to contract for the land during the fourescore yeares for he had but a possibility to have the land againe during the fourescore yeares viz. if El. dyed which possibility cannot be demised but the Court delivered no opinion to this poynt 2. That the Lease to T. was voyd for the incertainty how many yeares should be behinde at the death of El. a termor grants to B. so many yeares as shall be behinde tempore mortis suae 't is voyd Locrofts case adjudged a man possessed of a terme of 90. yeares upon marriage of his Sonne demised the land to his Sonne for 70. yeares to commence after his death the Lessor dyes the lease was adjudged good because here he demised the land for 70. yeares which is certaine in which this differs from 7. E. 6. which diversity was agreed by the whole Court 3. That 't was voyd because he dyed in the life of El. so that the incertainty cannot be reduced to a certainty in his life time and so cannot rest in the executors a lease to one for so many yeares as his Executors shall name is voyd Note a diversity betwixt a covenant and agreement which is perfect and certaine though it takes effect in possession upon a future matter precedent and a covenant and agreement incertaine which is to be reduced to a certainty by matter ex post facto for in the first case the estate is bound presently in the other not which was agreed by the Court. 4. It was moved if T. had been in life the demise could not rest in him T. dyed before R. or W. and R. survived El. and by the expresse condition precedent R. could not take except El. dyed within the terme and W. could not take except R. dyed within the terme and this is as much as to say that if R. dyes before El. and T. cannot take except W. dye in the life of El. and R. survived El. So that both precedent contingencies faile viz. the death of R. and W. in the life of El. and though the demise to R. and W. are voyd yet the limitation precedent viz. the death of R. and W. in the life of El. to the demise to T. is not voyd for his interest may depend upon both the contingencies for so was the intention of the parties and this was affirmed by the whole Court by Popham Chiefe Justice The Lease to T. was voyd for another cause for it cannot commence upon a contingent which depends upon another contingent as here the demise to T. depends upon the contingent annexed to the demise made to W. and the demise to W. depends upon a contingency annexed to the demise to R. Digges Case 42. Eliz. fo 173. C. Digges was seised of the land in question and other lands in fee and by Indenture 6. Maij. 10. of the Queene covenanted in consideration of marriage betwixt him and his wife and for the advancement of T. their Sonne and for two hundred pounds paid to him before marriage that he and his heires would stand seised to the use of himselfe for life and after to T. in taile and after to the use of himselfe in taile with a proviso for the considerations aforesaid c. that it should be lawfull for him at any time during his life with consent of certaine persons by Indenture to be Inrolled in any of the Kings Courts to revoke any of the uses or estates and for to limit new uses 6. Maij. 12. of the Queene C. by consent c. by Indenture inrolled in the Chancery revoked the uses and estates aforesaid in part of the land and limitted the use of it to him and his heires after 20. Sept. 13. of the Queene by Indenture with consent c. inrolled in Banck M. 13. 14. of the Queene declared that for the payment of his debts that from the time of the inrollment of this Deed in Chancery all the uses in the first Indenture should be voyd and that the land should be to the use of himselfe in fee after C. 26. Octob. 14. of the Queene by Indenture covenanted for to levie a Fine of all his land part of which should be to the use of himselfe and his wife and his heires which Fine was levied the same terme after the Indenture dated 20. Sept. was inrolled in Chancery after C. enters and makes his claime and whether C. dyed seised in fee of the land mentioned in the Deed of Revocation of 20. Sept. was the question Adjudged 1. that C. D. might revoke part at one time part at another till he hath revoked all but he can revoke the same part but once except that he hath a new power c. to uses newly limitted for these words at any time amount to from time to time c. 2 That where the revocation is to be by Deed Indented to be inrolled this is as much as to say as by Deed Indented and inrolled and till inrollment no revocation shall be for otherwise perchance none shall be inrolled 3. That 't was no perfect revocation by the Indenture of 20. Sept. till the Deed were inrolled in the Chancery for though that the proviso of revocation in the first Indenture shall be satisfied with an inrollment in any of the Kings Courts yet for that the Indenture of revocation it selfe limits the revocation to take effect after the inrollment in Chancery it ought to be so 4. That the Fine levied before the inrollment in Chancery which was before the revocation hath extinct the power see Albaines case before adjudged and Popham Chiefe Justice said that without question such a power might be released for 't is not meerely collaterall but savours and tastes of
House and Tenant at will of Land and Tenant by coppy of other Land within the Mannor of S. to Fermor leased all for life to I. S. and also seised of other Land there in Fee levyed a fine with Proclamations of all Messuages and Lands which comprehends all those leases and also his inheritance by covin to dissinherit his lessor and after the fine alwayes continues in possession and payes the severall rents to F. The lessee for life dyes the yeares expire S. claimes the inheritance Resolved that the Lord of the Mannor was not barred by the said fine 1. The makers of the Statute of 4. H. 7. never intended that a fine levyed by Tenant at will yeares or Coppy which pretend no Inheritance nor title to it but intend the disherison of the Lord c. should barre them of their inheritance and where the Statute sayth That Fines ought to be of greatest strength to avoyd strife and debate This Feoffement and fine by the Lessee shall be the cause of strife where none was before 2. The Statute doth not intend that those who of themselves without such fraud could not levy a fine to barre those which had the freehold and inheritance should be inabled to levy a fine by making of an estate to another by practise and fraud 3. If doubt be conceived upon an act of Parliament 't is to be construed by the reason of the common Law and that so abhorres fraud and covin that all acts as well judiciall as others and which of themselves are lawfull and just yet being mixt with fraud and deceit are tortious and illegall If a Woman intituled to have Dower which is favoured in Law by covin causes a stranger to disseise the terretenant to the intent to bring Dower against him and recovers accordingly 't is all voyd So if a Feme covert or Infant much favoured in Law of covin causes another to disseise the discontinuee and infeoffe them they are not remitted Sale in Market overt shall not binde if the Vendee had notice that the property was to another or if the Sale be by covin the Law hath ordained the common Bench as a Market overt for assurance of Land by fine for it sayth Finis finem litibus imponit yet covin shall avoyd them A Vacat was made in Banco of a recovery had by covin 33 34. of the Queene adjudged where Tenant for life levyed a fine with Proclamations and five yeares passed and he dyed that the Lessor shall have five yeares after his death for though the Statute saves the right which First shall grow and the right first accrued to the Lessor by the forfeiture yet because the Lessor by covin of the Lessee might be barred for he expected not to enter till after the death of the Lessee 't is no barre and namely when the Lessee hath Land of Inheritance in the same Towne as in this case so 't was agreed in the same case if the Feoffee of the Lessee for life hath Lands in the same Towne and levys a fine c. the Lessor shall have five yeares after the death of the Lessee for he knew not of what land the fine was levyed not being party to the Indenture or agreement c. So the Judges have construed the act against the Letter for Salvation of the Inheritance of him in reversion And 't was said if the Feoffee of a Lessee for yeares who made a feoffement by practise hath Land in the same Ville and levy a fine and the Lessee payes the rent to the Lessor it shall not binde and in the principall case the payment of the rent after the fine makes the fraud apparant for by this the Lessor was secure and not cause of any doubt of fraud But 't was resolved if the Bargainee or Feoffee of A. perceiving that C. hath right levies a fine or takes a fine of a Stranger to the intent to barre C. this fine levyed by consent shall binde for nothing was done in this that was not lawfull and the intent of the act was to avoyd strife So if A. pretending title disseise B. and to the intent to barre the disseissee levies a fine for the desseisor Venit tanquam in arena and 't is not possible but the disseisee had knowledge of it and if he doth not enter 't is his folly But in the case at barre every one will presume that the fine is levyed of his owne Land because that he might lawfully doe and though this conteines more acres then his owne Land this is usuall almost in all fines and the covin of the Lessee is the cause of non-claime of the Lessor and a man shall not take advantage of his owne covin and here the fraud is the more odious because of the great trust viz. Fealty To the objection that it should be mischievous to avoyd fines upon such nude averments 't was answered that it should be a greater mischiefe principally if fines levyed by such covin should binde And an averrment of fraud may be taken by the Statute of 27. of the Queene against a fine leavyed to secret uses by fraud for to deceive Purchasors So by the Statute of 13. of the Queene an averrment may be taken against a fine levyed upon an usurious contract Twynes Case 44. Eliz in Cam. Stel. fo 80. IN an Information per Cooke Atturney Generall against Twyne of Hampshire for contriving and publishing of a fraudulent Deed made of goods The case upon the Statute 13. Eliz. ca. 5. was thus Pierce was indebted unto Twyne in 400. l. and to one C. in 200. l. C. brought an action of Debt against Pierce and hanging the Writ Pierce being possessed of goods and Chattells to the value of 300. l. in secret made a deed of all his goods and Chattells to Twyne in satisfaction of his Debt yet Pierce continued in possession of the same some of them he sold and his Sheepe he marked with his owne marke after C. had judgement a Fier fac to the Sheriff by vertue thereof Bayliffs came to make execution of the goods and divers persons by the commandement of Twyne with force resisted them claiming them to be the goods of Twyne by vertue of the same deed and whether this deed was fraudulent or no was the Question and 't was resolved by Sir Thomas Egerton Keeper of the Great Seale of England and by the chiefe Justices Popham and Anderson and all the Court of Star-chamber that this deed was fraudulent and within the Statute of 13. El. And in this Case divers things were resolved First That this Deed had the markes of fraud it was generall and without exception of his apparell or any thing of necessitie for dolosus versatur in generalibus Secondly The Donor continueth in the possession Thirdly It was made in secret Et dona clandestina semper sunt suspiciosa Fourthly it was made hanging the Writ Fifthly there was trust betweene the parties for
binde the lessor otherwise of admittances upon surrenders or descents for he was tenant at sufferance who hath no lawfull interest and a Writ of entry ad terminum qui praeteriit lyes against him and so he is a deforceor Murrell and Smiths case 33. and 34. of the Queene fo 24. THe Queene grants a Copyhold in fee and after grants the inheritance of the Copyhold to a stranger the Copyholder devises to M. and after surrenders to the use of his will Resolved that custome hath so established the estate of a Copyholder that by severance of the inheritance of the Copyhold from the Mannor the Copyhold is not destroyed for being the Lord himselfe could not ouste the Copiholder no more can another claiming in by him Objected that every Copyhold ought to be parcell of the Mannor and to be demised or demisable time out of memory Resolved that because once this had both the incidents aforesaid and its perfection the severance made by the Lord shall not destroy it Resolved that notwithstanding the surrender and devise the Copyhold descended to the heire for after the severance of the inheritance from the Mannor the surrender was utterly voyd for the land was not parcell of the Mannor at the time and the devise onely cannot transferre such a customary estate but it ought to be by surrender into the hands of the Lord c. Resolved that after severance the Copyholder shall pay his rent to the Feoffee and shall pay and do other services which are due without admittance or holding of a Court as to plough the demeanes of the Lord Heriot c. but suite of Court and Fine upon alienation or admittance are gone for now the land cannot be aliened for though the Copyholder hath some benefit by the severance as appeares before so he hath great prejudice for now he cannot surrender or alien his estate nor the Feoffee cannot make an admittance for he is not dominus pro tempore Resolved that such forfeitures remaine as were before the severance as Feoffement lease wast denier of rent So if the land were of the nature of Borough English or Gavelkind and other customes which run with the land remaine And 't was said that such Copyholder hath no other meanes to alien but by Decree in Chancery against him and his heires but by this the interest of the land is not bound but the person onely Kite and Queintons case 31. of the Queene fo 25. COpyholder in fee surrenders out of Court by the custome to the hands of certaine Copyhold tenants to the use of another and his heires upon certaine condition at the next Court the surrender was presented but the condition omitted he to whose use c. dyes the Lord admits his heire he that made the surrender releases to the heire being in possession and after enters Resolved that the presentment of the surrender was voyde for that the condition was omitted for the surrender that the Copiholder made was not presented but if the surrender the condition had been presented and the Steward in entring of it omits the condition upon sufficient proofe of it the surrender shall not be avoyded but the roll amended for the roll doth not conclude the party for to plead or give in evidence the truth of the matter Resolved if a Copyholder be ousted by wrong a release by him to the disseisor doth not transferre his right because he hath not any customary estate upon which the release of the customary right may inure and this should be prejudiciall to the Lord for by this he shall lose his Fine and services but a release made to him which is admitted by the Lord and in possession is good and a release of a customary right may inure to him and the Lord not prejudiced and the release shall inure by way of extinguishment And Littleton speaks of an alienation by surrender onely which ought to be into the hands of the Lord but a release cannot be done to the Lord and Littleton says He which claimes a Copihold by surrender hath no other evidence but he which claimes an extinguishment of a right may have it by release by Deed and 't is no perill to purchasors for if the Copiholder in possession sels it he will shew the release and he which is out of possession cannot sell till he hath regained the possession caveat emptor By Wray if he which hath a pretensed title c. to a Copihold bargaines c. this is within 32. H. 8. for the Statute says any right or title and great part of the land within the Realme is in Copy and therefore the intention was to include them to avoyde maintenance and champerty Melwich and Luters case 30. of the Queene fo 26. REsolved that the lessee of a copiholder for a yeare shall maintaine an Ej ' Firmae for his terme being warranted by Law by force of the generall custome of the Realme 't is reason that he should have remedy by Ej ' Firmae And this is a speedy course against a Stranger Resolved that the Copiholds are not destroyed by severance of the inheritance of them from the Mannor but remaine in force So Murrels case before adjudged Resolved that when the Lord of a Mannor having many ancient Copiholds in a Towne grants the inheritance of all the Copiholds the grantee may hold a Court for the customary tenants and accept surrenders and make admittances and grants for every Mannor which consists of Freeholders and Copiholders comprehends in effect two severall Courts the one the Court Baron for Freeholders and in this the Suitors viz. the Freeholders are Judges and the other Court for the Copiholders and in this the Steward or the Lord himselfe is Judge and though this is not a Mannor in Law because it wants Freeholders yet the grantee may hold such Court as aforesaid for Copiholders onely as the grantor himselfe might So if all the Freeholds escheate or the Lord releases the tenure and services yet he may hold a customary Court for the Copiholds Note Reader though the Lord by his own act cannot make of one and the same Mannor at common Law divers severall Mannors consisting of Demeanes and Freeholders yet he may make a customary Mannor of Copiholders Resolved that the Lord himselfe may make a grant or admittance of a Copiholder out of the Mannor at what place he pleases but if the Steward at any Court holden out of the Mannor shall make grants or admittances they are voyd Neales case 37. of the Queene fo 26. ADjudged that where the Lord of a Mannor demises all his lands granted by Copy for two thousand yeares that the lessee may hold Courts for Copiholders as Melwiches case is before and 't was said so to be resolved in C. Hattons case Note Reader a good diversity where the number of the Copiholders may support the custome and a singular case of a Copiholder as in Murrels case before in which case the
nor body were lyable to Execution in Debt or damages recovered but Execution was to be done by Fieri facias or Levari facias of his Goods and Chattells and profits growing upon his Land but in debt brought against one as heire his Land was liable to Execution because the Plaintiffe had no other remedy for the goods belong to the Executors but the body goods and Lands of the K. Debtor or accomptant were ever liable to Execution but such Levari facias or Fieri facias ought to have beene sued within the yeare or otherwise he was chased to his Writ of Debt and now by Westm 2. c. 45. he may have a Scire facias and by the 18º Chapter of that Statute an Elegiâ— is given of the moity of the Land which was the first Act that subjected Land to Execution for Debt or Recognizance and by the Statute of 13. E. 1. de Mercatoribus 27. E. 3. c. 9. 23. H. 8. c. 6. In Statute Merchant and Statute Staple all the Lands of the Conusor at the day of acknowledgement shall be extended into whose hands soever they shall after come But in all Actions Vi armis where a Capias lyeth in Processe there after judgement a capias ad satisfaciendum lyeth the K. shall have a Capias pro fine and in such cases the Law the preserver of peace subjecteth the body to Imprisonment and by Marlebridge c. 23. West 2. c. 11. a Capias was given in an accompt the proces before being a distresse infinite and by 25. E. 3. c. 17. the same proces given in Debt as in account for before this Act the body was not liable to Execution for Debt as aforesaid 2. If Land of the heire be seised in Execution upon a recognizance of his auncestor he shall not have contribution against a purchasor of his Auncestor although he come in without consideration and although the Heire be not charged as Heire but partly as Terretenant but one purchasor shall have contribution against another purchasor and one Heire against another Heire because they are in Aequali jure and therefore the Writ here which issued against the Heires without naming the purchasor is good although he be charged as Terretenant The Heire shall have an Audita quaerela as well as the Conusor himselfe before Execution sued and a Supersedeas but a Stranger shall not If diverse acknowledge a recognizance the charge doth not survive and the Land of one shall not be put in Execution but all their Lands equally so if two are bound to warranty both or their Heires and the survivor and the Heire of the other shall be jointly vouched and the Land of both shall be rendered in value But if Baron and Feme and the Heires of the Feme are bound to warranty and the Feme dye the Land of the Baron may be solely taken in Execution because there are no Moities betweene Baron and Feme So that when Land shall be charged by any Lien the charge ought to be equall but in a Lien personall otherwise it is as if two are bound in an Obligation there the charge shall survive But a Purchasor Bona fide before any Action brought shall not be subject to any charge And three Errors were moved in the record 1. The Scire facias was Haerediterrarum c. which is improper for he is not Heire to the Land but to his auncestor 2. The Writ is Scire facias haeredi terrarum c. and the Retorne is Scire fecit W. H. militi haeredi praedicti M. and every Retorne must answer the point of the Writ 3. The judgement is generall against Sir W. H. where it ought to be speciall for otherwise his owne Land shall be liable where by the Law the Land onely which came to him by his Father ought to be charged and he is charged as Terrtenant as aforesaid but these poynts were not resolved by the Court. Nota the new Writ of Error after entry of the first was not brought Quod coram vobis residet because the Record is not removed out of the keeping of him who had the custody thereof before A Perfect Table of the Principall matters contained in every Case in this Booke WHAT words doe make a generall warranty and to whom the custody of evidences doth belong Page 1 Tenant for life commeth in as Vouchee in a common recovery it is a forfeiture Page 1 2 23. H. 8. Extends not to suppresse good uses the conveyance good and the bad use void any man may give Lands to Charitable uses Page 2 Touching the Exposition of the Kings grants and how the words Ex speciali gratia mero motu c. therein shall be construed Page 3 A common Recovery by Tenant in taile binds them in remainder and reversion and all Leases and charges granted by them ib. A feoffement by Tenant for life destroyeth a contingent remainder Page 4 Conusee of Tenant for life and him in remainder in taile renders a rent to Tenant for life it is good during his life ib. Tenant for life and he in remainder in taile infeoffe I. S. it is no discontinuance or forfeiture otherwise if without deede Page 5 Perpetuities are against Law but the Parliament or Law may make an estate as to one and good to another Page 5 6 Tenant in taile suffers a recovery and dyes before Execution it may be sued against the issuâ— and when a man may enter or claime the Law will not put things in him till entry or claime Page 7 A man may be in by discent and yet not have his â—…ge ib. A future power of revocation may be released Page 8 When any thing Executory is created by consent of all it may be voided Page 8 A feoffement by feoffees devesteth all future uses contingent Page 9 27. H. 8. Transferreth the possession to uses onely In esse ib. When a remainder ought to vest ib. 27. H. 8. Of uses shall not be taken by equity ib. A diversity when Tenant for life infeoffeth the reversioner mediate and when imediate there it is no forfeiture ib. A disseissor may make admittances but not voluntary grants Page 11 A difference when a confirmation is made to one that is in upon an expresse condition and when not there the estate is absolute ib. Every fee simple may be charged one way or other Page 12 A difference betweene Terminus annorum Tempus annorum Page 13 A Termor grants to B. so many yeares as shall be behind Tempore mortis suae it is void otherwise if for a certeine number of yeares ib. A lease cannot comence upon a double contingency Page 14 He who hath a power of revocation may doe it part at one time and part at another time till he hath revoked all Page 15 By the same conveyance the old uses may be revoked and new raised Page 16 Vpon what conveyances uses may be raised upon a generall consideration Page 16 17 An Action of
the estate of the land which all the Court agreed 5. If the Fine had not been the auncient uses were determined without entry or claime because he himselfe was tenant for life of the land and the act of revocation is as strong as claime and this point was agreed in the Earle of Salops case 6. By the same conveyance that the auncient uses are revoked others may be raised without claime or other act and the Law adjudges a priority of operation Whites case adjudged according Maildmayes Case 24. Eliz. fo 175. A Use cannot be raised by any covenant proviso or bargaine c. upon a generall consideration and therefore if a man by Deed indented and inrolled c. for divers good causes considerations bargaine and sell his Land to another and his heires nihil operatur inde for no use shall be raised upon such generall considerations for it doth not appeare to the Court that the bargain or had quid pro quo But the bargainee may averre that money or other valuable consideration was paid or given if in truth it was so and the bargaine and sale is good It was resolved that when uses are raised by covenant in the consideration of advancement of any of his bloud and after in the same Indenture a Proviso that the Covenantor may make Leases for yeares c. that the Covenantor in this case may not make Leases for yeares to his sonne daughter or any of his bloud much lesse to any other person because that the power to make Leases for yeares was voyd when the Indenture was sealed and delivered For the covenant upon this generall consideration will not raise any use and no particular averment in this case may be taken but if the uses be limitted upon a recoverie fine or feoffment there needeth not any consideration to raise any of the uses Resolved that the words other consideration cannot comprise any consideration expressed in the Indenture before the proviso for other ought to be in quality nature and person different and advancement of his daughter is a consideration mentioned before Anthonie Mildmay brought an action of the case against Roger Standish for saying that Lands were lawfully assured to John Talbott for 1600. yeares and that he was lawfully possessed of the same tearme whereas in truth the said Lands were not lawfully assured for the said tearme nor the said John Talbott was lawfully possessed of the interest thereof And so for slaundering of the title by speaking of the words Mildmay brought an action Standish justified the words and shewed the title of Talbott and it was adjudged that the action was maintaineable and good although that Talbott had a limitation of the Land by will which was the reason that Standish being a man not learned in the Lawes affirmed the words yet because he tooke upon him the notice of the Law and medled in a matter that did not concerne him Judgement was given for Mildmay Et ignorantia juris non excusat THE SECOND BOOK Of Sir Edward Cooke Lord c. Mansers Case 26. Eliz. fo 3. IF a man be unlearned and cannot read and be bound to doe an act of sealing assurances writings c. upon tender c. he is not bound to seale and deliver any such writing if there be not some ready which may read the Deed if the party so require it and in the same language and tongue that he understandeth Ignorantia duplex est facti juris and ignorance in reading or of the language Quae sunt ignorantia facti may excuse but ignorantia juris non excusat and if it be read unto him he may not have a reasonable time to shew it to his Councell learned to see whether it agree with his bond or covenant for he must seale it at his perill or if the same be truly expounded to him it is good enough But if it be read amisse or declared contrary to what it is and thereby the illiterated man is deceived he may very well plead non est factum For the Law saith it is not his Deed and so it was adjudged in Throughgoods case being the third case in this second Booke Resolved that if a man be bound that a stranger shall doe an act in such case he takes upon him that he shall doe it at his perill for he which is bound takes more upon him for a stranger then for himselfe in many cases If a man plead that he hath kept a man indemnified c. he ought to shew how otherwise where he pleads in the negative Non fuit damnificatus Goddards Case 26. El. fo 4. AN obligation dated the fourth of Aprill Anno 24. El. and delivered as the Deed of the partie 30. July An. 23. El. adjudged the Deed of the partie for though the plaintiffe in pleading cannot alledge the delivery before the Date because he is estopped yet a Jury which are sworne to speake the truth shall not be estopped The Date of a Deed is not the substance of the Deed. For if it want date or have an impossible Date as the 30. February the Deed is good For there are three things of the essence or substance of a Deed viz. writing in paper or parchment sealing and delivery And if it have these three although it want In Cujus rei testimonium Sigillum suum apposuit c. yet the Deed is good and when a Deed is delivered it takes effect by the delivery not by the date Throughgoods Case 26. Eliz. fo 9. REsolved that 't is not materiall whether the party to whom the Deed is made or another by his procurement or a Stranger of his owne head reades the writing in other words then the writing is so that he that seales it be a lay man and without covin in him deceived and the pleading of it is alwayes generall without shewing by whom 't was read and A. shall voyde an obligation to B. by pleading that he did it â—y menace of C. Resolved that such a lay-man is not bound to deliver a Deed if no body be present that can reade it in such language as he can understand and if it be read in other words it shall not binde him and 't is at the perill of him to whom 't is made that the very effect and purport of it be declared if it be required but if he doe not request it he shall be bound by it though it be made contrary to his meaning Resolved that it shall not binde if the effect be declared in other words then it is as if the Deed had been read in other words Two Justices a Feoffement of two acres is read as of one it shall not binde see Mansers case before Wisemans Case 27. Eliz. fo 15. TEnant in tayle of certaine Lands the remainder to another in Fee he in remainder by Deed indented and inrolled in consideration of bloud c. as for other good considerations doth covenant to stand seized of the said
prescribe In modo decimandi but not In non decimando And the reason is because he is not except in speciall Cases capable of Tythes at the common Law before the Statute of 32. H. 8. Cap. 7. And therefore without speciall matter shewing it shall not be intended that he hath any Lawfull discharge and in favour of the Holy Church although it may have a lawfull comencement the Law will not suffer this prescription In non decimando to put it to the Tryall of lay men which sooner will straine their conscience for their private benefit then render to the Church the duty which belongeth to it A spirituall person that was capable of Tythes at the common Law in pernancy may prescribe to be discharged of Tythes generally or to have a portion of Tythes in the Land of another Before the Counsell of Lateran every man might give his tythes to any spirituall person that he would and if the Lands of the Bishop were discharged in his hands absolutely by prescription the demising it to a lay man cannot make it chargeable and the Bishop might reserve the greater Rent And in discharge of Tythes the Judges of our Law doe know that the Ecclesiasticall Judges will not allow any such allegation and therefore a Traverse Absque hoc quod judices placitum c. recusarunt is insufficient for the refusall is not materiall for the party might have a prohibition before any plea pleaded by him but in some Cases the refusall is traversable as t was adjudgd in Morris and Eatons Case where t was pleaded that the plaintiffe did not read the Articles c. and that the Ecclesiasticall Judge refused this Plea But the truth is a man may prescribe that hee and all others whose estate he hath in the mannor of D. time out of remembrance have paid to the parson of C. for the time being one certaine pension yearly for the maintenance of Divine service there in contentation of all Tythes renewing or happening within the same Mannor and prescribe in respect of the pension payd c. to have all the Tythes within c. and this was adjudgd good in Banco Regis Mich. 39. Et. 40. El. Rotulo 199. And that a lay-person may sue for the Tythes c. For at the beginning it shall be intended that the Lord was seised of the whole Mannor before any tenancy was derived out of the same and then by composition or other lawfull meanes the Lord had all the Tythes within the Mannor for the said Pension paying to the parson and the Law intends it was for Divine service Et pro bono Ecclesiae the reason of whch intendment is the continuall usage time out of remembrance And upon such speciall matter a man might have Tythes as appurtenant to a Mannor for he prescribes in a Que estate in the Mannor and therefore cannot have them in grosse but t was adjudged Winscombs Case in a prohibition that a man cannot prescribe generally in him and all those c. to have Tythes appurtenant to a Mannor without speciall matter shewne because Tythes are due Jure divino The Arch-Bishop of Canterburies Case 38. Of the Queene fo 46. A Religious house in M. was given to E. 6. by the Statute of 1. E. 6. a Rectory which was impropriated to it was granted to the Arch-Bishop of Canturbury who leased to the Defendant and Land within M. parcell of the said Colledge came to the Lord Cobham and from him to the Plaintiffe who shewes that the Master of the Colledge was seised of the said Land and Rectorie Simul semel as well at the making of 31. H 8. as of 1. E. 6. Resolved that this Colledge came to the King by 1. E. 6. onely for when 31. H. 8. speakes of dissolution renouncing relinquishing forfeiture giving up which are inferior meanes by which c. or by any other meanes cannot be intended of an act of Parliament which is the highest manner of conveyance that can be and the makers would have placed this in the beginning if they had intended it Bishops are not included within 13 of the Queene which begins with Colledges Deanes and Chapters c. Also 1. E. 6. Enacts that all Colledges by this Parliament shall be in actuall possession of the King which last act being of as high nature as the first it cannot come to the King by 31. H. 8. and it was never pleaded that of Colledges which came by 1. E. 6. the King was seised Vigore of the Statute of 31. H. 8. Resolved that neither the Act nor the meaning of 31. H. 8. extends to other Colledges then to those which came to the King by 31. H. 8. for it should be absurd that a Branch of the act of 31. H. 8. should extend to a future Act of which the makers of 31. without a spirit of prophecy could not have foreknowledge and the Act of 31. concludes in as large manner as the late Abbots c. which late as it hath been agreed extends onely to those to be dissolved by 31. Resolved admitting that the Colledge had come to the King by 31. H. 8. that such a generall allegation of unity of possession of the Rectory and the Land with it was not sufficient for no unity shall be sufficient but lawfull and perpetuall unity of possession time out of minde as 't was adjudged in Knightly and Spencers case and that the generall allegation of the plaintiffe that the Master of the Colledge at the making of 1. E. 6. held the Land discharged is not good without shewing how either by prescription composition or other lawfull meanes as 't is adjudged in the Bishop of Winchesters case otherwise if the Land had come by 31. then by force of the said branch of discharge such generall allegation had been good Resolved that no Ecclesiasticall house except religious was within the Statute of 31. H. 8. Resolved that though 1. E. 6. saith that the King shall have the lands of Colledges in as ample and large manner as the said Priests c. enjoyed the same yet these generall words doe not discharge the land of any tythes for they doe not issue out of the land for a Prior had tythes against his own Feoffment of the Mannor and 't is no good cause of prohibition to alledge unity of possession in a Colledge which came to the King by 1. E. 6. as 't is upon 31. H. 8. in Abbyes c. For the Statute of 1. E. 6. hath no such clause of discharge of payment of tythes as 31. hath and therefore such perpetuall unity will not serve upon 1. E. 6. So 't was likewise resolved betwixt Greene and Buffkin Sir Hugh Cholmleys case 39. of the Queene fo 50. TEnant in Taile the remainder in taile the remainder bargaines and sells the Land and all his estate to J. S. to have for the life of Tenant in taile the remainder to the Queene c. upon condition that the
estate shall be voyd upon tender of 10. l. Tenant in taile suffers a Recovery to the use of himselfe and his heires after the remainder tenders the ten pounds c. Resolved the remainder to the Queene was voyd 1. Because the grantee for life of tenant in taile tooke nothing for 't is a voyd grant for the grantee shall never have any benefit by it but such a grant of a reversion were good for he shall have the services but a lease for life of J. S. the remainder to J. H. for life of J. S. is good for this may take effect by forfeiture of tenant for life and remainder dicitur quasi terra remanens which cannot be here and the remainder must take effect when the particular estate ends vana est illa potentia quae nunquam venit in actum And the possibility for tenant in taile to enter in Religion shall not make the remainder good because 't is remote and it ought to be a common propinqua possibilitas which shall make the remainder good as death coverture dying without issue remainder to a Corporation which is not in esse is voyd though such be erected during the particular estate 2. Because the Law will never adjudge a grant good by reason of such a forraine possibility for 't is potentia remotissima vana and by intendment nunquam venit in actum 3. Because the remainder being tenant in taile granted all his estate for the life of tenant in taile so that there is no remainder left in the grantor but in such case the estate taile is in abeyance Blithmans case 35. of the Queene agreed tenant in taile covenants to stand seised to the use of himselfe for life and after to his eldest Sonne in taile the remainder to the Sonne is voyd for when he had limitted the use to himselfe for his owne life 't was as much as he could limit by Law Resolved admitting the remainder good to the Queene that the common Recoverie hath barred the estate of the first grantee and so the condition during his life for 't is out of the Statute of 34. H. 8. being not of the gift of the Queene c. as Wisemans case is before adjudged A revertioner upon an estate taile grants upon condition a Recovery barres the reversion and condition and as Capels case is before adjudged if the reversionor or he in remainder grant a Lease c. and tenant in taile suffers a recovery the possession shall never be subject to such charges Resolved that the payment to the first grantee cannot devest the remainder out of the Queene 1. Because the condition during the life of the first grantee was discharged 2. Because he that takes benefit of a condition ought to have the intire estate with which he departed which cannot be here for the estate of the first grantee was barred by the recovery 3. The tender to the first grantee was to the intent for to revest his estate which cannot be because 't was barred and therefore the payment cannot devest the remainder out of the Queene Buckleys Case 40. Eliz. in Communi Banc. fo 55. TEnant for life the remainder in Fee tenant for life maketh a Lease for foure yeares in March 20. El. the Lessee entreth tenant for life granteth the tenements aforesaid to C. to hold from the feast of Saint John Baptist next ensuing for life after the said Feast the tenant for yeares attornes the yeares expire C. enters and maketh a Lease at will to D. to whom the tenant for life levieth a Fine he in remainder in Fee entereth and maketh a Lease to Buckler the tenant at will entreth upon him and Buckler the plaintiffe bringeth an ejectione firmae and judgement was given for the plaintiffe In this case divers things were resolved First that the grant to C. was voyd for the Law maketh construction upon the whole grant and an estate of Free-hold may not commence in futuro The office of the premisses of a Writing viz. Feoffment Lease c. is to expresse the grantor the grantee and the thing granted And the office of the habendum is to limit the estate so that the generall implication of the estate which should passe by the premisses is alwayes controlled and qualified by the habendum as a Lease to two habendum to the one for life the remainder to the other for life here the generall implication of joyntenancy is altered and the habendum is not contrary to the premisses for in the premisses no certaine estate is passed and the grant being voyd at the beginning the attornement after Midsommer shall not make the reversion to passe For quod ab initio non valet tractu temporis non convalescet Resolved that when the grantee entered by colour of this voyd grant he was a disseisor but when the grant is good at commencement but is to have its perfection by an act subsequent as livery or attornement and the grantee enters before the perfection c. he is not a disseisor but a tenant at will And if the Fine had been levied to the disseisor come ceo c. He which had the right of the remainder might enter for a forfeiture for a right of a particular estate may be forfeited and entry given to him who hath but a right Resolved the Fine being levied to tenant at will 't is a forfeiture and he which hath the right of the remainder may enter and the tenant for life and at will shall be estopped to say quod partes Finis nihil habuerunt and of such estoppells which are by matter of Record and trench to the dis-inheritance of those in reversion c. they shall take advantage though strangers to the Record for they are privies in estate A disseisee levieth a Fine to a stranger the disseisor shall hould the Land in this case for ever for the disseisee against his owne Fine may not claime the Lands and the counsee may not enter for the right which the conusor had may not be transferred to him but by the Fine the right is extinct whereof the disseisor may take advantage Beckwithes Case 27. Eliz. fo 56. IF the husband and the wife levie a fine of Lands whereof they are seised in right of the wife and the husband solely declare the use of the fine this declaration shall binde the wife if her disascent doe not appeare although her assent to the limitation of the uses doe not appeare for it shall be intended if the contrary doe not appeare that she joyned with him also in the declaration of the uses of the fine But if the husband declare one use and the wife another use they are both voyd the declaration of the use insues the ownership of the land for the one viz. the wife is not sui juris sed sub potestate viri and hath the estate of the Land and the husband is sui juris and hath not the estate and if a
the Mannor ex speciali gratia c. and all her right estate title claime c. Resolved that the Record was well removed by the Writt of Error which was for to remove the recovery of the Mannor of M. in M. cum pertinentiis and the Recovery was of the Mannor of M. cum pertinentiis Resolved that this Writt of Error was not given to the King by any of the words of the Statute of 28. H. 8. because the terrtenant is in by title and the entry of the person attainted taken away and such a right for which the party hath no remedy but by action is a thing consists in privity which cannot Escheate nor be forfeited by the common law and this word right in the Act shall be satisfied with a right of entry and 't was observed by the Court that by no Act of attainder a right of action was ever given Note a diversitie betwixt inheritances and chattells for Obligations Statutes Recognisances c. are forfeited by attainder or Outlawry By the Court if L. had made a Feoffement without warranty this had been a discontinuance of the moity for the joynture was severed Resolved that H. N. had no right to a moity of the Mannor for though the recovery were erronious for 't was agreed 't was not void yet the recovery being in force the remainder hath no right for the intended recompence if tenant in taile suffers an erronious recovery and disseise the recoveror and dye his issue shall not be remitted for the taile is barred as long as the recovery stands in force and the Court agreed that neither an action without a right with a discent shall make a Remitter as in the principall case nor a right without an action for a man shall never be remitted but when an action lyes if the right and possession were in severall persons Resolved for the one moity the Recovery shall be a barre to the taile and remainder for though that as well L. as the vouchee might have abated the Writt because Anne was joyntly seised not named yet when the vouchee without demanding any Line enters generally into warranty and admits the Writt good and L. recovers in value which shall inure according to his estate with the remainder over 't is barred for by the recovery against L. the joynture was severed but for the other moity the recovery was not a barre to the taile or remainder because for that L. was not tenant to the Praecipe but the recovery is by Estoppell onely Agreed that H. N. at the time of the attainder was not intitled to have error yet 't was agreed that the remainder upon a taile shall have error upon a judgement given against tenant in taile for when W. 2. inables the donor for to limit a remainder over upon the taile all actions which the common Law gave to privies in estate are by the same Act as incident given also as a reversion or a remainder shall have Error upon a judgement given against tenant for life though not privie by aide voucher or receiver But agreed that by the common Law Error doth not lye by c during the life of tenant for life except he were privy to the first Record by aide voucher or receiver for remedy whereof 9. R. 2. ca ' 3. was made which gives an attaint or error during life upon which Statute the Court resolved 1. that though the Statute speakes onely of reversions yet remainders are within the purview 2. That a reversion expectant upon a taile is out for the Statute enumerates these foure estates Life Dowor Courtesie and Tenant in taile after possibility which declares their intentions to exclude reversions upon tailes and this upon great reason for the taile by possibility may continue for ever and here L. survived H. N. and so his possibility of error destroyed and no word of the Act extends to give a possibility Resolved admitting the Writ of Error had been given to the Queene that by this generall grant of the Queene it did not passe for a common person cannot grant it and therefore it ought to passe by Prerogative and ought to have precise words adjudged in Cromers case 8. of the Queene the Queene having a right of a disseisee attainted grants de speciali gratia c. all lands c. The right doth not passe without speciall recitall and words Owen and Morgans case Trin. 27. of the Queene Baron and Feme are seised and to the heires of the body of the husband a recovery is had against the Baron sole without naming of the wife and after the wife dyed Resolved that though the wife were not party to the Writ nor the Conisance for the estate of the husband and wife was by render upon a Fine levied by the husband and though it does appeare within the same Record that she was a stranger yet the render to her is voidable onely Resolved that this recovery against the husband onely shall not binde the remainder for betwixt husband and wife there are no moities and the husband hath no power to sever the joynture or dispose any part and he during the life of the wife is not seised by force of the taile and he can by no Act execute any part so the Praecipe being brought against him onely the recompence cannot enure to the taile or remainder for to all it cannot for the wife hath a joynt estate in possession and for a moity it cannot for there are no moities and the remainder depends upon the entire estate and recompence recovered by the husband onely cannot inure to him who hath a remainder depending upon the undevided estate of the husband and wife and the joyn-tenancy cannot be severed by the judgement against the husband onely and though the husband hath all the inheritance yet because by no possibility it can be executed 't is all one as if the husband had a remainder depending upon an estate for life and then a common recovery shall not binde because not tenant to the Praecipe nor seised by force of the taile but tooke effect by Estoppell onely The issue may say his auncestor was not tenant tempore brevis and though here the husband survived the wife this is not materiall for the Law adjudges as 't was then Copledikes Case 44. of the Queene fo 5. C. And his wife were seised and to the heires males of the body of the husband the husband levies a Fine to A. B. recovers in a Writ of entry against A. who vouches the husband onely the wife living who vouches the common vouchee Resolved that this recovery shall binde the remainder for here was a lawfull tenant to the Praecipe and though the husband were onely vouched and not his wife who had a joynt estate with him yet the husband coming in as vouchee he came in in privity of the estate taile and not of another estate and the recovery in value gives recompence to the taile which
the husband had and to the remainder A. tenant in taile the remainder to B. the remainder to C. the remainder to D. A. makes a Feoffement the feoffee suffers a recovery B. is vouched and he vouches the common vouchee A. is not bound but B. and all the remainders are for though the remainders are discontinued and cannot be remitted till the taile be recontinued yet in a common recovery which is the common assurance he which comes in as vouchee shall be in judgement of Law in privity of the estate which he ever had though the precedent estate upon which the estate of the vouchee depends be discontinued so here the husband shall be said in of the taile and 't is the stronger because the estate of the wife was put to a right so that the husband came in as sole tenant in taile and not joyntly with his wife because she is not vouchee and he cannot be in of another estate because once he had a taile but had they had a joynt estate to them and the heires of their two bodies he being onely vouched it might be doubted whether the taile should be barred because the wife had a joynt inheritance with him 8. of the Queene Dyer Knivetons case A Praecipe is brought against tenant for life and the remainder in taile they vouch over it shall not binde the taile for the remainder is not tenant to the Praecipe and the land is recovered against the tenant for life onely and recompence shall not goe to the remainder and the remainder was never seised by force of the taile and so 't was adjudged in Leach and Coles case 41. of the Queene Heydons case 26. of the Queene fo 7. THe Gardians and Cannons Regular of the late Colledge of O. seised of the Mannor of O. granted a Coppihold to Father and Sonne for their lives c. and after they leased it to H. for fourescore yeares rendring the ancient Rent and after surrendred their Colledge Resolved that the lease to H. was voyd the Coppi-hold for life continuing by the Statute of 31. H. 8. For Coppihold is an estate for life and the Statute saith of which any estate or interest for life c. at the making of such grant had continuance reade the Booke at large where you have admirable rules for true interpretation of all Statutes Resolved when a Parliament alters the service tenure interest of the land c. in prejudice of the Lord custome or tenant the generall words shall not extend to Coppi-holds as the Statute of W. 2. de donis conditionalibus doth not extend to them for if the Statute should alter the estate this should also alter the tenure for the donee ought to hold of the donor and to doe such services without speciall reservation as his donor did to the Lord and the intent of the act was not to extend to such base estates which were taken then but tenants at will and the Statute saith Voluntas donatoris observetur in carta c. So that which shall be intailed ought to be such an hereditament which may be given by Charter and great part of the land within the Realme being granted by Coppy it would be inconvenient that Coppi-holds should be intailed yet neither Fine nor Recovery should barre them so that the owner cannot without making a forfeiture by assent of the Lord and a new grant dispose of it for payment of debts advancement of his wife or younger issues wherefore the Statute doth not extend to them by Manwood Ch' Baron which the Court agreed But 't was objected that the Custome and the Statute cooperating might make a taile as if by a custome a remainder had been limitted over and injoyed and plaints in nature of a Formedon in discender brought and the land recovered by it so neither the custome without the Statute nor the Statute without the custome can make a taile And Littleton saith that if a custome hath been that lands c. have been granted c. or in taile c. paulo post that a Formedon in discender lyes of all tenements which Writ was not at common law Manwood answered if the Statute doth not extend to them without question the custome cannot for before the Statute all estates of inheritance were fee simple and no custome can commence after the Statute for this being made 13. E. 1. is made within time of memory and Littleton is to be intended of a fee simple conditionall for he knew well that no custome could commence after the Statute of W. 2. as appeares in his booke 2. ca. 10. and 34. H. 6. and a Formedon in discender in speciall cases lay at the common Law And by the Court another Act made at the same time which gives an Elegit extends not to Coppiholds for the reason aforesaid but other Statutes made at the same time extend to them as ca ' 3. which gives a Cui in vita receite and ca ' 4. which gives to the particular tenant a Quod ei deforceat Resolved that though 't was not found that the said rents were the usuall rents accustomed to be reserved within 20. yeares before yet because 't was found that the accustomed rent was reserved and a custome goes to all times before it shall be so intended without shewing the contrary and judgement was enterd for the Queene The common Law is founded upon the perfection of reason and not according to any private and sudden conceite or opinion Borastons Case 29. of the Queene fo 19. B. Devised land for eight yeares and after to his executors to performe his will till H. his youngest Sonne come to the age of 21. yeares and when H. comes to 21. yeares then that he shall have to him and his heires H. dyed at the age of 9. yeares Objected that till H. attaines to 21. yeares the land descends to the heire and for that he never attained to 21. yeares this remaines in the heire and the intent appeares by the words that he should not have till he come to 21. yeares and this ought to precede the commencement of the remainder and if land were leased till H. comes to 21. yeares H. then being of 9. yeares 't is no absolute lease for 12. yeares for if H dye before 21. the lease shall be determined which the Court agreed 'T was also said that when the particular estate which should support the remainder may determine before the remainder can commence there the remainder doth not vest presently but depends in contingency If one make a Lease to A. for life and after the death of B. the remainder to another in Fee this remainder depends upon contingency for if A. dye before B. the remainder is voyd A Lease is made to A. for life the remainder to B. for life and if B. dye before A. the remainder to C. for life this is a good remainder upon contingency If A. survive B. which case is all one with
A Man leaseth S. for 10. yeares and C. for 20. yeares and both to another for 40. yeares after the end of the said severall demises ten yeares expire the last Lessee enters into S. and upon ouster brings trespasse and recovereth for the joynt words of the parties shall be taken Respective and the leases shall commence severally upon the severall determination of the said leases Joynt words shall be taken severally 1. In respect of the severall interest of the grantors as if two Tenants in common grant a rent charge 2. In respect of the severall interest of the grantees as a joynt warranty to two severall Tenants 3. In respect that the grant cannot commence at one time as a remainder limitted to the right heires of I. S. and I. N. 4. In respect of the incapacity of the grantees to take joyntly 5. Ratione subjectae materiae as rent granted to two copartners for equality of partition 6. Ne res destruatur ut evitetur absurdum as in Cessavit the tenure is alleadged by homage fealty and rent and quod in faciendo servitia praedicta cessavit it shall be construed to such services onely as of which a man may cease Brudenells Case 34. Eliz. banco regis fo 9. IF a lease be made to A. during the life of B. and C. without saying during the life of the survivor of them if one of them die yet the estate is not determined But A. shall have the land during the life of the survivor for if a man make a lease of Land to two persons during their lives they assigne over their estate now the assignee hath estate for life of them too and if one dye he shall have the land during the life of the Survivor Note two diversities th one a limitation in this Case aforesaid th' other a condition for if a man demyse Land for 100. yeares if A. and B. live so long in this case if th' one of them dye the Lease is determined for the Lease is conditionall and not Determinable by limmitation of estate and the life of a man is collaterall to the Lease which is but onely a Chattle If an administrator have judgement and dye his Executors cannot sue execution of that judgement but he that shall be subject to the payment of the Debts of the first intestate and that are not the Executors of the administrator vide 26. H. 8. fo 7. Hensteads Case 36. 37. Eliz. com banco fo 10. A Feme lessor or lessee at will taketh Husband the will is not determined for it may be prejudiciall to the Husband to have it determined So if one of the Lessees or Lessors at will dye but in case where one of the joynt Lessees at will dyeth nothing surviveth but the others shall pay all the rent Jues Case 39 40. Eliz. com banco fo 11. I. Leaseth a Mannor to S. for thirty yeares excepting Woode and underwood growing upon it and after Leased to him the Woode for 62. yeares without impeachment of wast and leaseth to him the Mannor for thirty yeares after expiration of the first thirty yeares thirty yeares expire S. maketh wast I bringeth an action of wast 1. Resolved by the exception of Wood and Underwood the soile is excepted and the woods growing c. are of abundance 2. The Wood remaines parcell of the Mannor because the Lessor had the intire freehold otherwise if he had leased for life with such an exception so if one lease a Mannor excepting the advowson for life the advowson is in grosse for life but if he grant the advowson for life it remaines appendant 3. By the acceptance of the third lease the said Lease of the Wood for 62. yeares was presently surrendered because the Lessee hath affirmed the Lessor to be able to Lease Saunders Case fo 12.41 Eliz. com banco In an Action of wast IF a man have Land in part whereof there is a Cole-myne appearing and he demise the Land to another for life or yeares the Lessee may dig for cole c. And the reason is for that the Myne is open at the time of the demyse c. and when he demyseth all his Lands it shall be intended that his meaning was that all the profit of the Land should passe c. but if the Myne be not open but within the Bowels of the Earth at the time of the demise 't is otherwise Also if a man have in his Lands hidden or unknowne Mynes and Lease the same Lands and all Mynes therein the Lessee may dig for them Rosses case 41. 42. Eliz. A Lease is made to A. and his Assignes for his life and the life of B. and C. this is a Lease for three lives and the Survivor of them Countesse de Salops Case fo 13.42 43. Eliz. banco regis SHe brought an action of the Case against Crompton and declared that shee demised to him a House at will Et quod ille tam negligenter improvide custodivit ignemsuum quod domus illa combusta fuit the defendant pleaded Non culpa and it was found not guilty And 't was adjudged that for the permissive wast no Action lyeth against the opinion of Brooke in Title wast 52. And the reason of this judgement was for that at the common Law no remedy lyeth for wast either voluntary or permissive against the Lessee for life or yeares because the Lessee hath interest in the Land by the act of the Lessor and it was his folly to make such a Lease and not to restraine him by Covenant condition c. And by the same reason Tenant at will shall not be punished for permissive wast But if Tenant at will commit voluntary wast as pulling downe of houses cutting of Trees a generall action of trespasse lyeth against him for that these doe amount to the determination of the will without the entry of the Lessor but it was agreed that in some Cases where there is confidence put in the party an action of the Case lyeth for negligence although the Defendant commeth to the possession by the act of the Plaintiffe as 12. E. 4.13 If one doe commit his Horse to one to keepe safely the Defendant Equum illum tam negligenter custodivit quod ob defectum bonae custodiae interijt an action upon the Case lyeth for this Breach of trust also 2. H. 7.11 If my Shepheard which I trust with my Sheepe and by his negligence they be drowned or otherwise perish an action upon the case lyeth against him but in this case at the Barre there was a demise at will made to the Defendant and no confidence repos'd in him wherefore it was ordered that the Plaintiffe should not recover by her Bill Case of Ecclesiasticall Persons 43. Eliz. fo 14. In the High Court of Parliament AT a Parliament holden in this Michaelmasterme it was resolved by the two chiefe Justices Popham and Anderson and diverse other Justices Assistants to the Lord of the
none will buy their Wardships 5. After Tender and refusall if the heire be made Knight and marry he shall not forfeite the double value because he is out of Ward but immediatly the Lord shall have a Writte de valore maritagij This was the last Case that Sir John Popham chiefe Justice of England c. ever Argued Sir George Cursons case 7. Jac. Cur. Wardor fol. 75. SIr W. L. seised of a reversion expectant upon taile made to his sonne of land in Capite Covenants to stand seised to the use of his neece the sonne dyeth the King shall not have primier seisin 1. Resol It was Collusion apparent within the Statute of Marlebr cap. 6. to infeoffe the heire apparent and if he infeoffe others upon Collusion averrable but no averrement shall be where the remainder or reversion is left in a stranger or upon a Devise 2. Or otherwise to dispose in the Statute of 32. H. 8. have relation to wills onely for before the Statute every man might dispose of his lands by act executed 3. The Clause in the said Statute which saveth primier seisin to the King hath relation onely to acts executed for the King shall have without that primier seisin of the third part not devised but without that he shall not have it of any part conveyed by act executed 4. If the grandfather convey land to the sonne living the father this is out of the Statute otherwise if the father be dead and so a gift to a Collaterall Kinsman who is not heire apparent is out of the Statute for none will by intendment disinherit his heire to defeate the King of the Wardship or primer seisin and so is the experience of the Court of Wards Bullens case 5. Jacobi Com. Banco fol. 77. THe Lord may have a certeine summe pro certo letae for it shall be intended it was granted at the first by purchase of the Leete for the ease of the Tenants and in consideration of the Lords claiming of it at his owne costs every Eyre The issue was if the plaintiffe was a chiefe pledge and by speciall verdict he was found a Resiant and certified by the chiefe pledges to be a chiefe pledge and was amerced for his default It seemeth he was not Sed materia praedicta consopita fuit in arbitrio See 30. E. 3.23 of franke pledges Lord Abergavenies case Com. Banco fol. 78. A Judgement in an action of Debt is had against a joyntenant for life who afterwards releaseth to his companion all the right c. yet that moytie is liable to the Judgement and so it is of a rent charge during the life of the Releasor Sir Edward Phyttons case Com. Banco fol. 79. EXecutors may take benefit of the Kings generall pardon by which is enacted that all Subjects of the King their heires Successors Executors and Administrators shall be acquitted and discharged of all offences contempts c. and that shall be expounded most beneficially for the Subject And further doth give and grant all goods Chattells Debts c. forfeited And prohibiteth any Clerke to make out any Writte c. Provided that every Clerke may make forth cap. ut at the suite of the plaintiffe against persons outlawed to the intent to compell them to answer and that the partie shall sue forth a scir fac before the pardon in that behalfe shall be allowed which is as much to say having regard onely to the plaintiffe But in regard of the King it is an absolute pardon and grant of his goods and he is a person inabled against the King but not against the partie plaintiffe And every person by himselfe or his Atturney may plead this act for discharge Executors shall have restitution upon the Statute 21. H. 8. Also Administrators shall have a Writt of error upon the Statute 27. El as was adjudged in the Lord Mordants case 36. El. And yet these Statutes speake onely of the partie and not of the Executors or Administrators because no Writt can be against Executors they may plead it without Processe The End of the Sixth Booke THE SEAVENTH BOOK Postnati Calvins case 6. Jacobi Banco Regis fol. 1. R C. By his gardian bringeth an assize the defendants say the plaintiffe ought not to be answered Quia est alienigena natus 5o. Novembris Anno Domini Regis Angliae c. tertio apud E. infra regnum Scotiae ac infra ligeanciam Domini Regis Regni sui S. ac extra ligeanciam Regni sui Angl. c. the plaintiffe demurreth The Case was Adjourned into the Exchequer Chamber and was argued by two Justices every day and by the Chancellour and resolved by the Chancellour and all the Justices except Walmesley and Foster that the plaintiffe ought to be answered For these six demonstrative Conclusions drawne from the Law of Nature the Law of the Land Reasons of State and Authorities of Records and Booke Cases 1 Every one that is an Alien by birth may be or might have been an Enemy by accident but C. could never be an Enemy by any accident whatsoever ergo no Alien by birth 2. Whosoever are borne under one naturall ligeance due by the Law 〈◊〉 nature to one Soveraigne are naturall borne Subjects But C. was borne under one c. ergo a naturall borne Subject 3. Whosoever is borne within the Kings protection is no Alien But C. was borne under c ergo he is no Alien 4. Every stranger borne must at his birth be either amicus or inimicus but C. at his birth could neither be amicus nor inimicus because he was subditus ergo no stranger borne 5. Whatsoever is due by the Law of man may be altered but naturall legeance of the Subject to the Soveraigne cannot be altered ergo not due by mans Law Lastly whosoever at his birth cannot be an alien to the King of E. cannot be an alien to any of his Subjects of E. but C. at his birth could be no alien to the King of E. Ergo he cannot be an alien to any of the Subjects of E. the Maior and Minor both be Propositiones perspicuè verae and although Alienigena dicitur ab aliena gente yet that is all one as Alienae ligeantiae and arguments drawne from Etymologie are feeble for Saepenemero ubi proprietas verborum attenditur sensus veritatis amittitur yet when they agree with Law Judges may use them for Ornament and dâ—verse inconveniences would follow if the Plea against the Plaintiffe should be allowed For first it maketh legeance locall wereupon should follow first that legeance which is universall should be confined within locall limits 2. That the Subject should not be bound to serve the King in Peace or in Warre out of those bounds 3. It should illegitimate many which were borne in Gascayne Guyan Normandy c. and diverse others of his Majesties Dominions whilst the same were in actuall obedience And lastly this strange and new devised Plea inclineth too much to
if it appeare to the Court that an action is not maintainable without the doing of it there the doing of it must be averred as if an Abbot sole grants an annuity to J. S. Pro Consilio c. in action brought against the successor he must averre that he had given Counsell c. to the use of the House otherwise if against the grantor Englefields case 34. Eliz. in Scaccario fol. 11. SIr F. E. covenanted to stand seised to the use of himselfe for life the remainder to his Nephew Proviso that it shall be voyde upon tender of a Ring by him after he was attainted of Treason and all his inheritances forfeited by Statute the Queene leaseth to the defendant for forty yeares by Statute it was inacted that every one who had a patent of land of a person attainted shall exhibit it into the Exchequer within two yeares to be Inrolled one authorized by Letters patents in the name of the Queene tenders the Ring in the life of Sir Fr. the Queene bringeth Intrusion 1. Resol When the Q. tenant pur auter vie leaseth for yeares this is good without recitall of her estate for it is lesse then her estate as if she grant Totum statum suum for there is no torte and she is not deceived 2. That this condition is given to the Q. but object 1. That it was inseparable from Sir Fr. for his intent was the substance of it and his intent cannot be transferred over 2. Naturall affection is made the Judge whether the Nephew deserve that the use shall be revoked and in so much that naturall affection cannot be transferred no more can this condition which was created by naturall affection and naturall affection determineth the estate 3. Although the benefit of this collaterall condition be given to the Q. the performance is not As to the first and second It was answered that the condition is onely the substance and all the residue is but a flourish and that is not an inseparable condition for any one may tender a Ring as well as he As to the third The performance is given to the Q. as incident to the Condition 4. It was objected that the estate of Sir Fr. was not subject to the condition because he was not possessed by limitation of use and by 27. H. 8. but he was seised of his auncient inheritance ergo the lease shall not be avoyded in the life of Sir Fr. It was answered that Sir Fr. was seised by limitation of use and that the lease shall be avoyded 5. It was objected that the Q. having made this lease being seised pur auter vie by her owne act she shall not defeate it after It was answered that the Q. shall avoyde it for her grant shall not inure to two intents 1. to make the lease c. 2. to suspend the condition and when the Q had two rights she shall not loose both without speciall words 6. It was objected that this tender ought to be found by office because matter in paijs and if it be false the party hath no remedy because the certificat is not traversable It was answered that Certificats which informe the Q. of her title are traversable but Certificats which are in nature of Trialls are not also by the Tender the uses are determined and by the attainder and the act of 33. H. 8. the land is vested in the Q. 7. It was objected that the conveyance was voyd because it was not inrolled within two yeares as the Statute requires and so Sir Fr. was seised in fee and the lease unavoydable It was answered that it was tendred in the Exchequer to be inrolled within two yeares which is all the Statute requireth the forfeiture was established by a speciall act 35. Eliz. The Case of Swannes 34. Eliz. fol. 15. A Game of Swannes in a common River are seised into the Queenes hands upon office found I. Y. pleads that Abbas c. gavisi fuerunt totoproficuo omnium cignorum in aestuaria praedict indificantium and makes her selfe title to them prayeth an ouster Le manie All White Swannes in a common River who have gained their naturall liberty may be seised for the King because they are Volatilia regalia but a Subject may have them in his owne River and if they escape into a common River he may take them againe upon fresh persuite Cignets shall be divided betweene the owners of the Swannes equally but upon the Thames the owner of the Land shall have the third by the custome whosoever hath a Swan-marke must have it by grant of the King or prescription and he may grant it over and he ought to have freehold of five Marks per annum by the Statute of 22. E. 4. c. 6. A man may prescribe to have Wyld Swannes but not as here but that the Abbot c. have used to take of them to their owne use and therefore adjudged against I. Y. A Swanne may be an estray and so cannot any other fowle Sir Thomas Cecils Case 40. Eliz. in Scaccario fol. 18. SIr T. C. entered into an obligation to the Queene to performe Covenants and shewed in the Exchequer-Chamber matter of equity to discharge him of the said Debt according to the Statute of 33. H. 8. c. 39. 1. Resol that Branch of the Statute which giveth liberty to the Subject to plead matter in equity in barre of Debt due unto the King extendeth to Debts due at the common Law as well as by this Statute because this Statute gives more speedy remedy for them and so within the purview thereof and so the other proviso of equall charging of Lands Subject to Deb. t s of the King is generall 2. The Court of Exchequer-Chamber in this case may decree upon English bill although that Processe be in the Exchequer at the common Law because to that purpose they are as one Court 3. An obligation to performe Covenants after Breach of them is within the Statute The Lord Andersons Case 41. Eliz. in Scaccar fo 21. TEnant in taile is bound by recognizance to I. S. who is attainted Tenant in taile dyes his issue aliens Bona fide the King shall not extend these Lands by the Statute 33. H. 8. c. 39. 1. Before that Statuâ—e the King could not extend Lands in the hands of the issue in taile for the Debt of his auncestor because he was bound by W. 2. De Donis 2. By that Statute Lands are extendable in the hands of the issue in taile for Debt due to the King by judgement recognizance obligation or other specialty and other cases are out of the Statute 3. The Alienee Bona fide is not within the Statute because favoured as a purchasor and he is a stranger to the Debt and comes in upon good consideration and benefit is given against the issue in taile which was not before 4. Debts due to a Subject and forfeited to the King are not within the Statute for they are not due originally
taile with crosse remainders to J. and K. M. discontinueth and dyeth without issue J. dyeth without issue K. dyeth and her issue brings a Formedon in the remainder and good although severall remainders for they depend upon one estate and commence by gift at one time In actions reall in which title is expressed a man shall not have one Writ for Lands to which he had severall Titles as in escheate cessavit Writ of Mesne c. but he may have a Writ of ward of Land onely although it be by severall Tenures nor one formedon upon two distinct gifts where the foundation is severall but he shall have it if there be one gift although it take effect at severall times because the foundation was joynt and single as upon a gift in taile to Brother and Sister who dye without issue or if the Brother dye without issue and the Sister dye having issue who dyes without issue he to whom the remainder limitted shall have one formedon although it vest at severall times so in an estate taile to Father and Sonne and so here In actions reall founded upon Torte a man shall have one Writ to recover Lands to which he had severall Titles as in an assize a Writ of entry c. but in a Writ of entry upon disseisin made to my Mother and her Sister Coperceners because there title is in the Writ it appeareth he ought to have severall actions but in personall actions one may comprehend severall torts and causes of actions as trespasse for trespasse made at severall dayes and places wast upon severall Leases and so of Debt Nota if a remainder be executed issue in remainder shall not have a formedon in remainder but in the discender and Count of an immediate gift but if there be a Lease for life to one the remainder in taile to A. the remainder in taile to B. A. dyes without issue if B. be chased to his formedon he shall not count of an immediate remainder but shall shew the first remainder to A. and that he is dead without issue 2. In formedon in the remainder or reverter omission of issue inheritable in the pedigree of the demandant abates the Writ but not upon the part of the perticular Tenant 3. The Demandant must make mention of the Sonne who survived the Father to which Son the Land discended but was not seised by force of the taile but he shall name him Sonne but not heire 4. The Demandant in a formedon in the Discender must make himselfe heire to him that was last seised and he to the Donee Note here because K. was never seised the Writ shall say Remanere not descendere and the Writ was Remansit jus because a discontinuance otherwise it should be Tenementa remanserunt Fraunces Case 7. Jac. fo 89. THe Plaintiffe pleads in barre of avowry that R. F. devised to I. his Sonne who leased to him the avowant replyeth that after the devise R. F. made a Feoffement to the use of the said I. upon condition that he shall suffer his Executors to take away his goods and the estate limitted to him was for sixty yeares if he should so long live with diverse remainders over and that after the death of F. I. hindered the Executors to carry away the goods whereupon T. in remainder entered and judgement given for the Plaintiffe 1. Resolv Although the condition be taken strictly the uses to I. onely and to his Heires are onely avoided by it 2. A disturbance by paroll is no Breach of the condition and because the avowant did not shew a speciall disturbance his replication was void 3. I. ought to have notice of the condition being a Stranger to it or otherwise he cannot breake it as a Copy-holder shall not forfeite for denyall of rent to him to whose use a Mannor is transferred before notice but he who bindes himselfe to doe any thing must take notice at his perill because he hath taken it upon him 4. Although that the Title which the Plaintiffe had made in barre to the avowry be destroyed yet he shall have judgement because his count is good and another Title that is to have the Land for sixty yeares by force of the uses declared upon the feoffement is given unto him by the Replication although that the title which he made for himselfe be destroyed yet the Court must adjudge upon all the record and judgement was entered for him accordingly Edward Foxes Case 7. Jacobi fo 93. A Revertioner upon a Lease for life the remainder for life in consideration of 50. l. demiseth granteth c. his reversion for 99. yeares rendering rent this is a bargaine and sale and there needs no attornement for the words of bargaine and sale are not necessary if there are words which tantamount as if at the common Law one had sould his Land an use had beene raised to the Vendee because their intent so appeared so here but if it appeare that their intent was to passe it at the common Law as if a Letter of Attorney be made to make livery the use had not risen and here appeareth their intent to passe it as a bargaine and sale because rent is reserved presently therefore it is reason that he shall have the rents of the particular Tenants presently which cannot be if it passe not by bargaine and sale and inrollment is not necessary because a tearme for yeares onely passeth in this case and â—o freehold See Sir Rowland Heywards Case 2. Report fo 35. Matthew Mannings Case 7. Jacobi fo 94. LEssee for yeares is bound in 200. Markes to W. C. and deviseth to his Wife for life and after her death to M. M and makes his Wife Executrix who agrees and dyeth intestate M. M. enters and takes administration of the goods not administred W. C. brings Debt against him Resolved that M. M. takes by Executory devise and not as a remainder and the estate limmitted to him in construction precedeth the limittation to the Wife as if he had devised that if the Wife die within the terme that then M. M. shall have the residue and also devised it to his Wife for life 2. This case is most strong because a Chattell which may vest and revest at pleasure of the Devisor without mischiefe to the Praecipe 2. A devise of the Terme and Occupation thereof all one Viz. So many yeares as the Feme shall live the remainder to M. M. 4. After the Executrix had agreed the first devisee cannot barre the Executory devise 5. A man may devise an estate which he cannot convey by act executed as to his Executors untill his Debts shall be paid the remainder over they have a Chattell determinable upon payment of the Debts which cannot be at the common Law If a Sheriffe sell a Terme upon a Fieri facias and judgement is reversed the sale shall stand otherwise none will buy any thing upon Execution and judgement was given for the Plaintiffe and affirmed in Error
but of payment of them notwithstanding the mistaking of the conclusion doth not vitiate the Count when the cause to have a prohibition is good 2. The plea of the Defendant to have a prohibition is not good because he traverseth the conclusion Viz. The prescription of discharge where he ought to traverse the prescription of unity for the conclusion is not traversable and because it is matter in Law 3. The issue is not well joyned 1. The matter of discharge is by reason of discharge by the Statute and the issue is by discharge at the common Law 2. In every issue there must be an affirmative and a negative but here is no affirmative for the conclusion is no affirmative but an inference 4. The impropriation is sufficient although the License were generall and the incumbent living for it shall be construed in such a speciall sence that it may take effect and the License is alwayes generall for the incumbent may dye or resigne before the impropriation 5. Admitting the impropriation void it had not beene made good by 35. Eliz. c. 3. for this settles in the K. all possessions of Abbeys with qualification notwithstanding any defect in any surrender c. which intitleth the K. and this defect is not within this qualification but if the impropriation had been good by reputation and so used this had beene given by the Statutes of 27. 31. H. 8. 6. If the Jury found matter to barre the Plaintiffe this is not to be regarded because an attaint lyeth not nor the Witnesses punished for perjury that matter not being materiall to the issue 7. Resolved that perpetuall unity untill the dissolution is by the Statute Prima facie a discharge of payment of Tithes except that the Fermors have paid Tithes and such an unity ought to be Justa aequalis that is fee in one and other Perpetua libera but if the Abbey were founded within time of memory he cannot at all and here it appeareth that the impropriation was made in 20. H. 8. so that it appeareth to the Court that before that the 20. acres were charged with Tythes for of common right all Lands ought to pay Tithes therefore the Chiefe Justice concluded that the said 20. acres as this Case is were chargeable with Tythes but in regard the information is good and the plea Pro consultatione habenda altogether insufficient and the Verdict impertinent to the issue they would not grant a consultation Doctor Grants Case 11. Jacobi Communi Banco fol. 15. In a prohibition 1. REsolved it is a good prescription that every Inhabitant in a Parish have paid 2. s. in the pound of the value of their houses per annum in Lieu of Tithes because it may have a lawfull comencement for it may be that this was so time out of mind for the Lands whereupon the Houses were built as a Modus decimandi 2. That the Parson may sue for it in the Court Christian for that it is in the nature of Tithes and every ancient City and Borough had for the most part such a custome for their Houses for the maintainance of their Parson and obvensions include oblations rents or other revennues and after a consultation was granted Sir Henry Nevills Case 11. Jacobi fol. 17. IT was resolved that a customary Mannor may be holden of another Mannor and there may be Lord Mesne and Tenant of it and such a customary Lord may hold Courts and grant Coppies and such a Mannor shall passe by surrender and admittance and fines shall be paid upon alienation or discent and if it be forfeited the Lord shall have the services as anexed to the Mannor so if Tenant at will c. admit Copy-holders reserving rent this shall goe with the Mannor after the will determined and so note a difference betweene reservations at the common Law and by the custome of the Mannor And it was said that the Mannor of Aylesham in Norfolke is holden by Copy and others in diverse other places And judgement was affirmed in Error Doctor Ayrayes Case 11. Jacobi fol. 18. 14. E 3. the K. Lycensed R. de E. to Found in Oxford a Hall sub nomine aulae Scholarium Reginae de Oxonio in the exemplification 8. Jac. it was Sub nomine aulae Reginae de Oxonio they present to the Church by the name of praeposit Coll. Reginae in Vniversitat Oxonio sociâ—r Schollar ejusdem the incumbent deviseth the Rectory and they by the name of praeposit Socior Scholar Aulae vel Collegij reginae in Vniversitate Oxonii confirme the demise and notwithstanding these variances it was adjudged that as well the confirmation as the presentation was good and the sole doubtfull variance is that it was Aulae Reginae where it ought to be Aulae Scholarium Reginae but good for the true name of the Colledge is so for the word Scholarium is not necessary but once and if it be taken in construction to come after Aulae the provost will be the sole Corporation by the name of praeposit Aulae Scholar reginae Ergo it doth precede in good construction Also the Founder named it so and so it hath beene alwayes taken and if there be a small variance this is not to the purpose if it be so described that another cannot be meant as a gift Omnibusfilijs I.S. or filiae I.S. when there is but one or if Richerus Abbot of W. grant by the name of Richardus Nil facit error nominis cum de corpore constat and this was the ancient and constant Opinion in Case of Corporations See the Case of the Major and Burgesses of Lin in the tenth Booke Henry Harpurs Case 12. Jacobi fol. 23. IN ejectione firme upon a Lease to J. W. in unam capellam and Land in W. in the Parish of B. and Tithes without shewing the certainty of them the Visne was from B. the Case was Sir H. B. seized of G. of the value of 30 l. per annum and of N. of the annuall value of 18 l. in capite covenanted to stand seized to the use of him and his Wife in taile with remainders in taile the reversion to himselfe and after purchaseth Lands in Socage and deviseth them to be sould by his Executors the matter in Law resolved but no judgement given because diverse exceptions taken c. 1. Resol That if tenant of the King in capite conveyes his Land to one of the uses c. and after purchase Socage he may devise all the Socage 2. A seck revertion upon an estate taile shall hinder the devise of Socage Land for a third part 3. Although the reversion in fee continue in him yet he may devise two parts of the Socage and all if he had granted the reversion over 4. Although he had exercised his power in making a Joynture of more then two parts yet if the reversion in fee had not hindred he might have devised all the Socage purchased after howsoever the
be divided For he had not the Mannor of H. for his Wife had it joyntly with him See many excellent Cases in the Booke at large adjudged upon this word Having in the Statutes the Initium of a Will ought to be full and perfect which is the writing and therefore if the devisor command one to write his Will and he devises white Acre to A. and his Heires and black Acre to B. and his Heires and dyes before the devise to B. is written yet the devise to A. is good But if he devises to A. c. upon condition and he writes the devise and the Testator dyes before the Writing of the condition t is voyd for in the one case the devises are severall and the one is perfect in the other Case t is maimed and imperfect for the intire devise was not fully put in writing so t was resolved in the Case at Barre that neither the commencement nor the end of the Will was full or perfect for at the time of writing of it and at the death of the devisor he had no power in respect of the joynt estate in H. to dispose all the Mannor of T. which amounts to the value of two parts of all Also upon the first Branch he ought to have a sole estate and here his Wife is joyntly seised with him and shee cannot disagree during coverture The Statute gives liberty to him for to devise two parts by will but this is to be intended of such Land which he might convey by act executed but here by reason of the undivided estate of the Wife he cannot dispose it but during coverture Also the third part of cleere yearly value is saved to the King and the intent of the Statute was that the King shall have the equall benefit at least for his third part as the devisee hath for two parts but here the devisee had two parts absolutely and the King but a possibility Viz. If the Wife would disagree which is at her pleasure and this Statute hath been constru'd that equality should be observed A man which held three Mannors of three Lords could not devise two of them but two parts of every one upon these words Cleere yearly value 't was said that of Inheritances which are not of any yearly value some are devisable some not as Bona et catalla felonum fugit or utlagat Fines amerciaments within such a Mannor or Towne these cannot be devised nor left to discend but a Leete Waife or Stray or other hereditament appendant or appurtenant to a Mannor passe by devise of the Mannor with th' appurtenances as incidents and the Statute had no intent for to dismember these things which by lawfull prescription had beene united But if a hundred with goods of Fellons Outlaws Fines Amerciaments returne of Writts and such other casuall hereditaments within the same hundred have beene accustomably demised for a yearely rent they may be devised within the purview of the said Act. 'T was said upon the words of the Statute which says that he may devise a rent common c. Out of two parts that a devise of a rent of the full value out of all is voyd but out of two parts 't is good And 't was observed that upon 32. H. 8. a devile of all his land had beene good for two parts as adjudged in Vntons Case for Land is severable but a rent is a thing intire and 34. H. 8. onely gives authority for to devise it The second branch which speakes of division cannot be satisfied for during his life he himselfe could not Set it out and after his death it survives to the Wife The third and fourth branch is not satisfied in this word immediatly for till disagreement without question the Mannor of H. survived to the Wife and if an Office had beene found before disagreement without doubt the Queene should have a third part of the Mannor of T. and the devise being voyd at the death of the devisor the third part lawfully vested in the Heire by discent it cannot be made good and devested by a subsequent disagreement Littleton discent to the Heire of Tenant by the courtesy of a disseissoresse doth not take away entry for the Heire comes not in immediatly 't was agreed if a man devises two acres holden by Knights service and a reversion upon a Lease for life discends to the heire this is no immediate discent within the Statute but the third part of the two ought to discend see many excellent Cases of devises adjudged upon the Statute Another good Case of relations Jennings and Braggs Case a disseisee makes an Indenture purporting a Lease for yeares and delivers it to a stranger out of the Land as an Escroule and commands him for to enter and deliver this as his deed to the Lessee who doth it and adjudged a good Lease and this diversity agreed First When the person at the first delivery hath not ability to make the contract and before the second delivery hath 't is voyd as an Infant and a Fème covert otherwise when at first delivery the person hath ability but cannot perfect it till an impediment removed which is done before the second delivery there 't is good as at Barre Resolved secondly that to some intent the second delivery shall have relation to the former by fiction of Law Vt res magis valeat quam pereat as if a Feme sole deliver a Lease as an escroule and after takes Husband or dyes yet by the second delivery 't is a good deed Ab initio and to some intent Vt res magis valeat c. it shall not relate yet in truth the second delivery hath all its force by the first and is but an execution and consummation of the former as at Barre for if it should relate to the first delivery then it would avoyd the lease for it should be made by one who was out of possession fictio legis inique operatur alicui damnum vel injuriam Thirdly 't was resolved that as to collaterall acts that there shall be no relation Omninò as if the Obligee release before the second delivery such release is voyd Ratcliffes case 34. of the Queene fo 37. A. Feme sole devises Socage land to the sonne of her daughter in taile the remainder to two Sisters of the devisee and to the heires of their two bodies by equall portions to be divided the remainder in fee to the Mother of the daughters and dyes the sonne dyes without issue Martha one of the daughters dwelling in her Mothers house daughter of the devisor within the age of 16. and above 14. departed at the second houre in the night with the consent of the husband of her Mother in whose house she was 8. miles and there married E. R. the issue was whether E.R. the Mother had the custody of the said M. at the time of the contract and marriage aforesaid for if she had then the
land of M. was lost by the Statute of 4. and 5. P. and M. ca ' 8. Resolved that there were two manners of custodies or Gardianships the one by the common law the other by the Statute at common Law foure manner of Gardians viz Gardian in Chivalry Socage Nature by Nurture The first two are fully described in our Bookes but great controversie was at barre for Gardian by Nature Some held that the Father onely shall have the custody of his sonne and heire apparent within age not the Mother Grandfather c. Also that the Father shall not have the custody of his daughter and heire for it ought to be such an heire as shall continue sole and apparent heire as the Father shall not have the custody of the youngest sonne in Borough English for tenure in Chivalry Others affirme that not onely the Father but every auncestor male or female shall have the custody of his heire apparent male or female Trespas quare 〈◊〉 consanguinium haeredem of the plaintiffe cujus maritagium ad ipsum pertinet c. rapuit c. lyes The Mother though she had no land brought ravishment of ward of J. her Sonne and heire against the grandfather who had land that might descend By the Court both erre for 't is true that every auncestor shall have trespas or ravishment of ward against a stranger for his heire male or female and the Writ shall say Cujus maritagium ad ipsum pertinet and good reason for the establishment of his house consists upon providing of a convenient marriage for his heire apparant and it matters not of what age such heire is but such action lyes not against gardian in chivalry by any of his auncestors but the Father So the Court resolved here the Mother could not be gardian in Socage if the land had descended to the daughter nor by nurture because she was above 14. but the common Law gives remedy against a Stranger as aforesaid Resolved here the Mother shall have the custody within the provision of the Act which hath ordained two new manners of custodies 1. By reason of nature 2. By assignation the first the Father after his death the Mother the second by assignation of the Father by his will or any act in his life See the Booke at large for the exposition of this Statute Resolved that the assent of the husband was not materiall for the Statute hath annexed the custody to the person of the Mother jure naturae which is inseperable and by marriage cannot be transferred to the husband the Father shall not forfeit the wardship by outlawry nor shall his Executors have it Resolved though she departed out of the house sixe houres before the contract yet in judgement of Law the Mother had the custody at the time of the contract for 't is inseperably annexed to the person of the Mother Resolved that by this devise the two daughters wete tenants in common in taile by these words equally to be divided though they never make partition in facto and so it hath been often adjudged Resolved that the husband and wife damsell had good title upon this verdict against the other daughter for by these words to the next of kin to whom the inheritance should c. come after her decease during the life of such person who shall so contract c. it seemes the daughter shall not have the forfeiture for though she be of the blood yet if M. dye her issue shall have the land if without issue the Mother in the remainder To the objection that the Mother cannot have it for she is not of the blood of the daughter but econtra Father or Mother are not next to whom administration shall be granted and land shall escheate rather then it shall goe to Father or Mother Resolved often against 5. E. 6. that the Father or Mother are next to whom administration may be granted and Littleton says that the Father is neerer of blood then the Uncle and therefore the Father shall have a remainder limitted to the next of blood of the Sonne but he shall not have an inheritance by discent from the Sonne for a Maxime prohibits it And 't was said at barre if he in reversion had been brother of the halfe blood he might have entered as Proximus de sanguine yet none of the halfe blood could inherit See the Booke at large where is excellent learning of discents as also the learning of Possessio fratris c. Resolved by the Court that it doth not come in question who shall enter for the forfeiture by the Statute for the issue was joyned upon a collaterall point whether the Mother had the custody at the time of the contract and the finding of the Jury is not materiall and therefore though the Plaintiffe who was lessee of the husband of the damsell as appeared had good title against the defendant being lessee of the husband of the other Sister yet because the issue was found against him judgement was given Quod nihil capiat c. Boytons case 35. Eliz. in Banco regis fo 43. A Writ of cap ad satisfaciendum is retornable at Westminster die Lunae prox post Crastin Animarū the partie is arrested the Sheriffe is not bound to bring the prisoner in recta Linea from the place where he was arrested or from the Countie But if he have the prisoner in Court at the day of the returne being never out of his custody in the meane season it is good But if a Sheriffe or a Bayliffe assent that one who is in execution and under their custody to goe out of the Gaole for a time and then to returne yet although he returne at the time it is an escape And so it is likewise if a Sheriffe suffer him to goe with a Bayliffe or a Keeper for the Sheriffe ought to have him in arcta custodia the Statute of Westminster 2. cap. 11. says Quod carceri manucipentur in ferris So as the Sheriffe may keepe him in yron and fetters to the intent that they may sooner satisfie their Creditors The Sheriffe upon a Habeas corpus for one in execution may bring the partie what way he will so as he have his bodie at the day according to the Writ If one in execution escape out of the Gaole and fly into another Countie the Sheriffe upon fresh suite taketh him again before any action brought against the Sheriffe the Judges have adjudged this no escape and if one in execution escape de son tort and be taken againe he shall never have an audita querela because a man shall not take advantage of his own wrong Sir George Brownes case 36. of the Queene fo 50. ISsue in speciall taile the remainder to himselfe in fee in the life of his Mother tenant in speciall taile levies a Fine in truth with Proclamations though they were not found to Sir G. B. the Mother living the Sonne leased for three lives