Deforceants Qui quidem finis fuit ad usus intentiones in Indentura praedict specificat by force whereof the said Thomas and Margaret were seised but the Iury found nothing of the Marriage whether it took effect or not and further found that William Pile and Philip his Wife had Primogenitam prolem a Daughter and then died and then Thomas Beale died and his Wife inter married with one Lamock who made a Lease to the Plaintiff who was ousted by Layton the Lessee of Philip Pile And hereupon it was moved by Gawdy Serjeant that inasmuch as the Marriage took no effect between Thomas and Margaret the uses cannot be in them but the Fine shall be to the use of the Conusor which was opposed by Walshey Serjeant who said that it was not like a Covenant in consideration of marriage to stand seised of such a Mannor for there if the considerations faile the uses faile also for the consideration onely is the sole and entire cause that makes the uses to arise but in this case the consideration is not materiall but the Fine effectuall without consideration of money paid and if a Feoffment be made to the use of I S. although no money be paid yet I.S. shall have the Land Windham The Cases differ much for here the Fine is not exprest to be levied to the use of Thomas and Margaret but to the uses and consents contained in the Indenture but he said that the common course was to limit the use to the Conusor untill the Marriage took effect and after as before was urged by Walmsley And the Iury found that Thomas and Margaret were seised accordingly Winham They are no Iudges to determine doubts in Law Rhodes Iustice Herein they have taken notice but of the matter in fact and he affirmed the difference put by Walmsley Windham The case de matrimon praelocut is stronger then this Case for the secret intention shall reduce the Land if the marriage take no effect And after the Court being full they all agreed to the difference put by Walmsley and also that the sale afterwards was not good by reason of this Limitation And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff accordingly Hil. 26 Eliz. Britman against Stanford UPon a speciall Verdict the Case was A House Stable and Hay-loft were demised to one for yeares rendring foure and twenty pounds Rent per annum and foure and twenty pounds for an In-come quarterly by equall portions upon Condition that if any of the Rent or In-come be behind at the time it ought to be paid that then the Lease shall cease and determine The Lessee makes a Lease of the Stable to the Lessor and after part of the In-come is behind and unpaid and the Lessor enters for the Condition broken into the house And if this was a good entry was the question And Iudgment was given that the Condition was gone and void by reason of the Lessors taking part of the thing demised because a Condition is speciall and intire and not to be severed And in this Case Fenner said that a Grantee of a Reversion cannot take benefit of a collaterall Condition as in case of a grosse summe but in case of a Rent waste c. it was otherwise Mich. 29 and 30 Eliz. Rot. 2529. Doctor Lewin against Munday IN a Replevin by Lewin against Munday it was found by Verdict That a Fine was levied the 14th of Elizabeth between Lowla and Rutland Plaintiffs and Fook and seven others Deforceants of the Mannors of Gollochall whereby the Defendant did grant the Mannor to the Plaintiffs and the Heires of one of them who granted and rendred twenty pounds per annum to the said Fook and his Heires with a Distresse for non-payment Fook seised of the Rent makes a grant to a stranger in this manner That whereas a Fine was levied the 14. of Eliz. of the Mannor aforesaid and divers other lands c. and mistook the Mannor for he put the names of the Conusees in place of the Conusors and so e contra and that it was levied of the Mannor and divers other lands whereas the Fine was levied of the Mannor solely and that he did grant the said Rent granted unto him to the said stranger and his Heires And this grant was adjudged by Anderson who said that if one recite that he hath ten pounds of the grant of I.S. whereas it was of the grant of I.D. yet it is good Hil. 30 Eliz. Rot. 17.32 Hunts Case HUnt brought an Action on the Case against Torney and declared that he being seised of lands in Swainton in Norf. in fee Secundum consuetudinem Mannerii the Defendant did promise to the Plaintiff in consideration the Plaintiff would permit him to occupy the same for the space of five years that he would pay him at the Feast of All-Saints next coming and so yearly twenty pounds at the Feasts of the Annunciation and All-Saints by equall Portions during the terme aforesaid and alledged that he had injoyed the lands by the space of a year and half and so brought his Action on the Assumpsit And Anderson was of opinion that untill the five years were expired no money was to be paid because the Contract was intire But all the other Iustices on the contrary for the consideration was to pay a certain summe yearly which made severall duties and so severall Actions For by Periam if a man be bound to pay I.S. twenty pounds in manner and forme following viz. ten pounds at such a day and ten pounds at such a day in this case the Obligee cannot have an Action of Debt for the first before the day of payment of the last ten pounds be past because the duty in it self is an intire duty but if a man be bound to pay I.S. ten pounds at such a day and ten pounds at such a day here the Obligee shall have his Action for the first because the duty was in it self severall Anderson at another day said that if a man makes a Lease for ten years rendring Rent in that case he may have an Assumpsit for the Rent due every year So if I covenant with you to build you twenty houses the Covenantee shall have a severall action for each default Periam That Case of the Assumpsit is much to the purpose for an Assumpsit is in the nature of a Covenant and is indeed a Covenant without writing Rhodes cited this Case Gascoigne promised in consideration of a marriage of his Daughter with such a mans Son to give seven hundred marks and to pay a hundred marks every year untill all the sunun were paid and it was held clearly in this Court that a severall action might be brought upon every hindred pounds but because the action was brought for all the seven hundred marks before the seven years were out Iudgment was given against him for if a man be bound in a Bond of a hundred pounds to pay twenty pounds for so many years he
therefore the Action shall continue And if a man be outlawed he may bring an Action as Executor and the Writ shall not abate Browne If I make I.S. my Attorney and he the Warrant of Attorney still continuing is made a Knight yet is not the Warrant of Attorney determined although the word Knight which is now part of his name be not in the Warrant therefore in this case the Writ is good Mich. 7 Eliz. NOte it was said by Browne that if H. does let the Cite of his Mannor with all his Lands to the said Mannor appurtenant hereby all the Demesne lands do passe but if it were with all the Lands appertaining to the said Cite nothing passeth but the Mannor-place Pasch 6 Eliz. A Man seised of the Mannor of Dale doth let the same with all the Members and Appurtenances to the same to have and to hold all the members of the said Mannor to the Lessee for terme of years Walsh and Weston were of opinion that this was a Lease for years of the Mannor onely and that the limitation of the word Members being after the Habendum was void But Dyer and Browne were of the contrary opinion And Browne said that when the Habendum is used by way of limitation it shall not be void As if he let his Mannor of Dale to have and to hold one acre parcell thereof for a terme of years the Lease is void for all but if there had been no Habendum but the Lease for years had been limited in the Premisses of the Lease that is good enough And if the Lease had been Habendum every part thereof that had been a good Lease of the Mannor for all the parts comprehend all the Mannor And Dyer said that the word Members shall be taken for the Townes and Hamblets wherein the Mannor hath Iurisdiction Note it was said by Dyer that if partition be made by the Sheriff although the Writ be not returned yet it is good enough and none of the parties shall except against it and so was the better opinion concerning the Estate of Culpeper and Navall in the County of Kent Sutton brought a Writ of Ravishment of a Ward against Robinson wherein it was resolved by Dyer Carus Weston and Benlowes That if the Tenant enfeoff his Lord and others all the Seigniory is extinct also if the Tenant does infeoff the Lord but of a Moyety yet is all the Seigniory extinct And Dyer said that if the Tenant does infeoff the Lord and a stranger to the use of another and his Heires and makes Livery to the stranger this is no extinguishment of the Seigniory but if the Livery were made to the Lord it is otherwise and yet is the possession instantly carried away to the stranger by the Statute of 2 H. 7.13 A man seised of lands devises the same to his Wife to dispose and imploy them for her self and her Son according to her will and pleasure Dyer Weston and Walson held that the Wife had a Fee-simple by the Intendment of the Will and the Estate is conditionall for ea intentione will make a Condition in a Devise but not in Grant vide Dyer 2â— 6 A woman Tenant in taile makes a Lease for one and thirty years and after takes a Husband who have issue the Husband being Tenant by the Curtesie surrenders the Heirs doth oust the Lessee and the Lessee brings an Ejectment And it was held that the Surrender was good and that the Privity was sufficient Mich. 40 Eliz. IN an Action of the Case for calling one Bastard Dyer and Walsh said an Action would lye but Browne on the contrary because it shall be tried in the Spirituall Court And Dyer said That at Barwick Assises a Formedon in the Discender was brought and one said that his Father by whom he claimed was a Bastard and thereupon he brought an Action against him for those words and recovered Catlin said That if Lands be given to a man and to the Heires he shall engender on the body of an English woman and he marries a French woman and she dies and then he marries an English woman that now this is a good Estate in special taile Pasch 7 Eliz. THe Prior and Monks of the Charter-house before the dissolution made a Lease for foure years reserving the ancient rent of twenty five Quarters of Wheat per annum and then the house was surrendered into the hands of King Henry the eighth and then the Lord Chancellor did let the said rent of twenty five Quarters of Wheat to I.S. for foure and twenty years And it came into question between I.S. and the Termor if this was warranted by the 27 H 8.28 Harper and Portrell it is not for the Statute is that they may make Leases of any Mannors Lands Tenements and Hereditaments for one and twenty years c. and this Wheat is neither Land Tenement nor Hereditament but a Chattell and shall be demanded in an Action of debt But the opinion of all the Court was that the Lease was good and they did agree that it was directly within the word Hereditaments for it may discend or escheat and the wife shall be endowed thereof Also upon a Lease of Corne a Rent may be referved for a man may reserve a Rent upon a Lease of a Rent and the Rent is not parcell of the Reversion but onely incident thereunto and the Lessor hath the same inheritance therein as he hath in the Reversion Trin. 7 Eliz. AN assurance was made to a woman to the intent it should be for her Ioynture but it was not so expressed in the Deed. And the opinion of the Court was that it might be averred that it was for a Ioynture and that such averment was not traversable and so was it in the case between the Queen and Dame Beaumont Winter brought an Action of the Case against Barnam for these words viz. Thou Murtherer Dyer and Walsh said that the Action would lye for there are some words that cannot be qualified as Murtherer Theef Extortioner false Knave and in such Case an Action will lye but contrary where such words are spoken in a jesting way Note by Dyer that the Lord Fitz-James late Lord chief Iustice of England did devise his land to Nicholas Fitz-James in taile with divers remainders over and in the same devise he devised divers Iewels and peeces of Plate viz. the use of them to the said Nicholas Fitz-James and the Heires Males of his body In this case it was the opinion of the Court that the said Nicholas had no property in the said plate but onely the use and occupation And the same Law where the Devise was that his Wife should inhabit in one of his houses which he had for terme of years during her life because the Wife takes no interest in the terme but onely an occupation and usage out of which the Executors cannot eject her during her life but Walsh held the contrary Hil. 8 Eliz. IF a Bishop
the Reversion Warburton I conceive he shall have the Ayde 7 H. 4.2 where ayde is prayed against him in the Remainder and Reversion and and he cited a Manuscript 11 R. 2. direct in the point that the ayde would lye But the other Iustices cont for the Tenant for life hath as high an estate as he in the remainder and may plead all that the other may but if there be Tenant for life the remainder in Taile there he shall have ayde of the Tenant in Taile 23 H. 6.6 11 Edw. 3.16 If there be Tenant for life the remainder for life the remainder in Fee tenant for life shall have ayde of them both for else he in the remainder shall not come in to plead 11 E. 3. ayde 32. Where it is resolved that tenant for life shall have ayde of the Reversioner for life Hillar 28 Eliz. VVatkins against Astwick A Man makes a feofment on condition that if he his heirs or Executors do pay the Rent of 100 l. before such a day that he may re-enter the Feoffer dyes his heire within age the mother without any notice of the son requests J.S. that he would pay the money for her son And all this was found by speciall verdict but it was not found of what age the son was Clinch If the Iury had found that the son was of the age of 17 years the payment had been good Wray If a Bond be upon condition that the Obligor or his heirs should pay 100 l. and the Obligor dyes his heire within age I conceive payment by the Guardion or by some other friend is good And afterwards all the Iustices agreed That if the Infant were within the age of 14. years the tender of the money by his mother had been good but contra if he had been more than 14 years and because no age was proved here but that he was within age it shall not be intended that he was within the age of 14. years and therefore they advised the party to begin de novo and that it may be found that the Infant was within the age of 14. years Trinit 25. Eliz. Moris against Paget in C. B. Rot. 2215. IN a Replevin a speciall Verdict was found that Sir Francis Ascough was seised of the Mannor of Castor in Lincolne which Mannor extended it self into four Towns v z. Castor North Kelsey Dale â—ale and that there were demesne lands and Freeholders in each of the said Towns and that Moris the Plaintiff held the land where c by Fealty and suit of Court to the Mannor of Castor and the lands did lie in one of the Towns viz. in Norch Kelsey And Ascough being so seised sold to the Defendant Totum illud Manerium sive Dominium de North Kelsey cum pertinentiis in North Kelsey ac omnia ac singula Messuagia redditus Herriot and all other things used or reputed as parcell thereof with all Courts c. To have and to hold to the Vendee and his heires and Moris the Plaintiff and other freeholders in North Kelsey did attorne to the Vendee The Question was if the Vendee had the Mannor of North Kelsey or not Peryam He has not yet by the feofment and attornment all the Tenants and services are conveyed to him but not as a Mannor for a Mannor is made and incorporate by continuance of time and this entire Mannor of Castor cannot be divided no more than other liberties as if the King grant to three partners who have three Mannors a Leet or Warren and one of them makes a feofment the Feofee shall not have the Leet and heâ—tted Dyer 362. a. and he sayd if I grant my Mannor of â—except certain Demesn lands and services the feofee shall have the Mannor and I shall have the Lands and services in grosse and so if I have a Mannor that extends into two Towns and I grant my Mannour to you in one Town you shall have no Mannor but the lands and services in gross Windham Iustice cont For where he grants his Mannor of North Kelsey in North Kelsey there it shall be construed his Mannor in reputation Ander on agreed for although a Mannor cannot be created at this day yet is it not so intire but it may be divided Hillar 30. Elizab. Sir Thomas Howards Case A Man makes a Lease for years the 10th of May and then the Lessor bargains and sells this to another by Deed enroll'd bearing date the 10th of Aprill and it was entred to be conveyed the 10th of Aprill before but in truth it was delivered and acknowledged and enrolled afterwards And it was held that the bargaine was without remedy at the Common Law for he cannot plead that it was acknowledged or delivered after the date of the day of acknowledging it and so was the opinion of Rhodes Peryam and Windham Anderson being absent for he cannot aver that it was inrolled or acknowledged at another day then it is recodred because it is contrary to the Record for it is entred that it was acknowledged the 10 of Aprill and then if such a plea should be admitted it would shake most of the Assurances in England Note Shuttleworth put this case A man makes a Lease rendring Rent at two Feasts and if the Rent be behind at any of the said Feasts or 40. dayes after and no distress to be found that the Lessor shall re-enter the Lessor comes upon the ground the last day of the 40. and demands his Rent and because no distress was sound on the land at the time of his demand he entred But it was averred that always before this day there was sufficient distress and the question was if his entry were good Fenner and Rhodes said they had seen a Report of the same Ease 8 Eliz. That the distress ought to be on the Land on the last day yea at the last instant of the day which is a legall time to make a demand or else the Lessor may enter Walmsley The same Ease was resolved a year agoe in the Kings Bench between Ward and VVare But if it were and no distress to be found at any time within forty dayes there if there be a distress found at any time it is sufficient Vid. 1. Inst 202. a. 28 Eliz. VVood against Ash IN a Replevin the Ease was thus Puttenham made a Lease of Land with a Stock of Sheep for 20. years rendring Rent and the Lessee doth Covenant to render back to him at the expiration of the Lease 1000 Sheepe of the age of three or four years and that the Lessor grants all his Chattells and this stock of Sheepe to Elizabeth Vavafor the Defendants now wife but in Truth the Sheepe of the old stock were all spent and others supplyed part by increase and part by buying of other Sheepe Walmesley for the Defendant The grant made by the Lessor is good for the generall propertie does remain in him although that the Lessee hath a speciall
Customes or Services and this is neither Rent Custome or Service for that of common right the Estrey belongs to the King and no common person may have it unlesse by grant or by prescription and the Statute is to be taken strickly for the Avowant for Damage-feasant or for Rent Charge should not recover Damage by this Statute before the Statute of 21 H. 8.19 where the Plaintiff hath remedy as it is holden in Dyer 141. B. But because divers Presidents were shewn out of the Common Pleas from time to time since the making that Statute that damages shall be recovered by the Avowant who avowes for Amercements c. it was said that it would be very difficult to controll so many Presidents Gawdy no great credit is to be given to such Presidents as passe sub silentio without any exception taken to them Another Error was assigned because the Iudgment was to have return averiorum predictorum whereas there was but one Guelding wherefore Iudgment was reversed and the Roll markt Trin. 36 Eliz. in B. R. Fulgeambs Case Trespass against the Constables of Cambridge FUlgeambe brought an Action of Trespasse against the Constables of Cambridge the Case was The Plaintiffs horses estrayed into Cambridgeshire and were thereupon Impounded in Cambridge and then one A. came with a Commission from the Lord Hunsdon Captaine of Barwick to take Horses to ride to Barwick and the Constables delivered to him the Plaintiffs Horses and then one of the Horses died And the opinion of all the Iustices was that the Action did well lye for the Constables cannot take Horses out of the Pound to deliver them to any by vertue of such a Commission Trin. 36 Eliz. in B. R. Tauntons Case Lease on condition COles made a Lease to Taunton for ninety nine years on condition â—hat if he demised it in other manner then in such manner as he let the same to him that then it should be lawfull for him to re-enter the Lessee devises it by his Will to his youngest Son Resolved that Rigore Juris this is a breach of the Condition for a Devise is an Alienation as is holden 31 H. 8 Dyer 6. and although Conditions shall be taken strickly yet not directly against the intent of the parties and the reasonable disposition of the words and therefore a Devise shall be intended to be within this word Demise yet it was said that it was very hard according to equity that the Estate should be lost For he intended by this Will to prefer one of his youngest Children and not to break the Condition and thought not it was any breach of the condition and for this cause some doubt was made of the Case but Hil. 38 Eliz. Iudgment was given as aforesaid Pasch 36 Eliz. in B. R. Rot. 41. Leighs Case Ejectment THe Queen being seised of lands as Dutchesse of Lancaster did make a Lease thereof to the Plaintiff the Lessee is outed by A. the Plaintiff makes a Lease to B. for years and B. being outed brought an Ejectione firmae 1. It was resolved that the Queen as Dutchesse of Lancaster cannot be disseised for although she be not seised in jure Coronae yet is it in Seisin of the Queen and cannot be taken away from her in respect of her person 2. Gawdy and Fenner held that the Lessee being outed the terme is turned into a Right and therefore it hath been adjudged that an Ejectment will lye as the case is in Dyer 29 H. 8. It Tenant in taile the reversion in the King suffers a Recovery although this shall not be to the prejudice of the Kings Reversion yet shall it bar the Estate-tail So if a Parson makes a Lease for years and the Patron and Ordinary confirme it and the Parson dies and during the Vacation the Lessee is outed he is hereby outed of his terme yet is not the Frank-tenement touched Clench on the contrary That he who is outed hath an Estate but at sufferance for he cannot have an Estate for years without a Lease and it is agreed he shall not have an Estate of Freehold by reason of the Reversion in the Queen and the possession of the Lessor shall maintain the possession of the Lessee as well as the possession of the Lessee shall keep the Freehold of the Lessor and if he have but an Estate at sufferance then cannot the Lease to B. he good For if Tenant at sufferance of a common person makes a Lease for years this is a Disseisin And Popham was of opinion with Gawdy and Fenner wherefore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff I have seen a Report 24 Eliz. in the Kings Bench upon a Demurrer between Edmund Frough and Henry Dixe where the better opinion was That if one enters on the terme of the Queen he shall not thereby gaine any possession but notwithstanding the Termor may grant over his Terme but it was agreed that he shall have an Ejectione firmae for by Plawden an Assise will lye of a Mill where the water is divers for the possession of the Mill continues in him But the Justices doubted whether it was an Ejectment wherefore the parties did compound In the 4. H. 6. Intrusion If Lessee for life the Remainder in the King be outed he shall have an Assise Trin. 36 Eliz. in C. B. Rot. 134. Thurstons Case Ejectment GOffe brought an Ejectment against Thurston the Case was this The Abbot of Kingswold in Wiltshire being seised of Land in the 28th yeare of H. 8. did with consent of the Covent make a Lease for years by Deed indented and then the Abby came into the hands of H. 8. and from him to Edw. 6 and from him to the present Queen And it was pleaded that the Defendant hath the Lease and that Henry Thinne did intrude on the Defendant and made a Lease to the Plaintiff who being ejected by the Defendant brought this Action and on this matter the parties demurred 1. It was said that the Plaintiff cannot bring this Action inasmuch as Henry Thinne by his entry on Lessee for years the Reversion being in the Queen cannot gaine any possession so that nothing passeth by his Lease to the Plaintiff But the Court was against this for he is a sufficient Lessee to maintain an Action of Ejectment And it was adjudged in the Exchequer Chamber that the Queens Lessee for years being outed may have an Ejectione firmae which proves that he is put out of possession of his terme and this very point was in a manner agreed the last terme in the case of Norris Fenner If H. enters on the possession of the Queen and makes a Lease for years nothing doth passe and the Lessee cannot maintain an Ejectione firmae for he gains no possession at all but it is on the contrary heâ—e when he enters on the Queens Lessee Gawdy That is no difference for the Lessee for years of an Intrudor shall maintain at Ejectione firmae And I have seen
opinion he relied upon the intention of the Donors which ought to be observed For if the Habendum does crosse the Premisses it shall be void but a Remainder is good for the benefit of a stranger but a Rent cannot be reserved upon such a Gift during the foure degrees but after the Reversion is good if he do attorne to the Gâ—…ntee of the Reveâ—sion Windham Frank-marriage is not an Estate in taile for there wants the word Heires Coke lib. 1.103 So a Gift to a man semini suo 10 Ass 26. and after Meade â—greeâ— with Windham although the grounds of Frank-marriage were not observed yet that it was good for although there be no Tenure between the Donor and Donee yet is it a good Frank-marriage Dyer It is no good Frank-marriage because the usuall words are not observed and if the word Liberum be omitted it is not Frank-marriage neither is it good given to a man but it must be to a woman for a man cannot give land to a woman Causa matrimonii praelocuti And in this case the party ought to be of the blood of the Donor who by possibility may be inheritable to him and there ought to be a Tenure between them and an acquittall and if any faile it is no Frank-marriage and he said further that if it once takes effect as Frank-marriage and then the Donor grants the Reversion or the Reversion discends to the Donees yet it shall not be destroyed but shall remaine as an Estate in taile and not for life because it once took effect in the Donees and their issues and if land be given to a man in Frank-marriage the remainder in taile yet this shall not destroy the Frank-marriage and the Donee shall hold of the Donor and not of him in the remainder And if one give land in Frank-marriage the remainders to the Donees in taile yet is this a good Frank-marriage and if the Donor grants over his Services yet doth the Frank-marriage continue although the Donees attorn for they are incident to the Reversion and therefore the Grant is void but if the Reversion be granted the Services will passe and he concluded that the Husband had all and the Wife nothing because no Estate to her is mentioned in the Premisses and he could not construe the words to be the intent of the Donor for here is an expresse limitation of the fee to the Husband and his Heirs which cannot be controlled by intendment And after 25 Eliz. It was adjudged to be no Frank-marriage nor gift in taile but a Fee-simple And the Iustices said that the ancient Books were that where it took not effect as a Frank-marriage it should be in especiall taile yet those at this time are not Law But they agreed that this at one time took effect as Frank-marriage and by matter ex post facto may be made an Estate in taile Mich. 30 Eliz. Gibbs Case GIbbs brought an Action of Trover against Basil for a Gelding the Case was One Porter stole this Gelding from the Plaintiff and sold him to the Defendant in open Market by the name of Lister and it was entred so in the Toll Book that Lister sold him The question was if this alteration of his name shall make any alteration of the property although the sale was in open Market Windham and Rhodes Iustices held this no good sale to bar the Plaintiff and grounded their opinion on the Statute of the 2 and 3 Phil. and Mar. cap. 7. which provides that no property of stollen Goods shall be altered that are sold unlesse the name and surname of the parties to the sale be written in the Toll-book And Shuttleworth moved that it should be in the Market and walked there for an houre together which is not set forth by the Defendant in his Bar but the Iustices said that such speciall plea need not to be but shall be intended Rouses Case IT was moved in this Case that if Tenant for terme Dauter vie does continue and hold in his Estate after the death of Cestuy que vie If he be a Disseisor and whether in pleading the plea ought to be seised and not possest Shuttleworth He was legally in at first and therefore cannot be a Disseisor 15 Ed. 4.41 A Freehold could not be gained where he came in by the agreement of the party and 12 Ass 22. Where the Husband and Wife were seised of a Freehold and after were divorced by Suit on the womans part whereby the woman is to have all the land yet if the Husband continue possession and dies seised this discent shall not take away entry because he was no Disseisor Gawdy He is Tenant at sufferance and no Disseisor and there it was moved that if Tenant at sufferance or a Disseisor makes Copies of Copyhold Lands if they be good or voidable And note that Wilde took here a diversity between a Termor that holds over and a Tenant at sufferance for in case of a Tenant at sufferance there is no Freehold taken from the Lessor which the continuance of possession doth not take from him but where the Tenant holds over his terme there the Freehold is disturbed and therefore there is a disseisin But at that present it seemed to the Iudges that there was no diversity But the next terme Godfrey moved that if Tenant for anothers life held over his Estate he had Feesimple and he granted that it was otherwise in some cases for if he claim to be Tenant at the Will of the Lessor he shall not gaine a Fee-simple For Littleton in his Chapter of Releases 108. saith that Tenant at sufferance is where a man in his own wrong doth convey Lands and Tenements at the will of him that hath the Freehold and such Occupyer claimeth nothing but at Will But in this case the Tenant claimes otherwise then at Will of the Lessor he does not claim any thing but at the Will of the Lessor as in the case of Littleton but claimes to hold over against the Will of the Lessor which is no Tenant at sufferance and 10 Ed. 4. If a man makes a Lease at Will and the Lessor dies and he continues possession and claims fee the Heire shall have a Mortdancester and 18 Ed. 4.25 If Cestuy que use dies and the Tenant continues in and the Tenant is impleaded the Lessor shall not be received and the reason is because there is no reversion in him but the Tenant hath it and 22 Ed. 4.38 by Hussey Iustice If a Termor holds over his Terme there an Estate in fee is confest to be in him by matter of Law but it is a deubt whether he be a Disseisor or not but it seemeth not for a Trespasse doth not lye against him before Regresse and in the 7 H. 4.43 If a Guardian holds the possession at the full age of the Heir or Tenant for years after his terme expired the Estate shall be judged in Fee And in our case he hath
to pay the Rent to me because the receit is no wrong But it is otherwise in the first case for when the Tithes are set forth they are presently in the possession of the Parson so that when the Defendant takes them he is a wrong Seisor of them and therefore no account will lye against him And so was it adjudged in a case of a Mannor in London where one under colour of a Devise did occupy the Land for twenty years which Will afterwards was made void and thereupon he to whom the right of the land belonged brought an account and it was adjudged that it would not lye Harper An Account will lye against a Procter so that the Plaintiff may charge him as Procter and it is no plea for him to say he is no Procter no more then it is for a Guardian in Socage to say he is not Prochein amy Dyer there are three Actions of Account One against a Baily another against a Receiver the third against a Guardian in Socage And if an Account be brought against a man as Receiver he must be charged with the receipt of the money but if the Defendant pretends he is Owner of it it is contrary to the nature of an account and therefore he is not chargable in such Action but he may plead Ne unque son Baily pur account render for in an Account as my Brother Manhood said there must be privity But an Abator or an Intruder shall not be charged in an Account because they pretend to be Owners But in this case the Lessee may have an Action of Trespasse against him for the Tythes were immediatly upon the setting forth in the possession of the Lessee and by the Statute of the 31 H. 8.7 he may have an Ejectione firmae but an account will not lye in this case Mich. 14 Eliz. TEnant in Dower commits Waste and the Waste was assigned in this Case that the Lessee had destroyed a hundred Does of the Plaintiffs whether this was Waste or no was the question Dyer I think it no Waste unlesse she had destroyed all the Deer Manwood If a Lessee of a Pigeon house destroy all the old Pigeons except one or two yet it is a Waste and so is this although all be not destroyed Mich. 15 Eliz. A Man is indebted by Obligation in a hundred pounds to a Testator this Obligation is not Assets in the hands of the Executors untill it be recovered by them because it is but a Chose in Action but if in such case the Executor release the Debt now he hath determined the Action and hath made it Assets in his hands to the whole value of the Bond. Bliss against Stafford MArgaret Bliss who was in Remainder after an Estate in taile did bring an Action on the case against Edward Strafford for standring her Title in affirming that A. had issue one B. who is alive and the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Action adjudged good by all But did abate for an exception to the Count. Pasch 13 Eliz. UPon the Statute of Recusancy made the 29. of Elizabeth Thomas Salherd and Henry Evered being committed of Recusancy for not paying twenty pounds for every month a Commission was awarded to enquire of their Goods and Lands in Suffolk to levy the said Debt and amongst other Lands certain Copyhold Lands were seised and being returned the parties came in and by way of plea did set forth that some of their Lands seised were Copyhold and did pray Quod manus Dominae Reginae amoveantur and hereupon the Queens Attorney demurred upon which the question was if Copyhold Lands were within the said Statute of the 29 Eliz. Snagge The Lands and Hereditaments which the Statute speaks of are such as are known by the Common Law and not by Custome for it I grant all my Lands Hereditaments in D. my Copyhold lands will not passe so that it seems to me Copyholds are not within the Statute Popham contra If Copyhold Lands are not within the Statute some persons shall be free and he held that Lands in ancient Demesne were within the meaning of the Statute although not within the words and he agreed that where a Grant is made of all my Lands and Tenements in D. that Copyhold Lands passe not because they cannot passe by such assurance and that Copyhold Lands were not within the Statute of Bankrupts if they be not particularly expressed and a Copyhold cannot passe by grant but by surrender But after great debate it was adjudged that Copyhold Lands are not within the Statuto by reason of the prejudice that may come thereby to the Lord who hath not committed any Offence and therefore shall not loose his Customes and Services Trin. 30 Eliz. IN the Case of Viscount Bindon it was holden that if a man hath Iudgment in Debt upon an Obligation and no execution yet he may commence another Action upon the same Obligation but otherwise of Contract 9 Ed. 4.51 A question was moved that if a man grants Vesturam terrae what doth passe and it was said by Clerk that one man may have the Vesture another the Soil Lord chief Baron he who hath Vesturā terrae cannot dig the Land And if many have a Meadow together viz. to be divided amongst them every year by lots how much every one shall have of grasse in such a place and how many in such a place and so to change every year according to the lots they have not a Freehold but onely vesturam terrae Dyer 285.6.14 H. 7.4 6. 21 H. 7.37 Dyer 375.6 13 H. 6.13 14 H. 8.6 In the Case of a Dean and Chapter the question was that if Lessee for years be rendring Rent with clause of re-entry for non-payment and then the Reversion or Rent be extended by a Statute or seised into the hands of the King for debt if the Lessee shall pay the Rent according to the extent and no breach of the Condition although he pay not the Lessor And the chief Baron held it was no breach of the Condition because he is now compellable to pay it according to the extent Caltons Case IT was moved by Serjeant Fenner and agreed by all the Barons that if the King make a Lease to A. rendring Rent and there the Lessee lets parcell hereof rendring Rent in this case the second Lessee shall not have the priviledge of the Exchequer to fly thither to be sued concerning this Land because that by such means all the causes in England may be brought into the Exchequer and hereupon Fenner said that he had demurred upon a Bill exhibited into the Exchequer Chamber by such a Lessee and prayed the Court that he might not answer and he was thereupon dismist Vpon not guilty pleaded the parties joyned issue and after evidence given and the Iury dismist from the Bar some of them had Apples and Figgs whereof the Court taking notice when they came to give their Verdict did examine them upon their
shall not have an Action of Debt untill the last year expired And after Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff viz. Mich. 29. Eliz. Rot. 2248. 28 Eliz. Between Sticklehorne and Hatchman ADjudged by the Court that if for not scouring of a Ditch or Mote the Groundsells of the house are putrified or Trees cut downe which are in defence of the house whereby the house by tempests is blown down Waste shall be assigned in Domibus pro non Scourando c. IN an Ejectione firmae Broker Prothenotary said that where the title of him in the Reversion is not disclosed in pleading nor cometh in question aid shall not be granted Pasch 28 Eliz. in C. B. Yardley against Pescan THe Queen seised of an Advowson being void the Ancestor of Pescan presented and so gained it by usurpation and then the Church being void he presented again and his Clark is now dead and then the Queen grants the Advowson to Yardley the Plaintiff and he brings a Quare Impedit in the name of the Queen supposing that this usurpation did not put the Queen out of possession and it was argued that the Grant could not passe without speciall words because it is of the nature of a Chose in Action and this was moved the last terme and then Dyer Meade and Windham held that this usurpation did gaine possession out of the Queen and that she should be put to her Writ of Right of Advowson and now this terme Fenner moved the case againe and the opinion of Anderson that was the chief Iustice of the Common Pleas was clearly that the Queen was not out of possession for he said that it was a rule in our Books that of a thing which is of Inheritance the act of a common person will not put the Queen out of possession but if she had but a Chattell as the next Advowson then perhaps it is otherwise But Meade and Windham held very earnestly the contrary and they relied on the Book of 18 Ed. 3.15 where Shard said that if the King had an Advowson in his owne right and a stranger who had no right did happen to present that put the King out of possession And the King shall be put to his Writ of Right as others shall vide 47 Ed. 3.14 B. 18 Ed. 3.16 The Defendant there did alledge two Presentments in his Ancestor after the Title of the King and demanded Iudgment if the King should have a Writ of possession and the plea was admitted to be good but after Pasch 25 Eliz. Iudgment was given for the Queen for that she might very well maintain a Quare Impedit and the two Presentments did not put her out of possession 31 Eliz. Rot. 211. SIr Robert Rowley made the Lord Keeper Sir Robert Catlin and the Master of the Rols his Executors and did devise a terme to Sir Robert Catlin and died and they writ their Letters to the Ordinary certifying that they were made Executors but that they could not attend the executing of the Executorship and therefore they required him to commit the Administration to the next of kin ut lex postulat The Ordinary enters in the Register Quia Executors praedicti per testamentum praedictum distulerunt c. and thereupon committed the Administration over Afterwards the Lord Catlin received the Rent of the Farme and after granted it to a stranger The Administrator ousted the Lessee and he brings an Ejectment And if this writing was a refusall in the Executors or not was the question And it was said by Ford Doctor of the Civill Law that it was a refusall and he said that if Legatees being Executors do refuse to prove the Will yet by the Civill Law they shall have their Legacies But adjudged by the Court that if Legatees do refuse to prove the Testament that by the Common Law they have no remedy for their Legacies for by the refusall there is a dying Intestate and then nothing could be devised and also said that this Writing was a refusall of the Executors so that the Ordinary might presently commit Administration and therefore Sir Robert Catlin could take nothing as Legatee Pasch 31 Eliz. THe Array of a Pannell was challenged because the Sheriff was Cosin to the Plaintiff and upon a Traverse it was found that they were Cosins but not in such manner as the Defendant had alledged and per curiam the Array was quasht for the manner is not materiall but whether he be a Cosin or not 18 H. 6.18 Pasch 31 Eliz. IT was resolved in the case of Miles against Snowball that if the Sheriff return one who hath no Freehold yet he shall be sworne in the Iury if he be not challenged by the parties And after upon the evidence it was moved If a woman make a Deed of Feoffment to severall persons of a house and land wherein she her self inhabiteth and is seised and delivers the Deed to the Feoffers without saying any thing if this be a good Feoffment of which Periam doubted because she did inhabit there all the time but if it were of other lands on which she did not dwell and she comes there to make Libery and delivers the Deed upon the land and saies no words yet is this a good Feoffment because she comes thither to malte Livery Anderson The Feoffment in this case is good for if she hath an intent to make Livery the delivery of the Deed is good Livery Quod Periam tota Curia concesserunt if she had intended to make Livery vide Co. lib. 6 26. lib. 9.136 Dyer 192. Pasch 31 Eliz. A Woman brought an Action of Debt as Administratrix to another the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff was an Alien born in Gaunt under the obedience or Philip King of Spain the Queens enemy And Walmsley moved for the Plaintiff that this was no plea because that the recovery is to anothers use but the Court was against him for the Court will not suffer that any enemy shall take advantage of our Law and then he moved that that King was no enemy because Wars were not proclaimed But Anderson said that a more open enemy then King Philip cannot be who had conspired the death of the Queen and had endeavoured to invade the Realm and subvert the State which Windham granted but Periam haerebat aliquantulum whether he could be called enemy in law before such proclamation But Walmsley said that the plea was that the woman was born under the obedience of the Emperor who was in amity with the Queen and the Court replied Plead as you will abide by it Pasch 13 Eliz. IN a trespasse of Assault and Battery the Plaintiff declared to his damages of twenty pounds and the Iury found for the Plaintiff and gave thirty pounds damages And by the Court the Plaintiff shall recover no more then he hath declared for and this ought to be done of course by the Clarks 2 H. 6.7.8 H. 6.4.42 Ed. 3.7 Mich. 30. and 31 Eliz.
expounded as they are commonly taken and not to go to any strict construction of the words as Heirs in the Latine is used also for goods by the Civill Law but we use it only for lands and so Libra in Latine signifies a Weight and yet if I am bound in Vigint Libris if I forfeit my Bond I must pay money and not Lead or the like And so the word Puer is somtimes taken for a servant Claudite jam rivos pueri c. and the same reason that it may be intended for a Daughter may be for a Servant also Gawdy I suppose the Son shall have it and not the Daughter for although Pueri was taken for Male and Female yet now it is taken for Male in any Modern Author but to omit curiosity of words we ought to consider rather the intent of the parties and there are many circumstances to prove that he intended this to his Son and not to his Daughter for he made it for setling his Inheritance and it shall not be supposed that he intended his Daughter should have it Also where the case may be taken two waies the most usuall shall be intended as in case of a reservation of a Rent at Michaelmas that shall be intended at the chiefest Feast also in this case it shall be intended that he would advance the most worthy of his blood and therefore to that purpose the conveyance shall be expounded for if there be two I. S. and I give land to I.S. it shall be intended to my next Neighbour but if one be my Cosin although he dwells forty miles from me yet he shal have the land And to this Southcote accorded 31 Eliz. in B. R. Hone against Clerk A Woman Lessee for life takes Husband who by Indenture makes a Feoffment of the land to I.S. for these words Sciant per Servantes Richardum How Katherin uxor ejus dedisse I.S. unum messuagium habendum praedict I.S. heredibus suis ad solum opus usum of the said I.S. and his Heirs during the life of Katherine The question was if this was a forfeiture because the wife was Tenant for life and the Attorney argued that it was for the words Pro termino vitae Katherin are referred to the use only and not to the estate for by these words habendum to him and his Heirs the estate is limited and therefore it is a forfeiture but after comes the limitation of the use ad usum I.S. and his Heirs during the life of the woman and after the death of the woman the use remaines in the Feoffor and he cited the Lord Sturtons case in the beginning of the Queens Raign The Lord Sturton gave land to Clerk and his Heirs to the use of Clerk and the Heirs of his body and adjudged that it was not an estate in taile for the limitation of the estate was before in the Premises Coke on the contrary and said that those words For life of the wife are to be referred to the limitation of the Estate for if a double sense be in words such sense shall be taken as shall avoid all wrong and therefore it shall not be so expounded as that the Grant shall not take effect and that a forfeiture shall ensue 4 Ed. 2. and see a notable case for exposition of words and for relation of words and sentences 34 Ed. 3. Avowry 58.28 H. 8. Dyer Gawdy It is a forfeiture Clench said he would advise but afterwards it was adjudged a forfeiture for as Wray said the estate given was forfeit Mich. 36 37 Eliz. Bagnall against Porter in B. R. Rot. 353. A Man by Indenture bargains and sells his land and if the Bargainor pay 100 l. at such a day that then he shall be seised to the use of the Bargainor and his heirs and did assume to make such assurance for the security of the land as should be advised by the Councell of the Bargainor and the Bargainee bound himself in a Recognizance to performe the said Covenants And in debt upon the Recognizance it was shewn that the Bargainor paid the money at the day and had tendred to the Bargainee a Deed in which was comprised an acquittance of payment of the money and also a release of all his right and the Bargainee refused to seale it Coke was of clear opinion that he ought to have sealed it for it is necessary to have the Deed to mention payment of the money for otherwise the Bargainee and his heirs may claim the land for default of payment Gawdy of the same opinion and cited 19 Ed. 4. Popham The case is not so clear for if he had tendered an acquittance only there is no doubt but the Bargainee might refuse to seale it and by the same reason he may refuse when it is joyned to a thing that he is bound not to do viz. to seal the release but at last the matter was referred to Arbitration Hillar 37 Eliz. COke demanded this question A man having two Daughters his Heires does demise his Land to them in Fee What estate had they by this Demise For if a man deviseth Land to his eldest Son it is voyd and he is in by descent That it was holden by the Court that they shall hold by the Devise because that he gives another estate to them then descended for by the descent each of them had a distinct moyety but by the Devise they are Joyn-renants and the survivor shall have all And Fenner sayd If a man had Land in Burrow-English and Guildable Lands and devised all his Land to his two Sons and dyes both of them shall take joyntly and the younger shall not have a distinct moiety in the Burrow-English nor the elder in the Guildable Land but they are both Joyn-tenants Pasch 37 Eliz. Carrell against Read in B. R. Rot. 270. A Lease for years was made of divers Fenny grounds in Cambridge ss and the Lessee covenanted to defend the ground for being surrounded with water and to drain the water out of other lands that were demised to him in the said County And upon an Action of Covenant for not performing the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff had entred in the land demised And adjudged no plea by the Court because the Covenant was not in respect that the Lessee should enjoy the land nor was it a Covenant abhering to the land but to a collaterall thing but if it had been in respect of enjoying the land there it is a good plea to say that the Plaintiff had entred but where the thing to be done is collaterall it is otherwise and also if he did plead such plea yet it is not a bar unlesse he holds him out of possession Coke lib. 3.221 4 Ed. 3.29 the Lord shall not have a Cessavit after entry in parcel 10 Ed. 4.11.35 H. 6. Bar 162.19 Ed. 4.2 Trin. 37 Eliz. in B. R. Rot. 1076. Dogrell against Perks IN an Action of Covenant The Defendant pleaded
that the Plaintiff could not have the Error but the Daughters who were the Heirs to Henry for an Action alwaies discends according to the right of land and it seems that the Heir in Burrow English shall have Error or Attaint and not the Heir at the Common Law which was agreed by all on both sides but it was said that this varies much from the present case for two reasons One because he came in as Vouchee which is to recover a Fee-simple and he shall render a Fee-simple in value which is discendable to the Heirs at the Common Law Secondly he hath no Estate-tail Bromley Solicitor and Plowden contra and laid this ground that in all cases where a recovery is had against one by erroneous processe or false verdict he which is grieved shall have redresse of it although he be not party or privy to the first Iudgment and therefore at the Common Law if a Recovery be had against Tenant for life he in the Reversion shall have Error of Attaint after his death and now by the Statute of R 2. in his life so in a Precipe if the Tenant vouches and the Vouchee looseth by default the Tenant shall have Error for the Iudgment was against him and he looseth his term and in the 44 Ed 4.6 in a Trespasse of Battery against two one pleads and it is found against him and the plea of the other not determined damages by the principall Verdict is given against them both which if they be excessive the other shall have an Attaint And Bromley said there could not be a case put but where he that hath the losse by the recovery should have also the remedy and Baker cited 9. H. 7.24.6 that if a Recovery be had against a man that hath land on the part of the Mother and he dies without issue the Heir of the part of the Father shall have the Error But Bromley and Plowden denied this case and that 3 H 4.9 it was adjudged to the contrary And Wray said to Baker that he ought not much to rely on that case for it was not Law and said that if Tenant for life makes a Feoffment and a Recovery is had against the Feoffee the first Lessor shall not avoid this Bromley there is no use for he may enter by forfeiture but in our case of whatsoever estate it be at the time of the recovery the right of the Estate-tail is bound and therefore it is reason that the Heir in tail shall avoid it Jeffrey of the same opinion and cited 17. Ass A Conusor makes a Feoffment and then execution is sued against the Feoffee by erroneous processe the Feoffee shall have the Writ of Error although he be not party to the first Record but the reason is because of his interest in the land And Bromley and Plowden said further that notwithstanding the Feoffee recovers against the Vouchee and the Vouchee recover over the land yet this recovery shall go to the Estate-tail And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 32 Eliz. in B. R. TRussell was attainted of Felony by Outlawry and after an Execution is sued against him at the suit of a common person and he is taken by force thereof and after he takes a Habeas Corpus out of the Kings Bench and Coke prayed that he might be discharged of this execution for where a man is attaint of Felony he hath neither Goods nor Lands and his body is at the Kings disposall and so is not subject to the execution of a common person 4 Ed. 4. But Harris Serjeant and Glanvill on the contrary For although he be attaint of Felony yet may he be in execution for his own offence shall not aid him and so was it in Crofs case in the Common Pleas where a man being attaint of Felony was taken in execution at the suit of a common person and he escaped out of Prison and an escape was brought against the Sheriffs of London and a Recovery against him And at last by advise of the Court because he was indebted to many persons and to discharge himself from his Creditors intended to have a pardon for his life and so deceive them therefore he was committed to the Marshalsey upon this execution Trin. 42 Eliz. Malloy against Jennings Rot. 1037. IN a Replevin the Case was A man seised of land in fee is bound in a Recognizance of 100 l. and then bargains and sells all his land to the Plaintiff and then the Recognizance is forfeit and the Conuzee sues out a Scire facias against the Conuzor before the Deed was inrolled and had Iudgment to have Execution And the question was if the Bargainor was a sufficient Tenant against whom the Execution was sued Williams Serjeant The Bargainor was Tenant at the time of the Scire facias before inrolement and although it was inrolled after shall have relation to the first livery to prevent any grant or charge And if an Action be brought against an Executor as in his own wrong and the Suit depending he takes Letters of Administration this shall not abate the Writ So in our case the Bargainor was seised of the land when the Scrie facias was brought and if a man makes a Lease for life rendring Rent and then the Lessor bargains and sells the Reversion and before the Inrolement the Rent is behind and the Bargainer demands the Rent which was not paid and then the Deed is inrolled yet he cannot enter for the forfeiture which I have seen adjudged in the 28 H. 8. Dyer Disseisee of one acre makes a Release to the Disseisor of all his lands and delivers it as an Escroll to be delivered to the Disseisor and then he disseiseth him of another acre and then the Deed is delivered to the Disseisor yet the right in the second acre shall not passe And he much rolled on Sir Richard Brochets case 26 Eliz. who made a Recognizance to Morgan upon condition to convey unto him all his lands whereof he was seised the first day of May and it hapned that one Corbet had sold him land by Indenture the 24. day of April but the Deed was not inrolled untill the 24. day of May after And the question was if the Conuzor was bound to convey these lands or not and adjudged that he was not for inasmuch as the Deed was not inrolled the ffrst day of May he was not seised and great mischief would ensue if the Law should be otherwise for no man will know against whom to bring his Action for a Bargain and Sale before Inrolement may be done secretly Herne Serjeant The Bargainee is seised before Inrolement and by the Statute of 5 Eliz. which wills that none shall convert land used to tillage unlesse he puts other land to tillage within six months yet none will say that it is a breach of the Statute although Pasture be presently converted to tillage and he cited Chilburns cafe 6 Eliz. Dyer 229. that proves that
dissolved Williams But that is saved by the 3â— H. 8 for Annuities are exprest in the saving Anderson But this is an Annuity or Rent with which the land is charged Beaumond If it be any thing wherewith the land is charged it is saved but the person is only charged with this Annuity Walmsley But the 21 H. 7. is that an Annuity out of a Parsonage is not a meer personall charge but chargeth the Parson only in respect of the land And the Court would consider on the case Pasch 38 Eliz. in B. R. The Case of the Dean and Chapter of Norwich THe Case was A Church in which there had been a Parson and a Vicar time out of mind and the Parson used to have the great Tythes and the Vicar the small and for the space of forty years last past it was proved that the Parson had Tythes paid him out of a feild of twenty acres of Corne and now the feild is sowed with Saffron and the Vicar sued for the Tythes of Saffron in the Court Christian and the Parson had a Prohibition Coke I conceive the Parson shall have the Tythes for by the Statute of 2 H. 6. it is enacted that Tythes shall be paid as hath been used the last forty years and this hath been alwaies tythable to the Parson and although the ground be otherwise imployed yet the Parson shall have the Tythes and so was it in Norfolk in the Case of a Park where the Parson proscribed Pro modo decimandi to be paid three shillings fours pence for all Tythes rising out of the said Park and although the Park was after converted to arable yet no other Tythes shall be paid Popham It hath been adjudged otherwise in Wroths Case of the Inner Temple in the Exchequer But the Law is clearly as hath been said and the difference is when the Prescription is to pay so much money for all Tythes or when the Prescription is to pay a shoulder of every Buck or a Doe at Christmas for there if the Park be disparkt Tythes shall be paid for Tythes are not due for Venison and therefore they are not Tythes in Specie And I conceive that Tythes of Saffron-heads shall be comprehended under small Tythes and although the Tythes of this Feild have been paid to the Parson yet it being converted to another use whereof no grosse Tythes do come the Vicar shall have the tythes and so if arable land be converted into an Orchard the Wicar shall have tythe of the Apples and so if the Orchard be changed to arable the Parson shall have tythes Quod Fenner concessit 36 Eliz. Higham against Deff IN a Trespasse the Case was That a Vicaridge by composition was indowed of the third part Omnium Bladorum decimarum of the Mannor of D. If he shall have tythes of the Freeholders of the Mannor was the question Johnson He shall not have them for a Mannor consisteth of two things viz. of Demesns and Services the Freeholders are neither parcel of the Demesnes nor the Services and therefore no parcell of the Mannor and this is proved in 12 Ass 40. a Rent-charge was granted out of a Mannor the Tenancy escheats it shall not be charged with the Rent Tanfeild contra For this word Mannor does extend to the Precincts of the Mannor and not to the Demesnes and Services onely and therefore if a Venire facias be awarded De viceneto Manerii de D. the Freeholders shall be returned also a survey of a Mannor shall be as well of the Freehold lands as of the Demesnes and if the King grants a Leet within the Mannor of D. all the Freeholders are bound to appear Fenner Grants ought not to be restrained to their strict words but are to be construed according to the intent of the parties Trin. 38 Eliz. in B. R. Ewer against Henden Rot. 339. IN an Ejectment the Iury found that I.S. being seised of a Capitall Messuage in the County of Oxford and also of a house and land in Walter in the County of Hartford makes a Lease for years of his house and land in the County of Hartford and then by Will does demise his house in the County of Oxon Together with all other his Lands Meadowes Pastures with all and singular their Appurtenances in Walter in the County of Hartford to John Ewer and whether the house in Walter in the County of Hartford does passe or not was the question Tanfeild The houses shall passe for if a man builds a house upon Black acre and makes a Feoffment of the acre the house shall passe and so if a man does devise una jugata terrae of Copyhold Land the house of the Copyhold does passe also for so is the common phrase in the Country and so if a man be rated in a 100 l. subsidy that does include houses and by the grant of a Tenement the house passeth but if a man demand a house in a Precipe there the house ought to be named Whistler contra It is true that if a man generally does devise his Land the houses passe but in this case the Devisee hath particularized his Land his Meadow and his Pasture and if he intended to have passed his houses he would have mentioned them as well as his Lande Fenner I am of the same opinion for this speciall numbring of particulars does exclude the generall intendment and if the Devisor had a Wood there that would dot passe by these words Popham contra For if a man sells all his Lands in D. his houses and woods passe by this word Lands and so was it agreed in a case which was referred to Dyer and Wray chief Justice and there reason was because that a Warrant of Attorney in a Precipe of a House Woods and Land is onely of Land which proves that land does comprehend all of them and therefore I conceive if a man does devise or bargain and sell all his lands in D. the Rents there shall passe for they were issuing out of the land But if a man be seised of three houses and three acres and he deviseth all his land in D. and one of his houses the other houses will not passe for his expresse meaning is apparant but here the words are in generall as to the lands in Walter and therefore the houses do passe But afterwards it was adjudged that the house did not passe for by the particular mentioning of all his Lands Meadowes and Pastures the house is excluded Pasch 4 Eliz. Hunt against King IN a Writ of Error upon a Iudgment given in the Common Pleas in a Formedon brought there the Case was Tenant in tail enfeoffs his Son and then disseiseth his Son and levies a Fine to a stranger and before the Proclamations passe the Son enters and makes a Feoffment to a stranger the Father dies and the Son dies and the Issue brings a Formedon The question was Whether by the entry of the Son the Fine was so defeated
that the Estate-tail was not barred Dyer The Estate tail is barred and made a difference where the Fine is defeated by entry by reason of the Estate-tail and where it is defeated by entry by reason of another estate-tail as in 40 Eliz. Tenant in tail discontinues and disseiseth the Discontinuee and levies a Fine to a stranger and retakes an Estate in Fee before the Proclamations passe the Discontinuee enters and then the Tenant in tail dies seised and adjudged that the Issue is not remitted for the Statute 32 H. 8. saies That a Fine levied of lands any way intailed by the party that levies the Fine shall bind him and so it is not materiall whether he were seised by force of the Estate-tail or by reason of another Estate or whether he have no Estate And all the Iustices were of opinion that the Estate was barred for although the discontinue had avoided the Fine by the possession yet the Estate-tail remains concluded and the same shall not enter by force of the Estate-tail but by force of the Fee which he had by discontinuance Popham Avoidance of a Fine at this day differs much from avoidance of a Fine at the Common Law for it appears by the 16 Ed 3. that if a Fine at the Common Law be defeated by one who hath right it is defeated against all but at this day the Law is contrary for if a man be disseised and the Disseisor die seised his Heir within age and he is disseised by a stranger who levies a Fine and then five years passe the Heire shall avoid this by his nonage yet the first Disseisee is bound for ever for the Infant shall not avoid the Fine against all but only to restore the possession And therefore it was adjudged in the Lord Sturtons Case 24 Eliz. where Lands were given to him and his Wife and the Heires of him and he died and his Issue entred and levied a Fine to a stranger and before the Proclamations passed the Mother enters it was adjudged that the Issue was barred for the Wife shall not avoid this but for her own Estate And so if a stranger enters to the use of him who hath right this shall not avoid the Fine Fenner did agree to this and said that it had been so adjudged but all the Iustices agreed that the Estate-taile being barred the entry shall go to the benefit of him who hath most right to the possession and that is the discontinue and therefore the Plaintiff in the Formedon hath good Title to the Land but onely to the Fee and not to the Intaile for that is barred by the Fine 28 Eliz. in C. B. Rot. 2130. Gibson against Mutess IN a Replevin the Case was John Winchfeild was seised of Lands in Fee and by his Will did devise all his Lands and Tenements to Anthony Winchfeild and his Heires and before his death made a Deed of Feoffment of the same Lands and when he sealed the Feoffment he asked If this Feoffment will not hurt this last Will if it will not I will seal it And then he sealed it and made a Letter of Attorney to make Livery in any of the said Lands the Attorney made Livery but not of the Lands which were in question and then the Testator died And the question was if the Devisee or Heire of the Devisor should have the Land And it was said in behalf of the Heire that if the Testator had said It shall not be my Will then it is a Revocation Quod curia concessit But it was the opoinion of the Court that it appears that it was the intent of the Testator that his Will should stand and if it be not a Feoffment it is not a Revocation in Law although that the Attorney made a Livery in part so that the Feoffment was perfect in part yet as concerning the Land in question whereof no Livery was made the Will is good and the Iury found accordingly that the Land does not descend to the Heire Fenner cited a Case of Serjeant Jeffereys where it was adjudged that where one had made his Will and being demanded if he will make his Will doth say he will not that this is no Revocation Sir Wolston Dixy against Alderman Spencer 20 Eliz. in C. B. IN a Writ of Errour brought upon a Iudgement given in an Assize of Fresh-force in London The case was Sir Wolston Dixy brought an Action of Debt for rent arrear against Spencer upon a Lease for years made to him by one Bacchus who afterwards granted the reversion to Dixy and the Tenant attorned and for rent arrear Dixy brought an action c. The Defendant pleaded in Bar that before the Grant made to Dixy the said Bacchus granted it to him by parole according to the custome of London whereupon he demanded Iudgement if c. and the Plea was entred on Record and hanging the suit Dâ—xy brought an assize of fresh force in London and all this matter was here pleaded and it was adjudged a forfeiture of the Land and hereupon Spencer brought a Writ of Errour and assigned this for errour that it was no forfeiture Shuttleworth It is no forfeiture untill a Trial be had whether the reversion be granted or not as in wast the Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff had granted over his estate this is no forfeiture and in the 26 Eliz. in a Quid Juris clamat the Defendant pleaded that he had an estate Tail and when he came to have it tryed he acknowledged he had an estate but for life and that was no forfeiture But the Court said they could remember no such Case Walmesley It was so adjudged and I can shew you the names of the parties Periam Justice If there be such a Case we would doubt of it for there are Authorities to the contrary as the 8 Eliz. and 6 Rich. 2. Anderson If the Defendant in a Trespass prayes in aid of an estranger this is a forfeiture and if it be counter-pleaded it is a forfeiture and the denial alters not the Case Walmesley The Books in 15 Ed. 2. Judgement 237. and 15 Ed. 1. that Iudgement in a Quid Juris clamat shall be given before the forfeiture Andâ—rson In my opinion he may take advantage before Iudgement as well as after if the Plea be upon Record And so was the opinion of the Court. The Dutchess of Suffolks Case Pasch 4 5 Ph. Mary in C. B. IN a Quare impedit against the Bishop of Exeter the Writ was ad respondendum Andrew Stoke Dennisae Franciscae de Suffolk Uxori eâ—uâ— Benlowes demanded Iudgement of the Writ c. because she lost her name of dignity by marriage with a base man as it was adjudged 7 Ed. 6. Dyer 79. where Madam Powes and her husband brought a Writ of Dower and the Writ abated because she called her self Dame Powes whereas she had lost her dignity by marrying with her husband Stanford agreed for Mulier nobilis si
should do no other thing that should be forfeiture of the Copyhold that then c. The Defendant pleaded conditions performed the Plaintiff replyed and alledged waste committed in a shop that fell down during the term for want of reparation but the Defendant in rejoynder alledged that the shop was ruinous at the time of the Lease and by reason thereof fell down Tanfield It is no waste as the Books are 42 Ed. 3. 19 Ed. 3. 2 H. 7.3 a. 12 H. 8.11 a. If a house be ruinous at the time of the Lease and fall during the term it is no waste yet the Book in 7 H. 6. is otherwise And in the 12 H. 4. a man lets his house promiseth that the Lessee shall not suffer any voluntary waste if the timber be so good as it will endure the whole term although it be not covered yet is the Lessee bound to reserve it during the term Godfrey for the Plaintiff and agreed to all the cases aforesaid But here the Defendant is bound by his obligation and therefore it differs from the case in 42 Ed. 3.6 and of Perkins 142. where a diversity is between a waste and a covenant for if a man makes a Lease for years and by sudden chance waste is committed this shall excuse the Lessee but if he covenant to leave the house in as good a condition as he found it if the house fall down by tempest yet he ought to re-edify it Also in this case it is a waste in Law although the house were ruinous at the beginning of the Lease for in a waste brought in such case if he pleads nul waste fait he shall not give such matter in evidence but it is onely to excuse him And with him agreed all the Court and Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Austin against Courtney 30 Eliz. in B. R. Rot. 165. AUstin and his wife as daughter and heir of one Webb brought a Writ of Errour against Thomas Courtney to reverse a Fine leavied in a base Court by the said Webb to himself Cook assigned these errours 1. Because the Fine was levied de uno tenemento which is not good for the generality for it may be land or common or rent And in 3 Ed. 4. a Plea in Bar was rejected because it was pleaded that one was seized de uno tenemento for this is uncertain And in 38 H. 6. an Action is brought upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. for entry into certain tenements that is not good for it ought to be brought of so many acres The second errour was because Webb the Conusor did acknowledge the land to be his right whereas it ought to be the right of Courtney the Conusee The third errour was because the Fine was levied in a base Court which prescribes to hold Pleas but they cannot levy Fines there for then the King shall lose his silver 50. Assiâ— And so was it adjudged between Bambury and Peres that a Fine levied in Chester which had such prescription is not good wherefore Iudgement was given that the Fine should be reverst Trinit 30 Eliz. Ireland against Higgins Rot. 403 vel 43. IN an Action of the Case the Plaintiff declared that whereas a dog came to the hands of the Defendant which belonged to the Plaintiff the Defendant did assume to deliver the said dog to the Plaintiff upon request and that the Plaintiff had requested him and he did not deliver the dog ad damnum c. and hereupon the Defendant demurred Leigh for the Defendant Here is no consideration for when the Plaintiff is out of the possession of his dog he hath lost his interest in him for a dog is ferae naturae and therefore when he is out of possession he hath no remedy 22 H. 6. 10 H. 7. â— 6 Ed. 4. and he cited Fyneâ— and Sir Johâ— Spencers Case in Dyer where a Trespass will not lye for a hawk Also by the Grant of omnia bona catalla dogs do not pass nor are tithable nor are Assets Tâ—…field contra Horses cows and all cattel which are most profitable for service of man were at first ferae naturae and so were dogs also but since by use nothing is so familiar and domestick to man than is a dog and then he cannot be ferae naturae and therefore a Trespass will lye for a dog if he declare his dog for that word does imply it is his domestick dog and he much relyed on a Book the Roll whereof he had seen Trâ—nâ—t 15 H. 7. R. 35. where a man justified in a Trespass of Battery in defence of his dog And in 2 Ed. 2. Avowry 182. a Replevin was brought of a Ferret And in 23 Elâ—z Leeks Case where one had Iudgement to recover great damages for a blood-hound And as to the Case of Fâ—neâ— and Sâ—eâ—ce the reason why the Plaintiff had not Iudgement was because he did not shew that the hawk was reclaimed but after he brought a new Action and had great damages And at last it was adjudged by all the Court that the Action is maintainable and Iudgement commanded to be entred nisi c. Trinit 30 Eliz. Stone against Withepoole in B. R. Rot. 771. IN an Action of the Case the Plaintiff declared that J. S. wan indebted to him for velvet and other things to such a value and was bound in a Bond to pay money for them and that afterwards the Defendant being his Executor did assume and promise to pay the money The Defendant pleaded that the Testator was within age at the time of the making the Bond and hereupon the Plaintiff demurred Egerton S ll citor for the Plaintiff A Contract made by an Infant is not voyd but voydable and if the Infant at his full age had assumed as the Defendant hath it had been good and by the same reason the Executors assumsion is good 9 Eliz. 13. where the Lord Graâ— being heir to the former Lord Gray although he was not bound to pay the debts of his father upon simple contract yet in regard he did assume to pay them he was made chargeable And in 15 and 16 E iz it is a good consideration where an Administrator undertakes to pay debts upon a simple contract but admitting the Executor be not chargeable by Law yet in equity and conscience he is chargeable in Chancery and when he promiseth in consideration that the Plaintiff will not sue him that is a good consideration Cooke The consideration is the ground of every Action on the Case and it ought to be either a charge to the Plaintiff or a benefit to the Defendant 17 Eâ— 4 5. where a man promised and assumed to a Chyrurgean money for curing a poor man that was a good consideration for although it is no benefit to the Defendant yet it is a charge to the Plaintiff and where there is no consideration there can be no good action as where a man promiseth a debt that he never owed
this is voyd And after viz. 31 Eliz. It seemed to all the Iustices that the consideration was not good and therefore the contract voyd But if goods he delivered to an Infant to be re-delivered if Afterwards his Executor assumeth to re-deliver them this is good Gawdy in the 13 H. 6. If a man be indebted in a simple Contract and dye and his Executors assume to pay the debt it is good but â—his seems to be contrary to the Law for it is contrary to that which hath been lately adjudged in the Common Pleas. And Egerton cited a Caâ—e 10 H 6. where an Infant brought an Action of Trespass and submitted himself to an arbitrement this shall binde him at his full age and this was agreed by the Court but differs much from the Case at Bar for when an Infant commits a Trespass he is chargeable in an Action of Trespass and shall lose damages but it is not so here Wherefore Iudgement was given that the Plaintiff should be barred Mich. 30 Eliz. Stanton against Chamberlain Rot. IN an Action of Debt upon a Bond upon non est factum pleaded the Iury found that the Defendant sealed the Bond and cast it on the Table and the Plaintiff came and took up the Bond and carried it away without saying any thing and if this shall amount to a Delivery by the Defendant to the Plaintiff was the question And it was resolved by all the Iustices that if the Iury had found that he had sealed the Bond and cast it on the table towards the Plaintiff to the intent that the Plaintiff should take it as his Deed who took the Bond and went away that had been a good delivery or that the Plaintiff after the sealing and casting on the table had taken it by the commandment or consent of the Defendant but because it is found that the Defendant onely sealed it and cast it on the table and the Plaintiff took it and went away with it this is not a sufficient delivery for it may be that he sealed it to the intent to reserve it to himself untill other things were agreed and then if the Plaintiff take it and go away with it without the Defendants consent that will not make it the Descendants Deed. But it was said that it might be accounted to be the Defendants Deed because it is found that he sealed it and cast it on the table and the Plaintiff took it c. and it is not found that the Defendant said any thing and therefore because he did not say any thing it will amount to his consent Nam qui tacet consentire videtur But to this it was answered that it is not found that the Defendant was present when the Plaintiff took it and if the Defendant had sealed and cast the Bond on the Table when the Plaintiff was not there and then the Defendant went away and then the Plaintiff came and took it away then clearly it is not the Deed of the Defendant Hill 31 Eliz. Beron against Goodyne IN an Ejectment the Case was the King was seized of lands in Fee and a stranger intruded and the King grants this land to J. S. in Fee and the Intruder continues possession and dyes seized The question was if this descent shall take away the entry of I.S. Johnson It shall not for none will affirm that an Intruder shall gain any thing out of the King but that the land shall pass to the Patentee and the continuance of the Intruder in possession and his dying seized shall not take away the entry for he cannot be a Disseisor because he gained no estate at the beginning as if a Guardian continues possession after the heir is of full age he is no Disseisor nor shall gain any estate And 10 Ed. 3.2 where a tenant of the King dyes his heir within age and a stranger enters and after the heir is of full age dyes seized this shall not take away the entry of the heir Cook contr By his continuance of possession he shall be accounted a Disseisor and the Free-hold out of the Patentee for another estate he cannot have for tenant at sufferance be is not for he comes in at first by a title as in the 12 Assi The Dona's in Frank-marriage are divorced and the husband continues the possession and so where a Lessee continues possession after the death of the tenant for life these are tenants at sufferance and the Patentee hath a Free-hold in Law which is taken away by descent and denyed there was any such case as was vouched in the 10 Ed. 3. but compared the case to the 21 Ed. 3.2 where a Fine was levyed per conusans de droit come ceo c. if before the Conusee enters a stranger enters and dyes seized the entry of the Conusee is barr'd So is it where an Advowson is granted to J.S. and his heirs and a stranger usurps the Grantee hath no remedy And if a man deviseth land to J.S. and before he enters a stranger doth enter and dyes seized the entry of the Disseisee is taken away and so it is in our case But a further day was given Cook to shew cause why Iudgement should not be given against him Hillar 31 Eliz. Suttons Case in C. B. Rot. 533. IN an Ejectment the Iury gave a special Verdict that the Defendant nihil habens in terra did make a Lease thereof to the Plaintiff by Indenture according as the Plaintiff had declared and then the Defendant entred on the Plaintiff and whether this entry be good was the question Walmesley for the Defendant Iurors are sworn ad veritatem dicendum and therefore they shall not enquire of Estoppels because it is not in evidence But the whole Court was against him who held that the Iury might finde a matter that is not shewed in evidence for by Anderson in an Assize they may finde a Release although it be not given in evidence and he and Periam held that the Plaintiff ought to have Iudgement for that there was a good Lease between the parties and if Rent were reserved an Action of Debt would lye Windham contr For it is onely an Estoppell between the parties but the Court is at liberty and are not estopped when the truth appears to them and it is a Maxim in Law that he who hath nothing in the land cannot make a Lease and then the Plaintiff hath no cause of Action And afterwards viz. 32 Eliz. Anderson and Periam were expresly for the Plaintiff for whereas it hath been said that it was a Lease by Estoppell they held it was not so for that in Debt the Rent should be recovered And Anderson said If I levy a Fine of your land to you for years if you be put out I shall have an Assize but Windham was of opinion with Walmesley wherefore Periam said we will have the opinion of the other Iustices in the Exchequer Chamber wherefore c. Trinit 30 Eliz.
the words are in the negative which will not exclude him of his interest but in the Case at Bar they will because they are in the affirmative so That he shall occupy the Land solely And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Pasch 3. Eliz. Woodward against Nelson in B. R. WOodward Parson of Wotton in consideration of 120 l. payd by Bretman one of his Parishioners did accord and agree with him that he and his assignes should be discharged of Tythes during the time that he should be Parson Bretman made a Lease to Nelson Woodward did libell against him for Tythes and Nelson prayed a prohibition upon the said contract And it this was sufficient matter for a prohibition was the Question because it was by word only and without writing which amounts only to a cause of action upon a promise for Bretman but no action for his lessees neither can this amount to a Release of Tythes for as Tythes cannot be leased without Deed so they cannot be released or discharged without Deed. Gawdy Justice Tythes cannot be discharg'd without Deed unless by way of contract for a sum of money and he cited the 21 H. 6.43 Fenner for that year in which the discharge was made it was good by way of discharge without Deed because the Parson for that year had as it were an Interest but such discharge can have no continuance for another year for default of a Deed and so a promise being no discharge it is no cause of a prohibition But Gawdy held as afore And about this time Wray Chief Iustice dyed and Popham succeeded and the same day he was sworn Cook moved this Case again And the Court held that the agreement being by parol was not good And Fenner then said that without writing the agreement could not be good between the parties but for one year And the Court awarded a consultation But upon search made no Iudgment was entred in the Roll. Trinit 35 Eliz. Dr. Foord against Holborrow in B. R. Rot. 367. IN an Action of Debt upon a Bond the case was Dr. Drury to whom the Plaintiff was Executor made a Lease to Holborrow of the Mannour of Golding for years and Holborrow the Lessee entred into a Bond that if he his Executors or Assigns did pay to Anne Goldingham widow the sum of 20 l. for 17 years if the said Goldingham should so long live and so long as Holborrow the Lessee or any claiming by or under the said Holborrow shall or may occupy or enjoy the said Mannour of Goldingham and then Holborrow surreudred his Lease to the Obliges praecextu cujus the Defendant pleaded quod non occupavit nec potuit occupare c. wherefore he did not pay the said sum to Anne Goldingham and the Executor of the Obligee brought an Action of Debt upon this Obligation Johnson for the Defendant The term is gone for he cannot occupy after the surrender and also the Obligee is a party to the cause why it is not performed and therefore he shall take no advantage 4 â— 7.2 But the whole Court was against him for he to whom the surrender is made cometh in quodammodo by him and is his Assignee for he shall be subject to the charge that was before the surrender and also the Defendant shall be bound by these words in the Obligation viz. so long as he shall or may and although these words were not inserted yet he shall pay the annuity for where the first Cause does commence in himself he shall not have advantage thereby but otherwise where he is not party to the first Cause As if two Ioynt-tenants with Warranty make a partition the Warranty is gone because they are parties to the act which made the extinguishment but if one makes a Feoffment of his part the Warranty as to the other remains 11 Ed. 4.8 and in the Case at Bar the Obligor made the surrender and therefore he is party and the first cause and there is a diversity when the thing to be done is collateral and when not for if a Lessee does oblige himself to do a collateral thing as payment of money there he ought to do it although that he surrender for although the Obligee do accept of the surrender yet no act is done by him to hinder the performance of the condition but where the Obligee does any act to hinder the performance of the Condition the Condition is saved as if the Lessee be bound to the Lessor to suffer J.S. to enter into a Chamber during the Lease and he surrenders to the Obligee who will not suffer J.S. to enter the Obligation is saved and Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff 36 Eliz. Bedford against Hall in B. R. IN an Action of Covenant wherein the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant did devise and grant to him certain land with all his goods contained in a certain Inventory for 20 years and said that in the Inventory amongst other things were five Cows which the Defendant seized and that one J.S. took them away as his proper goods as indeed they were and hereupon he brought this Action Fenner The Action will not lye for no interest in the Cows doth pass to the Lessee by this Lease neither was there any right to them in the Lessor As if I demise to you the land of J. S. by these words Dem si concessi and you enter and J S. re-enters no Covenant lyes against me And so in the 11 H. 4. a Prebend made a Lease for years and resigned now is the term of the Lessee quite destroyed and if after he be outed by a new Prebend yet he shall have no Action of Covenant And so is it 9 Eliz. Dyer â—57 Lessee for life makes a Lease for years and dyes the Lessee shall not have a Covenant if he be outed by him in the reversion because he is not in as a Termor at the time of the disturbance But if in the principal Case the Lessor had been possest of the goods although by a wrong title and the Owner had seized them then a Covenant would lye And so if a Disseisor makes a Lease and the Disseisee re-enters the Lessee shall have a Covenant Gawdy If a man lets lands wherein he hath no estate together with his goods although the land will not pass yet the goods do and if a man lets goods for a year and re takes them within the year no Covenant will lye for the property was never in the Lessee Câ—…câ— If a man lets anothers goods to me by Deed if I seize them and the Owner re-takes them a Covenant will lye and so will an Action on the Case if it be without Deed 42 Assi 8. If I be in possession of anothers goods and sell them a deceit lyes against me by the Vendee and so is the Book of Ass 42.8 conâ—ra where the Vendor hath not possession at the time of the sale And if I sell goods by Deed which
the attainder and she granted it to Bones and all actions demands and a scire facias was issued out in the name of the Queen And the principall case was adjourned but the Patentee had express words to sue in the name of the Queen although it was not so pleaded 43 Eliz. Pelling against Langden in B. R. Rot. 438. IN a trespass for breaking his Close and killing 100 Conies The Defendant justified because he had common time out of mind and because the Conies were damage Feasant in the place where he killed them The Plaintiff demurr'd and judgment given for the Plaintiff for Conies are beasts of Warren and profitable as Deer and are not to be compar'd to Foxes and vermine which may be kill'd but the Owner of the soil may keep Conies where the Common is aswell as other cattle also he may make Fish-ponds in the Common and the Commoner cannot destroy them Cook 5. Rep. 104. 22 H. 6.59 so it was adjudgâ—d Trinit 43 Eliz. Gresham against Ragge in B. R. Rot. 1295. IN trepass for entring into a house The Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff was indebted to the Defendant in 100 l. and that he by the permission of the Plaintiffs servant the doores being open did enter to demand his debt Vpon which the Plaintiff demurred And adjudged for the Plaintiff For the servant of the Plaintiff could not licence any to enter into the house of his Mr. also a man cannot enter into anothers house to demand money unless the debtor be within the house Gawdy If it had been averred that the Plaintiff had been then in the house the Plea had been good Hillar 44. Eliz. Streetman against Eversley in B. R. IN an ejectment the Case was a Lessee for 80. years upon condition that if the Lessee his Executors or Assignes did not repairo the house within six weeks after warning that the Lease should be void the Lessee made a Lease for ten years who suffered J.S. to occupie the house and then the Lessor came to the said occupation of the house and at the house gave notice and said that the house was defective in reparations and did shew in what and so gave warning to have it repaired and after for default of reparations he entred and the Defendant as servant to the Lessee re-entred And his entry adjudged lawfull for notice given to J.S. who was but an Occupier of the house and not Lessee or Assignee of any interest of the terme was not sufficient but it ought to be to the person interessed in the terme who is liable to reparations Vid. Cooks 6. Rep. Greens case Also the notice at the house is not sufficient but it ought to be to the person of the Lessee and Popham agreed to this Trinit 1 Jacobi Shopland against Radlen in C. B. Rot. 853. IN a Replevin the question was when a Guardian in socage holds a Court in his own name and does grant Copies in reversion if this be a good Grant or not and adjudged to be good against the Heir Walmesley Dominus pro tempore of a Mannour may hold a Court and make a Grant of Copyholds but this is to be understood of perfect Lords which a Guardian is not but onely ad commodum haereâ—is and is rather a servant to the Lord than Dominus pro tempore and he cannot be called Dominus because he can neither grant nor forfeit his estate and hath nothing to do to meddle in the Mannour but to account for the profits and a Writ of Ward does not lye for the land but onely for the body Gawdy chief Justice Warburton and Daniel Justices to the contrary Who held that a Guardian in socage is Dominus pro tempore and that he hath interest in the land and may make a Lease thereof for years Commentar 293. and may avow in his own name 29 Ed. 3. Avowry 298. But a Guardian in socage cannot present to an Advowson because he cannot be accountable But Daniel Iustice said that the Guardian may present where the heir is not of years of discretion and a Guardian in socage shall have a Trespass and a ravishment of Ward 24 Ed. 3.52 and he hath the Ward by reason of looking to him and therefore he hath interest sufficient to keep Court and admit Copyholders who are not in by him but by the custome But a Bailiff of a Mannour hath no interest and therefore cannot make Grants and Copies but a Guardian hath interest provisione legis although it be such interest as cannot be forfeit and the heir cannot be at any prejudice for he shall have an account made to him of such Fines for the heir himself cannot grant them and the Law cannot compell the Guardian to occupy them neither can the Court be held in the name of the heir but the Guardian and therefore he may grant Copies And if a Guardian in socage hath such interest that he can make a Lease for years and his Lessee shall maintain an Ejectment a fâ—r â—…oti he may grant Copies Neither is it any argument at all to say that a Guardian in socage hath no interest because he cannot grant or forfeit his estase for the reason is because these things are annexed to his person And after Mich. 3 Jacob. it was adjudged that the Grant was good and shall binde the heir Vid. Keloway 46.6 37 Eliz. Brown against Hercey in C. B. Rot. 620. IT was found by office that J.S. who held the Mannour of D. of the King did dye without heir whereupon W.S. as heir to him did traverse the said Office and hereupon was at issue with the Queen if he were heir or not and depending this suit he made a Feoffment in Fee with a Letter of Attorney to make Livery and after it was found for him against the Queen and Iudgement given against the Queen but before the Writ of Amoveas manum the Attorney made Livery and adjudged good for it cannot be said that the heir at the time of the Feoffment had nothing or that the Queen at the time of the Livery was in possession for by the Iudgement given the possession of the Queen was utterly defeated and possession in the party before any amoveas manum sued out for that serves but to compell the Eschaetor to avoyd the possession it he hold the land after Iudgement Vid. Stanford praerogat 78. 10 Ass 2. 10 Ed. 3. and the difference is where the King is seized by title and where without title for when the King is seized by title and his title is determined he ought to make Livery to him that hath right but when he is seized without title and he who hath right hath Iudgement against him he may enter without Livery 5 Ed. 5. Quare impedit 34. But it was here said by Owen Iustice that if a man makes a Feoffment of White-acre with a Letter of Attorney to make Livery and then he purchase White-acre this is
propertie To which it was answered that if the ancient stock of Sheepe were still it had been godd but it was not and therefore the grant is voyd Walmesley Although the first stock was changed yet the new stock does supply it and is in place thereof and shall be in the same condition as the other stock is and therefore the Lessor shall have propertie in it But the whole Court was against him for they said that the increase of the stock of Sheepe should be to the Lessee and the Lessor shall never have them at the end of the terme but they agreed that if the lease were of the stock with Lambs Calves and Piggs there the increase belongs to the Lessor And all the Court took this difference sc when a lease is made of dead goods and when of living for when the lease is of dead goods and any thing is added to them for reparations or otherwise the Lessor shall have this addition at the end of the terme because it belongs to the principle but in case of a stock of Cattle which hath an increase as Calves and Lambs there these things are severed from the principle and Lessor shall never have them for then the Lessor shall have the Rent and the Lessee shall have no profit Trinit 29 VViseman against Rolfe in in C. B. Rot. 1454. IN a Writ of right the Case was thus A man selfed of Land in Fee makes his will and gives to D. his wife such Land for life the remainder to T. his son and heires of his body and also gives to T. his son his Land in B. and also his Land in C. and also he gives his Land called Odyum to the seed of his son habendum all the demised premisses to his T. son and the heires males of his body The Question was it T. should have an estate in Taile in B. and C. or if the last words shall relate only to that which was last named Fenner for the Plaintiff For the last Clause is a new Clause and shall not be preferred to the first for it begins with a verbe viz. I give my Land called Odyum and therefore the limitation afterward shall be referred only to this And 10 H. 7.8 There was a grant by Dedi custodiam Parci Arbores vento prostrat The Grantee shall have the trees by this Clause and 14 Eliz. A man deviseth thus I give my Mannour of C. to my second son Item I give my Mannor of S. to my second son to have and to hold to him and to his heirs And by Dyer Welsh and Weston he had an estate but for life but Brown cont for if a Lease be made to A. B. and C. successively it is adjudged that they are Ioyntenants but if it be to them as they are named they shall have it one after the other and if a devise be to one and his heirs and after to another for life the Law will conster that the estate for life is to procede for that words of Relation in Wills shall be taken stricttly as if a devise be to A. and his heirs of his body and he does devise other land in Forma praedicta this shall be but for life Walmesley cont and said that this limitation did go to all whereof no limitation was made before for the rules of reason are uncertain and therefore such matters shall be expounded according to the best sense that may be and here the sense is most naturall to refer it to all and the word all imports this and the Case of the fourth of Elizabeth under favour accords with this viz. that the Devisee shall have Fee in both But if the Devise had been I devise D. to my son Thomas and also to him and his heirs the Mannor of S. there he shall have D. but for life And if a man devise to his 4. sons A. B. C. and D. to have to the persons last named to them and their heirs there all shall have Fee 19 Ed. 4. In a precipe of a house and an acre of land in three severall Towns and that the Defendant Ibidem ingressus est and did not say into the house and land and yet it was held good Periam and Rhodes He shall have an estate Taile in all and the relation shall be to all Anderson doubted at first but agreed afterwards and Iudgement was given accordingly 32 33 Eliz. Mathewson against Trott in C. B. Rot. 1904. UPon a speciall verduit the Case was this A man seised of land in soccage devised it to his yonger son and died seised the elder son enters and dies seised and his heir enters and the yonger son enters upon him the Question was if his entry be taken away by this descent VValmesley It is not and he compar'd this case to a title of entry for a condition broken or a Conusee of a Fine upon grant and render c. in which Cases no descent shall take away entry Anderson The Devisee hath interest presently and the land does not descend for the devise prevents the descent and the Freehold is presently in the Devisee and the Statute 32 H. 8. which gives power to Devise lands does make a Title in the Devisee as a Title of entry for condition of Mortmaine and the Devisee shall not have an ex gravi querela upon this Statute but he must enter Walmesley The Devisee hath not a Freehold presently for if it were so the Devisee at the Common Law ought not to sue an Ex gravi Querela but certainly if the freehold be in the Devisee his entry is taken away And afterwards Iudgment was given by Anderson that descent does not take away the entry of the Devisee but delivered no reason for it Hillar 33 Eliz. Mosgrave against Agden Rot. 2529. IN an action of the Case on a Trover and conversion of six barrells of Butter The count was that they came to the hands of the Defendant and after the trover they were impared and decayed ratione negligentis custodiae And the Court held cleerly that the action would not lie for he who finds goods is not bound to preserve them from putrefaction but it was agreed that if the goods were used and by usage made worse the action would lie 44 Eliz. Ayer against Joyner in C. B. Rot. 2529. IN a second Deliverance it was said by the Court that if Lessee for years does assign over his terme and yet continues possession that he hath but a naked possession and no interest nor estate but the estate and interest does remain in the grantee so that he may grant it over And Walmesley said that if the Lessee makes waste the Lessor may have an action of waste against him and there is a casâ— that if a man makes a Lease and the Lessee waves the possession and a stranger commits waste the Lessor shall have an action of waste against the Lessee but the principall question
the 32 H. 8. And the Court held that an Assignee of part of the reversion might take advantage of the condition or covenants so that he hath part of the reversion of all the thing demised And Cook Chief Iustice said that the opinion of Mourson 14 Eliz. 309. a. is good Law Pasch 36 Eliz. Butler against Archer IF two Ioyntenants be of land holden by Herriot service and one dies the other shall not pay Herriot service for there is no change of the tenant but the survivor continues tenant of the whole land But if a man seised of land in Fee makes a feofment to the use of himself and his wife and the heires of their two bodyes begotten the remainder to the right heires of the husband and the husband dyes a Herriot shall be paid for the ancient use of the reversion was never out of the husband Michaelm 29 30 Elizab. Stephens Case in C. B. IN an Ejectment the Case was Sir William Beale made a Lease by Indenture to William Pile and Philip his wife et primogenito proli Habendum to them and the longer liver of them successively during their lives and then the husband and wife had issue a daughter And it was holden by three of the Iustices that the daughter had no estate for that she was not in esse at the time of the grant Michaelm 30 31. Eliz. Lewin against Mandy in C. B. Rot. 2529. IN a Replevin the Defendant avowed for 20 l. Rent which was pleaded to be granted by Lovelace and Rutland by Fine to Stukeley and his heires who being seized thereof did recite that he with 7 others were Plaintiffs in a Writ of Covenant against Lovelace and Rutland upon which a Fine was levyed by which Fine the said Lovelace and Rutland amongst other things did grant a rent of 20 l. out of the Mannor of D. and other Lands to the said Stukely who granted it to Hoveden under whom the Defendant claymes in Taile The Question was if this were a good grant because there are many misrecitalls in the Indenture for whereas he recited that in the Writ of Covenant for the fine Lovelace and Rutland were Defendants in truth they were Plaintiffs and Stukely and the others Defendants and whereas he recited that the said grant was made to him it was made to him and his heires also he said that the said Rent Charge amongst other things was granted whereas nothing but the 20 l. Rent was granted and that only out of the Mannor of D. and not out of other Lands Anderson If a man recites that he hath a Rent of 10 l. of the grant of J.S. whereas he hath this of the grant of J.D. yet is the grant good And at last it was adjudged that the grant was good Note that Fenner at this time said that it had been resolved by Anderson and Gawdy and other Iustices very lately That if the Kings Tenant dies his heir within age yet the heir at full age before livery sued may bargain and sell by Deed inrolled or make a Lease for years and it is good but if he makes a feofment or leavie a fine â—ur conusance de droit come ceo c. this is voyd because it cannot be without intrusion upon the King Trinit 39 Eliz. Oldfeild against VVilmore in C. B Rot. 2715. IN Debt upon a Bond to performe the award of J.S. who did award that the Defendant should pay 10 l. or cause two strangers to be bound for the payment thereof the Defendant pleaded performance the Plaintiff replyed that he had not payed the money and the Defendant demurred Walmesley for the Plaintiff For although the award be in the disjunctive yet forasmuch as it is voyd as to one part now upon the matter it is single and on the non payment of the ten pound is forfeit 17 Ed. 4.5 Windham and Rhodes held that the Plaintiff should have pleaded so much of the award as was for it is a thing intire and the Law will adjudge that one is only to be done because the other is contrary to the Law Anderson and Peryam The plea is good for a man shall not be compelled to shew a voyd matter and although the Defendant had caused the two strangers to be bound the obligation is broken for as to this arbitrement it is meerely voyd and at another day the Plaintiff had judgment Goodridge against VVarburton IN an Ejectment The Iury gave a speciall verdict that Francis was seised of the land in Tayle and suffered a Recovery to the use of him and his heirs and afterwards did devise the same lands to his wife Margery untill his daughter Prudence came to the age of 19. years and then that Prudence should have the Land to her and the heirs of her body upon condition to pay twelve pound per annum to the said Margaret during her life in recompence of her dower and if she failed of payment then Margaret should enter and hold the Land during her life and afterwards it shall go to Prudence as before And after this John Francis the heire did reverse this recovery by a Writ of Errour and entred upon Margaret and she brought her Writ of Dower and was indowed of the third part and then she levyed a Fine of that third part to the said John Francis and he infeoft Tyndall who made the Lease to Goldsing and then Margaret marryed Warburton and Prudence came to the age of 19. years the Rent of twelve pound is not payd and Warburton and his wife entred and Goldsing brought this action VValmesley By the recovery of the third part in the Writ of Dower the Rent of twelve pound which was in recompence thereof is gone For at the Common Law if a woman recover in Dower she hath waived that which was assigned to her in lien of her Dower as in case of Dower ad ostium Ecclesiae and 10 Edw. 4. If the husband discontinues the Land of his wise and she brings a Writ of Dower she is concluded to have a Cui in vita Shuttleworth cont By this recovery the estate taile is revived yet as this case it is is not materiall for because he entred without a sult he is a Disseisor and that was agreed by all at the Bar and the Bench. And he cited 26 H. 8. 3d. 4th H. 7.11 And I conceive that the Dower will not conclude her of the twelve pound per annum for it is not a Rent and the title to have the Land for her Ioynture for non-payment the Rent was not in esse at the time of the recovery of her Dower but afterwards as if a Lease he made to a woman who marries the Lessor who dies within the terme and the wise enters this shall not conclude her Dower after the Lease is expired by the eleventh of H. 4. Also the twelve pound is not appointed to be issuing out of the Land and so it cannot be a Ioynture and therefore
the wife is at large to have the twelve pound and her Dower also But the Court held that she could not have her joynture for by the recovery of the Dower her joynture is barred for the Rent was given her in recompence of her Dower so that it cannot be intended that she shall have Rent Dower also wherefore it was adjudged that her entry on the Land was not good 30 31 Eliz. The King against the Bishop of Canterbury and Hudson Rot. 1832. IN a Quare impedit Hudson the Incumbent did plead that King Edw. the 4th did grant the Rape of Hastings Et bona catalla Fellonum Fugitivorum ategat of all Residents and non-residents within the said Rape to the Earl of Huntington And pleaded that John Ashborne was seized of the Mannor of Ashborne and of the advowson appending to it and held the same of the Earl of Huntington as of his Rape of Hastings and that the said John Ashborn was outlawed during which the Incumbent of the said Church dyed and the Earl presented the said Hudson Shut I conceive this avoydance does not belong to the Earl by reason of this grant for by the same Patent libertie is given to the said Earl his heirs to put himself into possession and of such things as he cannot put himself into possession they will not passe and here this is a thing in action which by these words will not passe 19 H. 6.42 by the grant de Catalla Fellonum obligations do not passe VValmesley Stanford in his prerogative saith that by the words Bona catalla the King shall have the presentation to the Church of him that is outlawed or Attaint and by the same reason he may grant it by such a name and although the party cannot seise such a thing yet it shall passe 39 H. 3.35 Rent for years shall passe by the grant of bona Catalla Periam It will passe by these words for it is an ancient grant for in that time the Patents of the King were not so specially penned as now they are Anderson I conceive the avoydance will not passe by thse words for within this word bona moveables are contained both dead and living and Avoydance is no Chattell nor right of Chattell Quod Peryam negavit c. Mich. 37 38 Eliz. Townsend against VVhales IN an Ejectment the Iury found that J.S. was seized of land in possession and also in reversion for terme of life and made a Devise by these words That his Executors take the profit of all his Lands and tenements Free and Copy for ten years for the payment of his debts and Legacies and after the end of the said ten years that all the aforesaid lands and tenements with their appurtenances should be sold by his Executors or one of them and the silver to be bestowed in the performance of his Will or by the Executors of his Executors or any of them and then one of the Executors dyed within the ten years and the two surviving Executors did grant all aswell in possession as in reversion to House who made a Lease to the Plaintiff And two points were resolved 1. That the Executors may grant the reversion 34 H. 6. for by these words Free and Copy his intent appears that all should be granted 2. That although one of the Executors died yet the other two Executors may sell Anderson If such bevise had been at the Common Law and one Executor had refused the two others could not sell but if one die the survidors may sell the land for there the authority doth survive Which difference the other Iustices agreed to And at another day Anderson said there was difference where the Devise is that Executors should sell his and the money divided between them there if one die the others shall not sell but otherwise here because the money is the performance of his will Walmesley The sale by the two Executors is good for it is said the Executors or any of them c. And Beaumond agreed Wherefore judgment was given for the Plaintiff Note that there were two verdicts in this case and the first only found that the Executors shoull sell after the ten years and that one dyed and the other two did sell within the ten years and the opinion of the Court was that the sale was voyd but in the 39 and 40 Eliz. all the whole will was found and Iudgment given ut supra The Earle of Rutlands Case Roger Earl of Rudand and John Maners and others Executors to John late Earl of Rudand Executor to Edward Earl of Rutland brought an action on the case against Isabell Countess of Rutland And Declared for divers Iewells and goods c. that came to the hands of John Earl of Rudand as Executor to the said Edward and the said John the 10th of July 29 Eliz. did casually loose them which after came to the hands of the Defendant licet saepius requisita she would not deliver them to the said John in his life time nor to the said Plaintiffs after his death but knowing the goods did belong to the Plaintiffs in D. in the County of Notingham converted them to her proper use And a verdict for the Plaintiff And it was moved often in arrest of Iudgment but all the Iustices agreed that the action of Trover and converversion would lie by the Executors upon the Satute of the 4 Ed. 3. upon a conversion in vita Testatoris and so hath it been adjudged in the Kings Bench and although the Statute mentions onely a Writ of trespass that is only put for example Also they all agreed that the sole cause of action to the Conversion for it there were no conversion they shall be put to their Detinue therefore the great doubt did arise because the day and time of the conversion was not shewed for perhaps it was after the Writ and before the Declaration And also if it was in vita Testatoris they should have this action by the 4th of Ed. 3d. But at length Walmesley said That all Iustices of the Common Pleas and of Serjeants Inne in Fleet-street besides Peryam Chief Baron were of opinion that Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiffs for that some of them held that the day of the Conversion is not materiall to be shewn and others that of necessity as this case is it shall be intended that the conversion was in the Plaintiffs time wherefore Iudgment was entredfor the Plaintiffs but a Writ of Errour was brought and the Case much debated Michaelm 38 39 Eliz. Carew against Warren in C. B. Rot. 1945. GUnter Tenant in Tasle of Lands in antient Demesn made a Lease for 60. years to J.S. and for security thereof levied a Fine to Lee and Loveland who rendred to Gunter in Fee who devised the reversion to his wife for life the remainder in Fee and dyed And then the Lord of Andover which is an ancient Mannor by an
and pleading By the Lessee of an Intrudor 16 Where a Lease must be pleaded hic in curia praelat 16 By the Obligor on a bond to save harmless plea that he was not taken in execution c. 19 Where ancient Demesne is a good plea 24 Where in an Avowry a man shall plead for Frank-tenement 51 Difference in plea between appeal of Mayhem and Murther 59 Where a man shall be bound to set forth Seisin of him who made the Devise and where not 103 Prescription For a Common 4 5 To buy and sell c. 6 7 Who shall prescribe to a way and who not 72 Presentation Where the King shall be limited in time to present by Lapse and where not 2.89.90 Where Recusancy of the incumbent shall cast the Lapse on the King 5 Where the King shall not lose his Presentment by Lapse though he do not present in time 5 The Church how void for Symony 87 Prohibition vid. Writs Promise vid. Assumption Proviso vid. Condition Property Where the property of stollen Goods shall be altered according to the Statute of 2 and 3. Phil. Mar. 27 A man outlawed hath property in his goods 116 What property the Constable shall be said to have of Felons goods 120 Quare Impedit IN what cases it lies and what not 99 Releases DIfference of a Release to Tenant at sufferance and Tenant at wil 29 Of a Bond the Release bearing date the same day not good 50 Of the avoydance of a Church why void 86 Remainder Lease for years with Remainder to the said persons where good and where not 38 39 Seniori puero whether a Female shall take 64 Reparations Notice to the Astignee of a Lease to repair not good 114 Rents Where the Confirmation to the Assignee of the Lessee of part of the land shall extinguish the Rent of the whole 10 Where an entry for breach of the Condition in part of the Land shall extinguish the Rent for the whole 10 Rent granted out of Land not chargeable therewith how good 111 Where the Tenant of the Freehold shall be charged with the Rent-charge and where the Termor 117 Reservation Rent reserved to his Executors or Assignees where good and where not 9 10 Reserved at Michaelmas what time of Michaelmas shall be intended 64 Resignation Of a Benefice without presentation or on Condition 12 The Nature of a Resignation 12 Sheriff WHere an action of debt lies against him for an escape though the Capias be not returned 43 No escape against the Sheriff when especiall bails are requested 98 Where a man shall aver or traverse against the return of a Sheriff 132 Slander and slanderous words vide Actions Calsing one Bastard 92 Calling one Whore and that she had the French-pox 34 For saying Thou Murtherer good 33 By him in remainder for saying the immediate Tenant was alive 33 For the word Cousener 47 Thief and thou hast forged a Deed 47 For pilfering 56 Thou hast stollen half an acre of Corn innuendo Corn sowed 57 He was disproved before the Justices 58 He was perjured and I will prove him so 62 Statutes Mistaking the Parish on an action for Robbery on the Statute of Winchester 7 Lease for years not within the Statute of Quia emptores 10 Lease on the Statuce of 27 H. 8.28.32 Who are within the Statute of Monasteries 31 H. 8.56 Lease for one year within the penalty of the Statute of buying of Tythes 57 21 H. 8. for Noblemens Chaplains 51 In the 8. of H. 6. how to plead the entry 93 Exposition of the Statute 5 Ed. 6.14.135 Where a man shall plead Contra formam statuti though there be more Statutes of the same matter 135 Traverse by Executors on the 4. of Ed. 3. good 156 Surrender By the Husband Lessee for years of his wives estate how good 32 What and how may things belong to a Surrender 97 Tenure NO Tenure between Donor and Donee in Frankmarriage 26 Tenant at jufferance Will D'auter vie c Where such Tenants holding over shall gain a Feesimple or make a Disseisin and where not 27.28 Tenant at sufferance shall justifie Damage-feasant 29 Difference where a Tenant at sufferance holds over and where a Tenant at Will 35 Tythes Where Tythes by composition shall be paid according to agreement although they be not tyâ—hable 34 35 Where they shall be paid of the Glebe land 39 By the Parsons release of all Demands Tythes are not released 40 Where altering the Crop of the Land shall alter the Tythes from grosse to small Tythes 74 Where a discharge to pay Tythes without Deed is good and where not 103 Tryall Where the tryall shall be on the land though the cause or matter were on the Sea 54 Vses and Cestui que use USe to the husband and wife habendum to the husband for three years 48 How Cestui que itse shall be said to be seised before entry 86 Wardship WHere the husband alone shall have a writ of Ravishment of Ward without the wife 82 83 Whether the brother of the half blood or the Uncle of the whole blood shal have the Wardship in Socage 128 Warranty The exposition of the word To warrant Land 100 Two Joynt-tenants with Warranty make partition the Warranty is gone 104. Otherwise of a Feoffment 104 Warren VVhat it is and whereof it consists 66 Of VVaste committed there 66 VVarren in a Common is good and the Commoners cannot kill the Conies Damage-feasant 184 Waste VVhere a man shall have but one action of waste on severall Leases and where not 11 The form of entring Judgment in a writ of waste 12 For taking Fish out of a Pool 19 VVaste in the house for not scouring a Ditch 43 In Pigeon houses Hop-grounds and Fish ponds 66 VVhere the Lease is ruinous at the entry of the Lessee and falls down afterwards the Lessee is excused and where not 93 Way How extinguisht by unity of possession 127 Wills and Testaments Executors Administrators and Legacies VVhere a man deviseth that his wife shal have the occupation and profits during her widowhood 6 7 Where a Devise shall be intended within the word Demise 14 VVhere a Devise shal be taken as a Demise for breach of a Condition 14 VVhere a Devise of severall parcels of Land to several persons and the Survivors to be each others heir what Estate passeth 25 VVhere an Administrator paies debts and there a Will is found yet the payment good 28 VVhere a Devise shall make an Estate tail by implication 29 30 VVhat passeth by this word Livelyhood in a Will according to the custome of London 30 VVhere Ex intentione shall make a Condition in a Devise 32 VVhere an uncertain Devise shall be construed good as to a certain intent 35 Legatees refusing to prove the Will shall lose their Legacies 44 Devise of a Tenant in Borough-english to his two Sons 65 Devise to his two Daughters his Heirs 65 Devise of all Lands Meadows and Pastures whether the house passeth 75 VVill made and the party sayes he will not make his VVill no Revocation 76 VVhat passeth by the Devise of a Mannor 88 89 Devise of Jewels what shall remain to the Heir and will not pass by the VVill 124 Writs VVhere a Scire facias lies and where not 3 VVhere certainty in a writ of Ejectment is requisite and where not and difference between such writ and a writ of Novel Disseisin 18 19 Quod ei deforceat how it will lye in waste 102 FINIS