to that Issue but may take another This dis-affirms the former Case when the Information is by an Informer the King must maintain his Information Note the close of this Case Ut supra per Attornatum Regis alios legis peritos I shall give the Case here mentioned in this ut supra which will I think determine the Question and clearly establish the Law according to the Difference taken That Case is likewise in Br. and cited to be as in 34 H. 8. whereof there is no Year-book neither some four years before the last Case I mentioned It is thus Br. Prerogative p. 116. 34 H. 8. Nota by Whorhood Attornatum Regis alios When an Information is put into the Chequer upon a penal Statute and the Defendant makes a Barr and Traverseth that there the King cannot wave such Issue tender'd and Traverse the former matter of the Plea as he can upon Traverse of an Office and the like when the King is sole party and intitled by matter of Record for upon the Information there is no Office found before and also a Subject is party with the King for a moiety Quod nota bene Here it is most apparent That upon an Information when the King hath no Title by matter of Record as he hath upon Office found the King cannot waive the Issue tender'd upon the first Traverse though the Information be in his own name which disaffirms the second Case in that point And for the Supernumerary reason That the King is not the sole party in the Information it is but frivolous and without weight but the stress is where the King is sole party and intitled by matter of Record I shall add another Authority out of Stamford Praerogative If the King be once seis'd his Highness shall retain against all others who have not Title nothwithstanding it be found also that the King had no Title but that the other had possession before him 37 Ass pl. 11. as appeareth in 37. Ass p. 35. which is pl. 11. where it was found That neither the King nor the party had Title and yet adjudg'd that the King should retain for the Office that finds the King to have a Right or Title to enter Stamford Praerogative f. 62. b. makes ever the King a good Title though the Office be false c. and therefore no man shall Traverse the Office unless he make himself a Title and if he cannot prove his Title to be true although he be able to prove his Traverse to be true yet this Traverse will not serve him Stamford Prerogative f. 64. b. It is to be noted That the King hath a Prerogative which a Common Person hath not for his Highness may choose whether he will maintain the Office or Traverse the Title of the party and so take Traverse upon Traverse If the King take Issue upon a Traverse to an Office he cannot in another Term change his Issue by Traversing the Defendants Title for then he might do it infinitely But the King may take Issue and after Demurr 13 E. 4. expresly and several other Books 28 H. 6. f. 2. a. or first Demurr and after take Issue or he may vary his Declaration for in these Cases as to the Right all things remain and are as they were at first but this ought to be done in the same Term otherwise the King might change without limit and tye the Defendant to perpetual Attendance Judgment pro Defendente Hill 21 22. Car. II. C. B. Rot. 606. Thomas Rowe Plaintiff and Robert Huntington Defendant in a Plea of Trespass and Ejectment THE Plaintiff declares That Thomas Wise 1. April 21 Car. 2. at Hooknorton in the County of Oxford by his Indenture produc'd dated the said day and year demis'd to the said Thomas Rowe the Mannor of Hooknorton with the Appurtenances 4 Messuages 100 Acres of Land 50 Acres of Meadow 400 Acres of Pasture and 50 Acres of Wood with the Appurtenances in Hooknorton aforesaid As also the Rectory and Vicaridge of Hooknorton and the Tithes of Grain Hay and Wool renewing in Hooknorton aforesaid To have and to hold the Premisses from the Feast of the Annunciation of the Virgin then last past to the end and term of Seven years then next ensuing That by virtue thereof the said Thomas Rowe the Plaintiff into the said Mannor and Tenements enter'd and of the said Rectory Vicaridge and Tithes was possessed That the said Robert Huntington the Defendant the said First of April with Force and Arms into the said Mannor Rectory Vicaridge and Tithes entred and him Ejected against the Peace to his great damage and whereby he is endamaged 100 l. The Defendant Huntington pleads not Culpable And thereupon Issue is Ioyn'd The Jury give a Special Verdict That as to the Trespass and Ejectment in the said Mannor and Tenements and in the said Rectory Vicaridge and Tithes aforesaid excepting 200 Acres of Pasture parcel of the said Mannor of Hooknorton That the Defendant Huntington is not Culpable And as to the said 200 Acres they say that long before the said Trespass and Ejectment That is the 14th day of October 1. Mar. one Robert then Bishop of Oxford was seis'd in his Demesne as of Fee in Right of his Bishoprick of the said Mannor whereof the said 200 Acres are parcel and so seis'd the said 14th of October 1 Mariae at Hooknorton aforesaid by his Indenture of Demise seal'd with his Episcopal Seal Dated the said day and year and shew'd in Evidence to the Jury made between the said Bishop of the one part and John Croker of Hooknorton Esq of the other part for Considerations in the said Indenture of Demise mentioned had demis'd and to farm lett to the said Croker Among other things the said Mannor with the Appurtenances whereof the said 200 Acres are parcel To have and to hold to the said Croker and his Assigns from the end and expiration prioris Dimissionis in eadem Indentur Mentionat for and during the term of Ninety years then next following The tenor of which Indenture of Demise follows in haec verba This Indenture made the Fourteenth day of October 1 Mariae c. Between the said Bishop and the said John Croker c witnesseth That where the said Bishop by the name of the Reverend Father in God Robert King Abbot of Tame and Commendatory of the late Monastery of Oseney in the County of Oxford and the Covent of the same by their Deed Indented Dated 6. April 29 Hen. 8. with the Consent of their whole Chapter Have demis'd and to farm lett All that their Mansion or Farm of Hooknorton with the Appurtenances in the said County and all the Mansion and Farm Demesne Lands Meadows Leasowes and Pastures with all Commodities and Profits to the said Mannor belonging or appertaining and the customary works of all the Tenants not granted nor remitted before the Date of the Deed And the Parsonage of Hooknorton and
all Lands Tenements Meadows Tithe Corn and Grain Hay and Wool and all Profits to the said Parsonage belonging And also the Vicaridge of Hooknorton aforesaid with the Appurtenances And all Lands Tithes Profits to the said Vicaridge belonging And also a Pasture called Prestfield with the Appurtenances in Hooknorton aforesaid And all Commons of Sheep call'd by the name of their Founders Flock And the Hay of a Meadow call'd Brown-mead with the customary works thereto pertaining And the Tithe and Duty of a Mead call'd Hay-mead in Hooknorton aforesaid Except and reserved to the said Abbot and Covent and their Successors All Tenants and Tenantries then or after to be set by Copy of Court-Roll All Fines Reliefs Escheats Herriots Amerciaments Pains Forfeits and all Perquisites of Courts Barons and Leets To have and to hold the said Farm or Mannor and all other the Premisses with the Appurtenances Except before excepted to the said Croker his Executors and Assigns from the Feast of the Annunciation of our Lady last past before the Date of the said Deed Indented for the term of Eighty years rendring to the said Abbot Covent and their Successors yearly during the said term For the said Mannor and Farm 9 l. For the said Parsonage 22 l. 2 s. For the Common of Sheep Hay and Custom-works of Brown-Mead 5 l. For the Wool 12 l. For Prest-field 6 l. 13 s. 4 d. For the Vicaridge 6 l. 13 s. 4 d. of lawful mony c. at the Feasts of St. Michael the Arch-angel the Annunciation of our Lady by equal portions As by the same Deed Indented amongst divers other Covenants and Grants more plainly appeareth And where also as the said Bishop by his other Deed Indented Dated 8. October 1 Edw. 6. hath demis'd and to farm lett unto the said John Croker all that his Mannor of Hooknorton aforesaid with all Messuages Tofts Cottages Orchards Curtilages Lands Tenements Meadows Leasowes Pastures Feedings Commons waste Grounds Woods Underwoods Waters Mills Courts-Leets Fines Herriots Amerciaments Franchises Liberties Rents Reversions Services and all other Hereditaments whatsoever they be set lying and being in Hooknorton aforesaid in the said County with the Appurtenances Except certain Lands and Tenements in the said Town in the Tenure of the said John Croker for certain years then enduring To have and to hold All the said Mannor of Hooknorton and all other the Premisses with the Appurtenances Except before excepted to the said John Croker and his Assigns from the Feast of St. Michael the Arch-angel last past before the Date of the said latter Deed Indented to the full end of the term of Ninety years from thence next ensuing Rendring to the said Bishop and his Successors yearly during the said term Eleven pounds four shillings and nine pence at the Feasts of the Annunciation and St. Michael the Arch-angel by equal portions as by the said latter Deed among other Covenants and Grants more plainly appears The Reversion of all which Premisses are in the said Bishop and to him and his Successors do belong as in Right of his Church Now witnesseth That the said Bishop hath demis'd Ind. 1 Mar. and to Farm lett and by these Presents doth demise c. to the said John Croker All the said Mannor and Farm of Hooknorton together with all Messuages c. And all and singular other the Premisses with the Appurtenances in the said several Indentures specified and contain'd To have and to hold the said Premisses contain'd in the said first Indenture to the said John Croker his Executors and Assigns from the end expiration and determination of the said term specified in the said first Indenture unto the end and term of Ninety years next ensuing yielding therefore yearly to the said Bishop and his Successors for the said Premisses specified in the said first Indenture such and like Rents as in the said first Indenture are reserv'd at the same daies and times and To have and to hold All the Premisses specified in the said latter Indenture from the end expiration and determination of the said term specified in the said latter Indenture until the end and term of Ninety years then next ensuing Rendring yearly for the Premisses in the said latter Indenture specified such and like Rent as is reserv'd by the said latter Indenture and at the same days and times Then follows a Clause of Distress if the Rent be behind for a Month. And if the said several yearly Rents reserved by these Indentures or any of them be unpaid in part or in all by the space of one quarter of a year after any the said Feasts at which the same ought to be paid and be lawfully demanded and no sufficient Distress upon the Premisses whereupon the same is reserved to be found Then to be lawful for the said Bishop and his Successors into such of the Premisses whereupon such Rents being behind is or are reserved to re-enter and to have as in their former estate And the said Jurors further say That the aforesaid Indenture of Demise afterwards the Tenth of May Anno 1 Mar. aforesaid by the then Dean and Chapter of Oxford under their Common Seal was confirm'd and find the tenor of the Confirmation in haec verba They further find That the said Two hundred Acres of Pasture at the time of making the said Indenture and at the time of the Trespass and Ejectment were and yet are parcel of the said Mannor of Hooknorton They further find That the Rent for all the said demis'd Premisses reserv'd by the said Indenture for one whole half year ended at the Feast of Saint Michael the Arch-angel 1643. was behind and unpaid and that Robert late Bishop of Oxford the Nine and twentieth and Thirtieth Day of December 1643. into the Parsonage House then and by the Space of Forty or Fifty years before reputed and call'd the Mannor-house And that he then at the said Parsonage-house by the space of One hour next before the Sun-setting of both the said two daies remain'd and continued until and by the space of One hour after Sun-setting of both daies demanding and then did demand the Rent for the half of the year aforesaid They further say That there was no sufficient Distress upon the Premisses at the time of the demand of the said Rent thereupon And that the said Bishop the said Thirtieth Day of December 1643. aforesaid into the said Premisses enter'd They further say That all the Right State and Title term of Years and Interest of and in the Mannor Tenements Rectory and other the said Premisses by virtue of the said Indenture of Demise by the said late Bishop as aforesaid granted to the said John Croker by mean Assignments came to the said Thomas Wise That by virtue of the said several Assignments the said Thomas Wise afterwards the Fourth of January 1667. into the Premisses enter'd and was possessed for the Residue of the term of years prout Lex postulat That he so possessed
is not sufficient by the Rule of the Act of 25. unless confirmed by the King It was otherwise in the Popes case before the Act. There are many Presidents in Mr. Noy's Book where in like Obj. 2 case the King after the death of a Bishop holding in Commendam after his translation to another See and after his resignation hath presented All those Presidents are since the Twentieth of the Queen which Answ 1 cannot alter the Law 2. Who knows in the cases of death whether those Presentations were not by consent of the Patrons and doubtless there are Presidents wherein the Patrons did present else this Question had been earlier But Judicandum est legibus non exemplis Vpon Translation of a Bishop holding a Commendam in the Answ 2 Retinere as long as he continued Bishop there the King ought to present for the Dispensation is determined upon his remove and then is as if it had not been and a Dispensation gives no property to the Living nor takes away any But where property is given to the Living as by Presentation Institution and Induction or by Grant as in Appropriations Hob. Colts and Glovers Case and sometimes otherwise by the King such presenting or granting for a year or six is to grant it during life As an Atturnment cannot be for a time nor a Confirmation nor a Denization or Naturalization and the like but such Acts are perfect Manwarings Case 21 Jac. Crook f. 691. as they may be notwithstanding Restriction to time as is agreed well in Manwaring's Case I shall say nothing of the case of Resignation as not being in the present Question Judgment was given by the Opinion of the whole Court That the Avoidance was by Death not by Cession Hill 19 20 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 1785. Baruck Tustian Tristram Plaintiff Anne Roper Vicountess Baltinglass Vidua Defendant in a Plea of Trespass and Ejectment THe Plaintiff declares That the Defendant vi Armis entred into 20 Messuages 1000 Acres of Land 200 Acres of Meadow and 500 Acres of Pasture cum pertinentiis in Thornbury Shalston Evershaw Oldwick Westbury and Looffield and into the Rectory of Thornbury which Thomas Gower Kt. and Baronet and George Hilliard to the said Baruck demis'd the First of Octob. 19 Car. 2. Habendum from the Feast of St. Michael the Arch-angel last past for the term of Five years next ensuing into which he the said Baruck the same day entred and was ousted and ejected by the Defendant ad damnum 40 l. To this the Defendant pleads Not Guilty And the Jury have found specially That the Defendant is not guilty in all those Tenements besides 5 Messuages 400 Acres of Land 50 Acres of Meadow 100 Acres of Pasture cum pertinentiis in Thornbury Shalston Evershaw Oldwick and Westbury and in the Rectory of Thornbury and besides in one Messuage 100 Acres of Land 50 Acres of Meadow and 100 Acres of Pasture cum pertinentiis in Looffield And as to the Trespass and Ejectment aforesaid in the said five Messuages c. and in the Rectory of Thornbury the Iury say upon their Oath that before the said Trespass and Ejectment suppos'd 22 Junii 12 Jac. Sir Arthur Throgmorton Kt. was seis'd in Fee of the aforesaid Rectory and Tenements last mentioned and of the said Premisses in Looffield and so seis'd A certain Indenture Tripartite was made 22 Junii 12 Jac. between him the said Sir Arthur of the first part Edward Lord Wootton Augustine Nicholls Kt. Francis Harvey Esq and Rowly Ward Esq of the second part and Sir Peter Temple and Anne Throgmorton Daughter of the said Sir Arthur of the third part To this effect That the said Sir Arthur Throgmorton did covenant and promise with the said Lord Wootton and Sir Augustine Nicholls in consideration of Marriage to be had between the said Sir Peter Temple and the said Anne and other the considerations mentioned in the said Indenture by Fine or Fines before the Feast of St. Michael the Arch-angel next ensuing or other good Conveyance to be levied by him and the said Dame Anne his wife to the said Lord Wootton c. The scite and precinct of the Priory of Looffield the Rectory of Thornbury and divers Mannors Lands and Tenements in the said Indenture mentioned several yearly Rents therein mentioned and all other his Lands in the Counties of Northampton Buckingham and Oxford at any time belonging to the said Priory to convey and assure To the use of himself for life without Impeachment of Waste Then to the use of Dame Anne his Wife Then to the use of the said Sir Peter Temple and the said Anne his Wife during their natural lives and the longer Liver of them and after both their Deceases To the use of the first Son of the Body of Anne by the said Sir Peter begotten and of the Heirs Males of the Body of the said first Son so to the sixth Son Then to the use of all other Sons in succession in like manner of the Body of Anne begotten by the said Sir Peter And for default of such Heirs To the use of all the Issues Female of the Body of the said Anne by the said Sir Peter begotten and the Heirs of the Bodies of the said Issues Female For default thereof To the first Son of the said Anne by any other Husband and his Heirs Males and so to the tenth In like manner to the Issues Female of the Body of Anne with divers Remainders over A Proviso That it be lawful for Sir Arthur at all times during his life to lett set and demise all or any the said Premisses aforesaid which at any time heretofore have been usually letten or demised to any person or persons for and during the term of One and twenty years or under in possession and not in Reversion or for or during any other number of years determinable upon one two or three Lives in Possession and not in Reversion reserving the Rents therefore now yielded or paid or more to be yearly due and payable during such Lease and Leases unto such person and persons unto whom the said Premises so to be demised shall come and be by virtue of these Presents if no such demise had been made so long as the same Lessees their Executors and Assigns shall duly pay the Rents and perform their Conditions according to the true meaning of their Indentures of Lease and commit no waste of and in the things to them demised The like Proviso verbatim for Sir Peter Temple and Anne his Wife to make like Leases during their Lives and the Life of the longer liver of them after the death of Sir Arthur and Dame Anne his Wife That a Fine was accordingly levied c. to the uses aforesaid They find that all the Messuages Lands Tenements and Rectory in the Declaration mentioned are compris'd in the said Indenture Tripartite They find the death of Sir Arthur Throgmorton and Anne his Wife 2. Septemb.
England or into parts not of the Dominion of England nor follows it because Goods were intended to be sold that is as Merchandise in a place where good market was for them that they were intended to be sold at any other place where no profit could be made or not so much or where such Goods were perhaps prohibited Commodities therefore the words of the Act brought as Merchandise must mean that the Goods are for Merchandise at the place they are brought unto And Goods brought or imported any where as Merchandise or by way of Merchandise that is to be sold must necessarily have an Owner to set and receive the price for which they are sold unless a man will say That Goods can sell themselves and set and receive their own prises But wreck Goods imported or brought any where have no Owner to sell or prize them at the time of their importation and therefore are not brought by way of or as Merchandise to England or any where else Secondly Though in a loose sense inanimate things are said to bring things as in certain Seasons Rain to bring Grass in other Seasons some Winds to bring Snow and Frost some Storms to bring certain Fowl and Fish upon the Coasts Yet when the bringing in or importing or bringing out and exporting hath reference to Acts of Deliberation and Purpose as of Goods for sale which must be done by a rational Agent or when the thing brought requires a rational bringer or importer as be it a Message an Answer an Accompt or the like No man will say That things to be imported or brought by such deliberative Agents who must have purpose in what they do can be intended to be imported or brought by casual and insensible Agents but by Persons and Mediums and Instruments proper for the actions of reasonable Agents Therefore we say not That Goods drown'd or lost in passing a Ferry a great River an arm of the Sea are exported though carried to Sea but Goods exported are such as are convey'd to Sea in Ships or other Naval Carriage of mans Artifice and by like reason Goods imported must not be Goods imported by the Wind Water or such inanimate means but in Ships Vessels and other Conveyances used by reasonable Agents as Merchants Mariners Sailors c. whence I conclude That Goods or Merchandise imported within the meaning of the Act can only be such as are imported with deliberation and by reasonable Agents not casually and without reason and therefore wreck'd Goods are no Goods imported within the intention of the Act and consequently not to answer the Kings Duties for Goods as Goods cannot offend forfeit unlade pay Duties or the like but men whose Goods they are And wreck'd Goods have not Owners to do these Offices when the Act requires they should be done Therefore the Act intended not to charge the Duty upon such Goods Judgment for the Plaintiff The Chief Justice delivered the Opinion of the Court. Hill 23 24 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 695. Richard Crowley Plaintiff In a Replevin against Thomas Swindles William Whitehouse Roger Walton Defendants THE Plaintiff declares That the Defendants the Thirtieth of December 22 Car. 2. at Kings Norton in a place there called Hurley field took his Beasts four Cows and four Heifers and detain'd them to his damage of Forty pounds The Defendants defend the Force And as Bailiffs of Mary Ashenhurst Widow justifie the Caption and that the place contains and did contain when the Caption is suppos'd Twenty Acres of Land in Kings Norton aforesaid That long before the Caption one Thomas Greaves Esquire was seis'd of One hundred Acres of Land and of One hundred Acres of Pasture in Kings Norton aforesaid in the said County of Worcester whereof the Locus in quo is and at the time of the Caption and time out of mind was parcel in his demesne as of Fee containing Twenty Acres That he long before the Caption that is 18 die Decemb. 16 Car. 1. at Kings Norton aforesaid by his Indenture in writing under his Seal which the Defendants produce dated the said day and year in consideration of former Service done by Edmond Ashenhurst to him the said Thomas did grant by his said Writing to the said Edmond and Mary his Wife one yearly Rent of Twenty pounds issuing out of the said Twenty Acres with the Appurtenances by the name of all his Lands and Hereditaments scituate in Kings Norton aforesaid Habendum the said Rent to the said Edmond and Mary and their Assigns after the decease of one Anne Greaves and Thomas Greaves Vncle to the Grantor or either of them which first should happen during the lives of Edmond and Mary and the longer liver of them at the Feasts of the Annunciation of the blessed Virgin Mary and St. Michael the Arch angel by equal portions The first payment to begin at such of the said Feasts as should first happen next after the decease of the said Anne Greaves and Thomas the Vncle or either of them That if the Rent were behind in part or in all it should be lawful for the Grantees and the Survivor of them to enter into all and singular the Lands in King's Norton of the Grantor and to distrain and detain until payment By vertue whereof the said Edmond and Mary became seis'd of the said Rent in their Demesne as of Free hold during their Lives as aforesaid The Defendants say further in Fact That after that is to say the last day of February in the Two and twentieth year of the now King the said Anne Greaves and Thomas the Vncle and Edmond the Husband died at King's Norton That for Twenty pounds of the said Rent for one whole year ending at the Feast of Saint Michael the Arch-Angel in the Two and twentieth year of the King unpaid to the said Mary the Defendants justifie the Caption as in Lands subject to the said Mary's Distress as her Bailiffs And averr her to be living at King's Norton aforesaid The Plaintiff demands Oyer of the Writing Indented by which it appears That the said Annuity was granted to Edmond and Mary and their Assigns in manner set forth by the Defendants in their Conuzance But with this variance in the Deed And if the aforesaid yearly Rents of Ten pounds and of Twenty pounds shall be unpaid at any the daies aforesaid in part or in all That it shall be lawful for the said Edmond and Mary at any time during the joynt natural Lives of the said Anne Greaves and Thomas Greaves the Uncle if the said Edmond and Mary or either of them should so long live and as often as the said Rents of Twenty pounds or any parcel should be behind to enter into all the said Thomas Greaves the Grantors Lands in King's Norton aforesaid and to Distrain Vpon Oyer of which Indenture the Plaintiff demurrs upon the Conuzance Two Exceptions have been taken to this Conuzance made by the Defendants The first for that
1 Car. 1. and that Sir Peter Temple entred and was seis'd for term of his life They find he had Issue of the Body of Anne his Wife Anne the now Defendant Daughter and Heir of the Bodies of the said Sir Peter and Anne his Wife and that Anne Wife of Sir Peter died 2. Sept. 3 Car. 1. 1. They find a Demise by Sir Peter Temple to Sir Thomas Gower and Hillyard of the Rectory of Thornbury 9. Maii 23 Car. 1. for 30 l. Rent 2. They find a Demise by him to them of a Messuage in Thornbury 9. March 23 Car. 1. of Woolheads Tenement for 16 l. 13 s. 4 d. Rent 3. They find a Demise to them 9. March 23 Car. 1. of Land in Thornbury held by Roger Rogers Rent 13 l. 6 s. 8 d. 4. They find a Demise 9. March 23 Car. 1. of Nelson's Tenement in Thornbury Rent 16 l. 13 s. 4 d. at Michaelmass and Lady-day 5. They find a Demise 13. March 23 Car. 1. of Lands in Shalston Eversham and Oldwick held formerly by William Hughes Rent 15 s. 4 d. These respective Leases were made for the term of 90 Years determinable upon the Lives of the Lady Baltinglass the Defendant Sir Richard Temple's and the Life of a younger Son of Sir Peter Temple as long as the Lessees should duly pay the Rents reserved and commit no waste according to the Limitation of the Proviso in 12 Jac. which is recited in the respective Leases 6. Then the Iury find quod predicti separales reditus super praedictis separalibus Indenturis Dimissionis reservat fuerint reservat reditus de super premissis praedictis 22. dii Junii Anno Jacobi Regis 12. supradict Et quod praedict separales reditus c. in forma praedict reservat ad Festum Sancti Michaelis Arch-angeli quod fuit 1653. debit non solut sive oblat suerint super idem Festum sed quod iidem reditus infra unum mensem prox post Festum praedictum praefat Annae Roper Defend solut fuerunt 7. They find a Demise to them of the Scite and Priory of Looffield 9. March 23 Car. 1. at the Rent of 100 l. payable equally on Lady-day and Michaelmass-day demised by Sir Arthur Throgmorton and Anne his Wife 20th of May 12 Eliz. 1570. to William Hewer for 21 years Rent 100 l. Lady-day and Michaelmass with some Exceptions for the like term of 90 years and upon like Limitations as in the former Leases The Iury find quod Tenementa praedicta cum pertinentiis in Looffield supranominat tempore dict Eliz. nuper Reginae Angl. fuerint dimissa ad redditum 100 l. pro termino 21. Annorum sed dimissio terminus 21 Annorum expirati fuerunt Et dicunt quod eisdem Juratoribus non constabat quod dicta Tenementa in Looffield praedict 22 die Junii 12 Jac. aut per spatium 20 Annorum tunc antea fuerint dimissa Et dicunt ulterius quod 50 l. pro dimidio unius Anni de praedictis Tenementis in Looffield ad Festum Sancti Michaelis Arch-angeli quod fuit Anno Dom. 1653. debit oblatae fuerint Et quod praedicta Anna Roper ante Festum Annunciationis prox sequent intravit They find that Gower and Hillyard claiming the said 5 Messuages 400 Acres of Land 50 Acres of Meadow and 100 Acres of Pasture in Thornbury Shalston Evershaw Oldwick and Westbury As also the said Messuage and other the Premisses in Looffield and the Rectory of Thornbury before the supposed Trespass and Ejectment entred upon the Possession of the Lady Baltinglass and so possessed made a Lease to the Plaintiff by virtue of which he entred and was possessed until outed by the Defendant as by the Declaration But whither the Defendant be culpable they refer to the Court. Vpon this Verdict the Questions are two 1. The first Whither the Defendants entry into the six Tenements leased to Gower and Hillyard for not payment of the Rent reserv'd upon the day of payment were lawful or not And as to that the Court is of opinion that the Defendants Entry was lawful for that the Leases were not deriv'd out of the Estate of Sir Peter Temple who was but Tenant for life and had no Reversion in him but out of the Estate of Sir Arthur Throgmorton by Limitation of the Proviso in the Deed 12 Jac. so as the Leases were not Leases upon Condition to pay the Rent at the day to which any Demand or Re-entry was requisite for Non-payment but were Leases by Limitation and determined absolutely according to the Limitation Littl. f. 235. a. For this Littleton is express that the words quamdiu dum and dummodo are words of Limitation As if a Lease be made to a Woman dum sola fuerit or dum casta vixerit or dummodo solverit talem reditum or quamdiu solverit talem reditum so are many other words there mentioned And if there be not a performance according to the Limitation it determines the Lease But it is otherwise where a Rent is reserv'd upon Condition for there is a Contract between the Lessor and Lessee and the Law evens the Agreement between them as is most agreeable to Reason and the supposition of their Intention But in the present case Sir Peter Temple had no interest in him out of which such Leases could be deriv'd but had a power only to make them by virtue of the Proviso in Sir Arthur Throgmortons Deed and the Lessees must be subject to such Limitations as are thereby made It was agreed by the Council of the Plaintiff That it was not a Condition for payment of the Rent nor could it be but they would call it a Caution A Condition to determine a Lease or a Limitation is a Caution and a material one but such a Caution as hath no more effect than if it were not at all is a thing insignificant in Law and therefore must not supplant that which in proper terms is a Limitation and hath an effect 2. The next Question is upon the Lease of Looffield which arises upon the words of the Proviso That it should be lawful for Sir Peter Temple to demise all or any the Premisses which at any time heretofore have been usually letten or demised for the term of 21 years or under reserving the Rent thereupon now yielded or paid And the Iury finding the Lands in Looffield to have been demised 12th of the Queen for 21 years for 100 l. Rent and that that term was expired and not finding them demis'd by the space of twenty years before at the time of the Indenture 12 Jac. Whither the Lease by Sir Peter Temple of them be warranted by the Proviso there being reserv'd the Rent reserv'd by the Lease in 12. Eliz. viz. 100. l. The Court is of opinion that the Lease of Looffield is not warranted by that Proviso for these Reasons 1. It is clear Sir Arthur Throgmorton intended to exclude some Lands from being demisable by that
recited therein but in part for after as much as is recited of either Deeds respectively is said as more plainly appears among other Grants and Covenants in the said Deed. And if other Grants were in the Deed of 29 H. 8. besides those recited then the express Grant of the very Mannor of Hooknorton might be one of those Grants which is urg'd not to be granted because not recited in 29 H. 8. nominally and if so here being two former demises of the Mannor mentioned in the Indenture 1 Mar. and for different terms the one 29 H. 8. for Eighty years the other 1 E. 6. for Ninety years and so expiring at different terms it is uncertain from which Expiration the demise of the Mannor 1 Mar. shall Commence and consequently the demise having no certain Commencement will be void by the Rector of Chedington's Case 1. Rep. But admitting the Mannor not demis'd by 29 H. 8. yet the Jury finding the demise 1 Mar. Habendum à fine prioris dimissionis and not prioris dimissionis ejusdem Manerii it is uncertain still Whether the Habendum à fine prioris dimissionis as the Jury have found it shall referr to the end of the demise 29 H. 8. or to that of 1 E. 6. both of them being prior demises mentioned in the Indenture 1 Mar. for if only the demise 29 H. 8. had been mentioned in that of 1 Mar. the demise 1 Mar. for its Commencement must of necessity have referr'd to the Expiration of the demise by 29 H. 8. though the Mannor pass'd not by it and it will not then change the uncertainty because the demise 1 E. 6. is mention'd Nor shall you to this finding of the Jury suppose a different finding from their finding barely the Indenture of 1 Mar. call in aid any thing from the Recitals in 1 Mar. and so make up a Medley Verdict partly from what the Jury find expresly and partly from what is only recited and not otherwise found As for instance The Jury find the Mannor demis'd for Ninety years Habendum from the end of a former demise mention'd 1 Mar. This Verdict in it self finds no Commencement of the term by not finding from the Expiration of which term it begins nor find no Rent reserv'd But the demise of 1 Mar. as to them must be made out from the recitals of Deeds not found to be real which is a way of confounding all Verdicts When the Jury say The Mannor of Hooknorton was demis'd à fine prioris dimissionis in Indentura predict mentionat for Ninety years they do not say à fine prioris dimissionis ejusdem Manerii So as if nothing else were the former Indenture mention'd might be of the Vicaridge or any other thing and not at all of the Mannor and yet by the Indenture of 1 Mar. the demise of the Mannor was to Commence from the Expiration of such former demise whatever was demis'd by it But the Indenture of 1 Mar. demiseth all the Premisses contain'd in the first Indenture Habendum from the Expiration of the term Ergo If the Mannor be not compris'd in the first Indenture it cannot be demis'd by 1 Mar. from the Expiration of the first term in the first Indenture But admitting this Who can say the Mannor of Hooknorton is not compris'd in the first Indenture For first What if only part of the first Indenture is recited and not all in the Deed of 1 Mar. and so the Mannor omitted in the recital though it were compris'd in the Indenture of 29 H. 8. and perhaps the Jury might if that Indenture were produc'd to them see it was compris'd in the Indenture though not recited to be so 2. What if the Indenture of 29 H. 8. were mis-recited in 1 Mar. and instead of the Mannor the word Mansion recited 3. It is apparent That the Indenture of 29 H. 8. was not recited nor pretended to be recited verbatim in that of 1 Mar. Because after so much of the Indenture of 29 H. 8. as is recited in that of 1 Mar. it is said as by the said Indenture viz. 29 H. 8. among divers other Covenants and Grants more plainly appeareth So as there were other Grants in the said Indenture of 29 H. 8. than are recited in 1 Mar. and the Grant of the Mannor by name might be one of them 4. How can it appear to us but that the Jury did find the Mannor of Hooknorton to be expresly demis'd by the first Indenture if any thing were demis'd by it If then the Jury did conceive the Mannor of Hooknorton was demis'd by the first recited Indenture as most probably they did When they find That by the Indenture of 1 Mar. the said Mannor was convey'd à fine prioris dimissionis in Indentur praedict mentionat And there are mentioned in the Indenture of 1. Mar. two former demises of the Mannor viz. that of 29 H. 8. for a term of Eighty years and that of 1 E. 6. for a term of Ninety years there is no certain Commencement of the term of 1 Mar. because it is as uncertain from which of the two former demises it takes his Commencement as if ten former demises were mention'd and for different terms and then it could Commence from neither of them But admit it should be taken to Commence from the end of the term of 1 E. 6. and not from the other because in that term if any such were the Mannor is without scruple demis'd yet we must remember the present Question is not of the Mannor but of Two hundred Acres parcel of the Mannor And in the Lease of 1 E. 6. though the Mannor be demis'd yet there is an Exception of certain Lands and Tenements in the Town or Vill of Hooknorton which Croker then held for certain years enduring How doth it appear That the Two hundred Acres in question were not those Lands excepted out of the demise of 1 Mariae For though they were parcel of the Mannor they might be severally demis'd and excepted and though it be found Cok. Litt. 325. a. That at the time of the Demise and at the time of the Trespass the Two hundred Acres were parcel of the Mannor it is not found that they were not part of the Lands in the Vill of Hooknorton at the time of the demise made 1 Mar. then in Lease to Croker and excepted out of the said demise of 1 Mar. for if they were the Plaintiff makes no Title to them If the Issue be 15 Jac. B.R. between Ven◠and Howel whether by Custome of the Mannor a Copyhold is grantable to Three for the Life of Two and it be found that by the Custome it is grantable for Three Lives that is not well found for it is but an Argument Rolls 693. Title Tryal That because a greater Estate may be granted a less may and a new Venire Facias granted because the matter in Fact whereupon the Court was to judge and was the point of
it is said The Rent was granted out of the Twenty Acres being the Locus in quo by the Name of all the Grantors Lands and Hereditaments in King's Norton and that a per nomen in that Case is not good The Case of Grey and Chapman was urg'd 43 Eliz. Cro. f. 822. where by Indenture S. one Prudence Cousin let a House and Twenty Acres of Land by the Name of all her Tenements in S. But it was not alledg'd in what Vill the Acres were The Court was of Opinion in Arrest of Judgment that the naming of the Vill in the per nomen was not material Another Case to the same purpose was urg'd of Gay against Cay where a Grant in possession was pleaded 41 Eliz. Cro. f. 662. pl. 10. and not as in Reversion And upon view of the Record the Grantor had granted Tenementa praedicta per nomen of a Mesuage which A. P. held for life where the per nomen was adjudg'd not to make good the Grant The Court is of Opinion notwithstanding these Cases That in the present Case the per nomen is well enough because it is alledg'd the Grantor was seis'd of Two hundred Acres of Land in Kings Norton whereof the locus in quo being Twenty Acres is parcel By reason whereof the Rent being granted out of every parcel of the Two hundred Acres it is well enough to say it was granted out of the Twenty Acres per nomen of all his Lands in Kings Norton because the Twenty Acres are alledg'd to be parcel of all his Lands there being Two hundred Acres But in Chapman's Case It is not alledg'd that the Twenty Acres of Land demis'd were parcel of all the Tenements in S. per nomen of which the Twenty Acres were to pass As for the second Case of Gay it was not possible that Lands granted as in possession should pass per nomen of Land that was in Reversion The second Exception is Because the Clause of Entry and Distress in the Deed upon Oyer of it differs from the Clause of Entry and Distress alledg'd in the Conizance For in the Conizance it is said It should be lawful to Enter and Distrain if the rent were unpaid and behind after any of the Feasts whereon it was due that is at any Feast that should first happen after the death of Anne or Thomas Greaves for the Rent did not commence before But by the Deed If the Rent were behind at any the Feasts the Entry and Distress is made to be lawful for it during the joynt Lives of Anne and Thomas Greaves the Uncle and during their joynt lives it could not be behind for it commenc'd not till one of them were dead Scarplus Handkinson 37 El. Cro. f. 420. words repugnant and sensless to be rejected So as the sense must run That if the Rent were behind it should be lawful to distrain during the joint Lives of Anne and Thomas Greaves which was before it could be behind for it could not be behind till the death of one of them Therefore those words during their joynt natural lives being insensible ought to be rejected For words of known signification but so placed in the Context of a Deed that they make it repugnant and sensless are to be rejected equally with words of no known signification Judgment pro Defendent The Chief Justice delivered the Opinion of the Court. Trin. 16 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 2487. But Adjudg'd Mich. 20 Car. II. Bedell versus Constable BY the Act of 12 Car. 2. cap. 24. It is among other things Enacted That where any person hath or shall have any Child or Children under the Age of One and twenty years and not married at the time of his death It shall and may be lawful to and for the Father of such Child or Children whether born at the time of the decease of the Father or at that time in ventre sa mere or whether such Father be within the Age of One and twenty years or of full Age by his Deed executed in his life time or by his last Will and Testament in writing in the presence of two or more credible Witnesses to dispose of the custody and tuition of such Child or Children for and during such time as he or they shall respectively remain under the Age of One and twenty years or any lesser time to any person or persons in possession or remainder other than Popish Recusants And such disposition of the Custody of such Child or Children made since the Four and twentieth of February 1645. or hereafter to be made shall be good and effectual against all and every person or persons claiming the custody or tuition of such Child or Children as Guardian in Soccage or otherwise And such person or persons to whom the custody of such Child or Children hath been or shall be so disposed or devised as aforesaid shall and may maintain an Action of Ravishment of Ward or Trespass against any person or persons which shall wrongfully take away or detain such Child or Children for the Recovery of such Child or Children and shall and may recover Damages for the same in the said Action for the use and benefit of such Child or Children And such person or persons to whom the custody of such Child or Children hath been or shall be so disposed or devised shall and may take into his or their custody to the use of such Child or Children the profits of all Lands Tenements and Hereditaments of such Child or Children and also the custody tuition and management of the Goods Chattels and personal Estate of such Child or Children till their respective Age of One and twenty years or any lesser time according to such Disposition aforesaid and may bring such Action or Actions in relation thereto as by Law a Guardian in Common Soccage might do By the Will is devised in these words I do bequeath my son Thomas to my Brother Robert Towray of Rickhall to be his Tutor during his Minority Before this Act Tenant in Soccage of Age might have dispos'd his Land by Deed or last Will in trust for his Heir but not the Custody and Tuition of his Heir for the Law gave that to the next of Kinn to whom the Land could not descend But Tenant in Soccage under Age could not dispose the Custody of his Heir nor devise or demise his Land in trust for him in any manner Now by this Statute he may grant the Custody of his Heir but cannot devise or demise his Land in trust for him for any time directly for if he should the devise or demise were as before the Statute as I conceive which is most observable in this Case I say directly he cannot but by a mean and obliquely he may for nominating who shall have the Custody and for what time by a consequent the Land follows as an incident given by the Law to attend the custody not as an Interest devis'd or demis'd
therefore he shall not assign it A Guardian in Soccage cannot transferr his Custody because it is a personal Trust but the Trust of this special Guardian is more personal therefore that he shall transferr it concludes strangely The Office of a Philizer is an Office of personal Trust to do the business of the Court and not assignable 28 H. 8. f. 7. Dyer no Execution can be upon it Sir George Reynels Case an Office of Trust and Confidence cannot be granted for years because then it might go to persons that is to Executors or Administrators never trusted or confided in So is Littleton expresly That all Offices of Trust Sect. 379. as Steward Constable Bedlary Bailiffwick must be personally occupied unless they be granted to be occupied by a Deputy and are not assignable And a more near or tenderer Trust cannot be than the Custody and Education of a mans Child and Heir and preservation of his Estate It may be said That in these Cases the Law doth particularly appoint the Guardians and therefore no others can be But in the Case at Barr the Father appoints the person not the Law It is true there is a difference in the Cases but not to make the Trust more assignable in the one Case than the other Where the Law appoints who shall be trusted the Trust cannot be refused as in the several Guardians before mentioned But where the Person names the Trustee the Trust may be refused but once accepted it cannot be transfer'd to others more than where the Law names the Trustee An Executor hath a private office of Trust for we speak not of publique and is named by the Testator not by the Law therefore he may refuse but cannot assign his Executorship But it is true an Executor may make an Executor due Circumstances observed who shall discharge the first Testators Trust but the reason is that after Debts paid and Legacies the Surplus of the Goods belongs to the Executor proprio jure An Administrator hath a private Office of Trust he cannot assign nor leave it to his Executor he is not named by the Intestate but by the Law in part for him but not peremptorily he may not claim it if he will because it must pass through the Ordinary A mans Bailiff or Receiver are Offices of personal Trust and not assignable so is the Office of every Servant An Arbitrator or one authorized to sell a mans Land to give Livery or receive it cannot assign it is a personal Confidence 1. A Custody is not in its nature Testamentary it cannot pay Debts nor Legacies nor be distributed as Alms. 2. It is not accomptable for to the Ordinary as Intestates Goods are 3. The Heir ought to have a Guardian without interruption but an Executor may be long before he proves the Will and may at length refuse An Administration long before it be granted and after may be suspended by Appeal and in these times the Ward hath no certain Guardian responsal for his Estate or Person Shopland's C. 3 Jac. Cr. f. 99. And where it may be said That these are naked Authorities and the persons have no Interest but a Guardian hath Interest he may lett and sett the Wards Land during minority Avow in his own name Grant Copy-hold Estates and the like It is an Interest conjoyned with his trust for the Ward I speak not here of equitable trusts without which Interest he could not discharge the trust but it must be an Interest for himself which is transferrable or shall go to his Executor All Executors and Administrators have Interest and Property necessary to their Trusts for they may sell the Goods or Leases of the Testator or Intestate without which they could not execute the Trust A Monk made an Executor might do the like who in his own right could have no Interest or Property But such Interest proves not that the Executors or Administrators may assign their Trust Guardian in Soccage may demise his Guardianship and grant over his Estate N. Br. f. 145. b. Letter H. quod nota or that it shall go to their Executors for it is agreed in that Case of Shopland That such Interest as a Guardian in Soccage hath shall not go to his Executor but is annexed to his Person and therefore not transferrable So as I take the sense of the Act collected in short to be Whereas all Tenures are now Soccage and the next of kinn to whom the Land cannot descend is Guardian until the Heirs Age of Fourteen yet the Father if he will may henceforth nominate the Guardian to his Heir and for any time until the Heirs Age of One and twenty and such Guardian shall have like remedy for the Ward as the Guardian in Soccage by the Common Law hath Another Exposition of this Act hath been offer'd as if the Father did devise his Land by way of Lease during the minority of the Heir to him to whom he gave the Custody in Trust for the Heir and so the Land was assignable over and went to the Executors but follow'd with the Trust 1. This is a forc'd Exposition to carry the Custody to any Stranger to the Father or to the Child or to any that may inherit the Land contrary to the ancient and excellent policy of the Law 2. By such an Exposition the Heir should have no Accompt of such a Lessee as he may against a Guardian but must sue in equity for this Statute gives Actions such as Guardians might have to him who hath the Custody but gives none against him 3. If such Lessee should give the Heirs marriage Coke Litt. f. 896. the Heir hath no Remedy but the Guardian in Soccage shall accompt for what the marriage was worth Stat. Malbridge c. 17. The Statute only saith That such person nominated by the Father may take to his Custody the Profits of all Lands Tenements and Hereditaments of such Child and Children and also the Custody Tuition and Management of the Goods Chattels and personal Estate of such Child or Children And may bring such Action in relation thereto as a Guardian in Soccage might do None of which words will charge him with the value of the Marriage if he had nothing for it Na. Br. f. 139. b Lett. H. 4. If the Heir be in custody of such a Lessee and be Guardian by nearness of kinn to another Infant The Guardian of the Heir by Law is Guardian to both but such a Lessee hath no pretence to be Guardian of the second Infant by any word of the Act For he is neither an Hereditament or Goods or Chattels of the first Infant As to the second part If the Father being of Age should devise his Land to J. S. during the Minority of his Son and Heir in trust for his Heir and for his Maintenance and Education until he be of Age. This is no devising of the Custody within this Statute for he might have done this before
of them constituent parts of the Prebendary or Rectory as the Services are of a Mannor for a total severance of the Services and Demesne destroy the Mannor but a severance of the Tithe or Glebe will not destroy the Rectory more than the severance of a Mannor parcel of the possessions of a Bishoprick will destroy the Bishoprick for the Glebe and the Tithe are but several possessions belonging to the Rectory But it is true that in the Case before us and like Cases a Grant of the Prebendary or of the Rectory una cum terra Glebali decimis de Woolney The Tithe which alone cannot pass without Deed doth pass by Livery of the Rectory Browlow part 2. f. 201. Rowles and Masons Case and so pass that though the Deed mentions the Tithe to be pass'd yet if Livery be not given which must be to pass the Land the Tithe will not pass by the Deed because the intention of the parties is not to pass them severally but una cum and together Therefore the Tithe in such Case must pass in time by the Livery which did not pass without it though granted by the Deed. Yet it is a Question Whether in such Case the Tithe passeth by the Livery or by the Deed For though the passing it by Deed is suspended by reason of the intention to pass the Land and Tithe together and not severally it follows not but that the Tithe passeth by the Deed where Livery is given though not until Livery given If a man be seis'd of a Tenement of Land and likewise of a Tithe and agrees to sell them both and without Deed gives Livery in the Tenement to the Bargainee in name of it and of the Tithe I conceive the Tithe doth not pass by that Livery But a Prebend or Church man cannot now by the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 10. make a Lease of the possessions of his Prebendary without Deed. 13 Eliz. c. 10. A Prebendary or Rectory is in truth neither the Glebe nor Tithe nor both for the one or the other may be recover'd and might at Common Law have been aliened the Rectory remaining But the Rectory is the Church Parochial whereof the Incumbent taketh the Cure and Seisin by his Induction after his Institution which is his Charge and without other Seisin then of the Ring or Key of the Church-door by Induction into the Rectory the Parson is seis'd of all the possessions belonging to his Rectory of what kind soever But though by the name of the Rectory the possessions belonging to it of what nature soever actually vest in the Incumbent upon Induction and may pass from the Prebendary by Livery of the Prebend or Rectory to his Lessee according to the parties intention Yet it follows not That therefore an Occupant who can be Occupant but of some natural and permanent thing as Land is should by being Occupant of that whereof occupancy may be have thereby some other thing heterogene to the nature of Land and not capable of occupancy as a Tithe is being neither appendant or appurtenant or necessary part of that whereof he is Occupant nor will it follow that because by giving Seisin of the Rectory the Tithe and Glebe belonging to it will pass that therefore giving Livery of the Glebe will pass the Tithe For it is observable That if a man be Tenant in tayl of a Mannor to which an Advowson is appendant or of a Tenement to which a Common is belonging and discontinue the Issue in tayl shall never have the Advowson or Common until he hath recontinued the Mannor or Tenement But if a man be seis'd in tayl of a Rectory consisting of Glebe and Tithe and discontinue it after the death of Tenant in tayl the Heir in tayl shall have the Tithe which lay in grant but must recover by Formedon the Rectory and Glebe This was agreed in this Court in a Case between Christopher Baker and Searl in Ejectment Cr. 37 El. f. 407. p. 19. Baker and Searls Case upon a Demise by the Earl of Bedford of the Rectory of D. de decimis inde provenientibus for Lives of three other persons and that Case seems to admit an occupancy of the Tithe the Question being concerning the Tithe only Quest 3 The next Question will be That if Taverner being Occupant of the House and Land shall not have the Tithe whereof Astly was in possession at the time of his death what shall become of this Tithe during the lives of the Cestuy que vies which is the hard question And as to this Question If a Rent be granted to A. for the life of B. and A. dies living B I conceive this Rent to be determined upon the death of A. equally as if granted to him for his own life I say determined because it is not properly extinguish'd nor is it suspended For Extinguishment of a Rent is properly when the Rent is absolutely conveyed to him who hath the Land out of which the Rent issues or the Land is convey'd to him to whom the Rent is granted And Suspension of a Rent is when either the Rent or Land are so convey'd not absolutely and finally but for a certain time after which the Rent will be again reviv'd The Reasons why it is determined are because a thing so granted as none can take by the Grant is a void Grant that is as if no such Grant had been Therefore a Grant to the Bishop of L. and his Successors when there is no Bishop in being at the time or to the Dean and Chapter of Pauls or to the Mayor and Commonalty of such a place when there is no Dean or Mayor living at the time of the Grant is a void Grant that is as if it had not been though such a Grant by way of Remainder may be good By the same Reason it follows That when any thing is so granted that upon some contingent hapning none can take by the Grant nor possibly have the thing granted both the Grant and thing granted must necessarily determine for what difference is there between saying that Rent can no longer be had when it is determined by his death for whose life it was granted and saying none can longer have this Rent when it determines by the death of the Grantee pur auter vie For there is no Assignee Occupant or any other can possibly have it and it is therefore determined In an Action of Trover and Conversion brought by Salter against Boteler Salter versus Boteler 44 El. Cr. 901. the Defendant justifies for that one Robert Bash was seis'd in Fee of Twenty Acres in Stansted and granted a Rent-charge to another Robert Bash his Executors and Assigns during the life of Frances the Grantees Wife of Sixteen pounds per Annum The Grantee dies and Frances his wife takes Letters of Administration and the Defendant as her Servant and by her command took a Distress in the said Twenty Acres for Rent
a House Barns and Tithe of Woolney and thereof seis'd in the right of his Prebendary makes a Lease to Astly of the Prebend una cum the Glebe House Barn and Tithe for Three Lives rendring the accustomed and ancient Rent of Five pounds Twelve shillings Astly demiseth to Taverner the House Glebe and Barn for a year reserving Twenty shillings and dies the Cestuy que vies living As I concluded before Taverner is Occupant of the House Barn and Glebe-land and consequently lyable to pay the whole Rent being Five pounds twelve shillings yearly though the Land House and Barn be found of the yearly value of Twenty shillings only but because the Rent cannot issue out of Tithes or things that lye in Grant it issues only out of the House Barn and Land which may be distrain'd on 2. If Taverner being Occupant of the Land shall not have the Tithes which remain'd in Astly according to his Lease for three Lives at the time of his death and whereof by their nature there can be no direct Occupancy It follows that the Lease made by Doctor Mallory is determin'd as to the Tithe for no other can have them yet continues in force as to the Land and House and all the Rent reserv'd which seems strange the Land and Tithe being granted by the same Demise for three Lives which still continue yet the Lease to be determined as to part 3. Though the Rent issue not out of the Tithe yet the Tithe was as well a Consideration for the payment of the Rent as the Land and Houses were and it seems unreasonable that the Lessor Doctor Mallory should by act in Law have back the greatest Consideration granted for payment of the Rent which is the Tithe and yet have the Rent wholly out of the Land by act in Law too which cannot yield it 4. Though Doctor Mallory could not have reserv'd a Rent out of the Tithe only to bind his Successor upon a Lease for Lives more than out of a Fair though it were as the ancient Rent and had been usually answered for the Fair as is resolv'd in Jewel Bishop of Sarum's Case Jewell's Case 5 Rep. Yet in this Case where the Tithe together with Land out of which Rent could issue was demis'd for the accustomed Rent the Successor could never avoid the Lease either in the whole or as to the Tithe only 13 Eliz. c. 10. This seems clear by the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 10. which saith All Leases made by any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical persons having any Lands Tenements Tithes or Hereditaments parcel of the Possessions of any Spiritual Promotion other than for One and twenty years or three Lives whereupon the accustomed yearly Rent or more shall be reserv'd shall be void Cokes Litt. f. 142. a. f. 144. a. Whence it is apparent this Statute intended that Leases in some sense might be made of Tithes for One and twenty years or Three Lives and an ancient Rent reserv'd but of a bare Tithe only a Rent could not be reserv'd according to Jewell's Case for neither Distress nor Assise can be of such Rent though an Assise may be de Portione Decimarum as is clear by the Lord Dyer 7 E. 6. and the difference rightly stated Therefore a Lease of Tithe and Land out of which a Rent may issue and the accustomed Rent may be reserved must be good within the intention of the Statute or Tithe could in no sense be demis'd 5. Taverner the Lessee being Occupant here by his possession becomes subject to the payment of the Rent to Waste to Forfeiture Conditions and all things that Astly the Lessee or his Assignee if he had made any had been subject to Also Coke's Litt. 41. He must claim by a que Estate from Astly he must averr the Life of Cestuy que vie so as he becomes to all intents an Assignee in Law of the first Lessee 6. Without question the Occupant being chargeable with the Rent shall by Equity have the Tithe which was the principal Consideration for payment of the Rent when no man can have the benefit of the Tithe but the Lessor Doctor Mallory who gave it as a Consideration for the Rent which he must still have Therefore I conceive the Reason of Law here ought necessarily to follow the Reason of Equity and that the Occupant shall have the Tithe not as being immediate Occupant of the Tithe whereof no occupancy can be but when by his possession of the Land he becomes Occupant and the Law casts the Freehold upon him he likewise thereby becomes an Assignee in Law of Astly's Lease and Interest and consequently of the Tithe An ancient Rent reserv'd within the Statute of 1. or 13. of the Queen upon a Lease of One and twenty years or Three Lives is by express intention of that Statute a Rent for publique use and maintenance of Hospitality by Church-men as is resolv'd in Elsemere's Case Elsmers C. 5. Rep. the 5. Rep. and therefore if the Lessee provide not an Assignee to answer the Rent to the Successors of the Lessor for the ends of that Law the Law will do it for him and none fitter to be so than the Occupant in case of a Lease pur auter vie as this is And if the Occupant being Assignee hath pass'd all his Estate and Interest to the Plaintiff hath good cause of Action for the Tithe converted by the Defendant Pasch 22 Car. II. Judgment for the Defendant Three Justices against the Chief Justice Trin. 20 Car. II. C. B. Rot. 2043. Harrison versus Doctor Burwell In a Prohibition for his Marriage with Jane the Relict of Bartholomew Abbot his Great Uncle The Questions are Quest 1 WHether the marriage of Thomas Harrison the Plaintiff with Jane his now wife being the Relict of Bartholomew Abbot his great Vncle that is his Grand-fathers Brother by the Mothers side be a lawful marriage within the Act of 32 H. 8. cap. 38 Quest 2 Admitting it to be a lawful marriage within the meaning of that Act Whether the Kings Temporal Courts are properly Judges of it because the unlawfulness or lawfulness of it by that Act doth depend upon its being a marriage within or without the Levitical Degrees For if within those Degrees it is not a lawful marriage by that Act. And the right knowledge of marriages within or without those Degrees must arise from the right knowledge ot the Scriptures of the Old Testament specially the Interpretation of which hath been and regularly is of Ecclesiastick Conizance and not of Lay or Temporal Conizance in regard of the Language wherein it was writ and the receiv'd Interpretations concerning it in all succession of time Quest 3 Admitting the Kings Temporal Courts have by that Act of 32. or any other special Conizance of the Levitical Degrees and of marriages within them And though this be no marriage within the Levitical Degrees it being articled in general to be an Incestuous marriage
The first is Haynsworths and Prettyes Case Where a man seis'd of Land in Soccage having Issue two Sons and a Daughter devis'd to his youngest Son and Daughter Twenty pounds apiece to be paid by his eldest Son and devis'd his Lands to his eldest Son and his Heirs upon Condition if he paid not those Legacies that his Land should be to his second Son and Daughter and their Heirs The eldest Son fail'd of payment After Argument upon a Special Verdict It was resolv'd by the Court clearly That the second Son and Daughter should have the Land 1. For that the devise to his Son and his Heir in Fee Hill 41. El. Cr. 833. a. being no other then what the Law gave him was void 2. That it was a future devise to the second Son and Daughter upon the contingent of the eldest Sons default of payment 3. That it was no more in effect than if he had devis'd That if his eldest Son did not pay all Legacies that his land should be to the Legatories and there was no doubt in that Case but the land in default of payment should vest in them Which Case in the reason of law differs not from the present Case where the land is devis'd by devise future and executory to the Nephew upon a contingent to happen by the Testators Son and Daughters having no issue 18 Jac. Pell Browns C. Cro. f. 590. The second Case is that of Pell and Brown the Father being seis'd of certain land having Issue William his eldest Son Thomas and Richard Brown devis'd the land to Thomas and his Heirs for ever and if Thomas died without Issue living William then William should have the lands to him his Heirs and Assigns 1. This was adjudg'd an Estate in Fee-simple in Thomas 2. That William by way of Executory devise had an Estate in Fee-simple in possibility if Thomas died without Issue before him And it being once clear That the Estate of Thomas was a Fee-simple determinable upon a contingent and not an Estate tayl and so in the present case it being clear'd that George the Testators Son had the land descended to him in Fee from the Testator and took no Estate tayl expresly or by implication from the Will it will not be material whether the Contingent which shall determine that Fee-simple proceeds from the person which hath such determinable Fee or from another or partly from him and partly from another as in Haynsworth's Case the Son determined his Fee-simple by not paying the Legacies in Pell and Brown's Case Thomas his Fee-simple determined by his dying without Issue living William the Fee-simple vested in George the Son by descent determines when he and his two Sisters dye without Issue and upon such determination in every of these Cases the future and executory devise must take effect But the great Objection is That if this should be an executory devise to the Nephew upon the contingent of George the Son and both his Sisters dying without Issue It will be dangerous to introduce a new way of perpetuity for if a man have several Children and shall permit his Estate to descend or by his Will devise it to his Heir so as he may therein have an unquestionable Fee-simple which is the same with permitting it to descend he may then devise it futurely when all his Children shall dye without Issue of their bodies to J. S. and his Heirs as long as A. B. and C. strangers shall have any Heirs of their bodies living and then to a third person by like future devise For if he should devise it futurely to J. S. and his Heirs as long as J. S. had any Heirs of his body it were a clear Estate tayl in J. S. upon which no future devise could be but it would be a Remainder to be docked This Objection was in some measure made by Doderidge in Pell and Browns Case and the Iudges said there was no danger Vid. Stiles Rep. Gay Gaps Case 258 275. because the Estate in Fee of Thomas did not determine by his dying without Heir of his body generally but by dying without Issue living William for if the land had been given to Thomas and his Heirs for ever and if he died without Heirs of his body then to William and his Heirs Thomas his Estate had been judg'd an Estate tayl with the Remainder to William and not a Fee upon which no future or executory devise can be So was it adjudg'd in Foy and Hinds Case 22 Jac. Cr. f. 695. 6. and anciently 37 Ass p. 18. 5. H. 5. f. 6. and to be within the reason of Mildmay and Corbets Case of Perpetuities But in Pell and Browns Case the Iudges said it was more dangerous to destroy future devises than to admit of such Perpetuities as could follow from them any way by determinable Fee-simples which is true for a Fee simple determinable upon a contingent is a Fee-simple to all intents but not so durable as absolute Fee-simples And all Fee-simples are unequally durable for one will escheat sooner than another by the failer of Heirs An Estate of Fee-simple will determine in a Bastard with his life if he want Issue An Estate to a man and his Heirs as long as John Stiles hath any Heir which is no absolute Fee-simple is doubtless as durable as the Estate in Fee which John Stiles hath to him and his Heirs which is an absolute Fee-simple Nor do I know any Law simply against a Perpetuity but against Intails of Perpetuity for every Fee-simple is a perpetuity but in the accident of Alienation and Alienation is an incident to a Fee-simple determinable upon a contingent as to any more absolute or more perdurable Fee-simple The Chief Justice Justice Archer and Justice Wylde for the Defendant Justice Tyrrell for the Plaintiff Judgment for the Defendant Hill 21 22 Car. II. C. B. Craw versus Ramsey Philip Craw is Plaintiff and John Ramsey Defendant In an Action of Trespass and Ejectment THE Plaintiff declares That Lionel Tolmach Baronet and Humphrey Weld Esquire January the Twentieth the Sixteenth of the King demis'd to the Plaintiff the Mannor of Kingston with the appurtenances in the County of Surrey one Messuage two Barns one Dove-house two Gardens eighty Acres of Land and ten Acres of Meadow with the appurtenances in Kingston aforesaid and other places and also the Rectory of Kingston aforesaid To have and to hold to the said Philip and his Assignes from the Feast of the Nativity last past for five years next ensuing By virtue whereof he entred into the Premisses and was possessed until the Defendant the said Twentieth of January in the Sixteenth year of the King entred upon him and Ejected him with force to his Damage of Forty pounds To this the Defendant pleads he is not Culpable Vpon a Special Verdict it appear'd That Robert Ramsey Alien Antenatus had Issue 1. Robert 2. Nicholas 3. John 4. George Antenatos
the first Cestuy que use nor his Heir the last Cestuy que use in the Case could nor can have any benefit of this warranty because William the first Cestuy que use nor his Heir could not nor can warrant to himself but as to William and his Heirs the warranty is clearly extinct The Argument And as to the first Question I conceive the Law to be that the warranty of William the Tenant in tayl descending upon Elizabeth and Sarah the Demandants his Heirs at Law is no barr in the Formedon in Reverter brought by them as Heirs to William their Grandfather the Donor though it be a Collateral warranty I know it is the perswasion of many professing the Law That by the Statute of Westminster the second De donis conditionalibus the Lineal warranty of Tenant in tayl shall be no barr in a Formedon in the Descender but that the Collateral warranty of Tenant in tayl is at large as at the Common Law unrestrain'd by that Statute Sir Edward Coke in his Comment upon Section 712. Sect. 712. of Littleton A lineal warranty doth not bind the right of an Estate tayl for that it is restrain'd by the Statute de donis Conditionalibus And immediately follows A lineal warranty and assets is a barr of the right in tayl and is not restrain'd But the reason why the warranty of Tenant in tayl with Assets binds the right of the Estate tayl is in no respect from the Statute de donis but is by the Equity of the Statute of Glocester by which the warranty of Tenant by the Courtesie barrs not the Heir for the Lands of his Mother if the Father leave not Assets to descend in recompence And therefore it was conceived after the Statute de donis was made That if Tenant in tayl left Assets to descend in Fee-simple his warranty should bind the right of the Issue in tayl by the equity of that preceding Statute of Glocester Whereas if the Statute of Glocester had not been the Lineal warranty of Tenant in tayl had no more bound the right of the Estate tayl by the Statute de donis with Assets descending than it doth without Assets For the better clearing therefore of the Law in the Case in question I shall preparatorily assert some few things and clear what I so assert without which the truth of the Conclusion I hold will not appear so naked to the Hearers as it should Ass 1. The first is That at the Common Law the distinction of a lineal and collateral warranty was useless and unknown For though what we now call a Collateral and a lineal warranty might be in speculation and notionable at the Common Law as at this day a Male warranty or a Female warranty may be yet as to any effect in Law there was no difference between a Lineal warranty and a Collateral but the warranty of the Ancestor descending upon the Heir be it the one or the other did equally bind And this as it is evident in it self so is it by Littleton whose words are Litt. Sect. 697. Before the Statute of Glocester all warranties which descended to them who are Heirs to those who made the warranties were barrs to the same Heirs to demand any Lands or Tenements against the warranties except the warranties which commence by disseisin Therefore if a Question had been at the Common Law only Whether in some particular Case the Ancestors warranty had bound the Heir It had been a sensless Answer to say it did or did not because the warranty was Lineal or Collateral for those warranties were not defined at the Common Law nor of use to be defined But the proper Answer had been That the warranty did bind the Heir because it commenc'd not by disseisin for every warranty of the Ancestor but such descending upon the Heir did bind him So if after the Statute of Glocester Tenant by the Courtesie had aliened with warranty had it been demanded if the Heir were barr'd by that warranty it had been an absurd Answer That he was not because it was a Collateral warranty of his Father without Assets For all Collateral warranties of the Father were not restrained but his warranty in that Case which could be no other than Collateral was restrained by the Statute Therefore The adequate Answer had been That the Fathers warranty bound not in that Case without Assets because the Statute of Glocester had so restrained it My second Assertion is Ass 2. That the Statute de Donis restrains not the warranty of Tenant in tayl from barring him in the Remainder in tayl by his warranty descending upon him 1. For that the mischief complained of and remedied by the Statute is That in omnibus praedictis casibus therein recited post prolem suscitatam habuerunt illi quibus Tenementum sic conditionaliter datum fuit hucusque potestatem alienandi Tenementum sic datum exhaeredandi exitum eorum contra voluntatem Donatoris But the warranty of the Donee in tayl descending upon him in the Remainder who regularly claims by purchase from the Donor and not by descent from the Donee in tayl could be no disinheriting of the Issue of the Donee claiming by descent from him against which disinheriting only the Statute provides which is evident by the Writ of Formedon in the Descender framed by the Statute in behalf of such Issue of the Donee whom the Statute intends 2. The Statute did not provide against Inconveniences or Mischiefs which were not at the time of making the Statute but against those which were But at the making of it there could be no Remainder in tayl because all Estates which are Estates tayl since the Statute were Fee-simples Conditional before the Statute upon which a Remainder could not be limited So is Sir Edward Coke in his Comment upon the Statute de Donis The Formedon in Reverter did lye at Common Law Cok. part 2. f. 336. but not a Formedon in Remainder upon an Estate tayl because it was a Fee-simple Conditional whereupon no Remainder could be limited at Common Law but after the Statute it may be limited upon an Estate tayl in respect of the Division of the Estates 3. The Statute formed a Writ of Formedon in the Descender for the new Estate tayl created by the Statute and mentions a Formedon in the Reverter as already known in the Chancery for the Donor for whom the Statute likewise intended to provide but formed or mentioned none for the Remainder in tayl And the Cases are common in Littleton Litt. Sect. 716 718 719. and in many other Books that the warranty of Donee in tayl is Collateral to him in the Remainder in tayl and binds as at the Common Law But thence to conclude That therefore the warranty of the Donee in tayl shall barr the Donor of his Reversion because it is a Collateral warranty also is a gross Non sequitur for the Donees warranty doth not therefore barr
then Vous saves bien que de ley cestuy que demand per Formedon in Reverter ne serra barr per le garranty cestuy à que les Tenements fuerunt done in tayl sil ne eyt per descent tout soit il heire à luy le quel Roy ad per descent ou non ne poiomus enquire And on this Case Sir Edward Coke makes an Observation That the King was not bound by a Collateral warranty for the Reversion of an Estate in tayl no more is any other Donor by that Case So as Sir William Herle's Iudgment who was then Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in three several years and several Cases was directly contrary to what Finchden 41 E. 3. said it was upon Report Besides the contrary of what my Brother Ellis urg'd from this Case may be thus inferr'd out of it This Case admits that the Statute restrains the warranty of the Donee from barring some Donor viz. a Donor stranger in blood as was said for it restrains Alienation without warranty against all Donors but the Statute did not restrain the Donees warranty from barring such a Donor for his warranty could never descend upon a stranger and the Statute did not restrain a thing which could not be Therefore ex concesso the Statute restrained the Donees warranty from barring the Donor of blood to the Donee 7 E. 3. 34. p. 44. 5. The fifth Objection was a Case 7 E. 3. that Tenant in tayl made a Feoffment in Fee and died issuless and the Feoffee rebutted the Donor by the warranty This Case rightly understood is not to the purpose for the Donor was not rebutted by the warranty of Tenant in tayl which is the present question but by the Donors own warranty The Case was That A. gave Land to W. and E. his wife Habendum praedictis W. E. haeredibus inter se legitime procreatis and warranted those Tenements to the said W. E. haeredibus eorum seu assignatis The Heir in tayl made a Feoffment in Fee and died leaving no Issue inheritable and the Donor was rebutted in his Formedon in Reverter by his own warranty having warranted to the Donee his Heirs and Assigns and the Feoffee claimed as Assignee And it was adjudg'd against the Donor after in the same year as appears 46 E. 3. f. 4. b. and there admitted good Law 46 E. 3. f. 4. b. But Sir Edward Coke denies this Case to be Law now saying That the warranty determined with the Estate tayl to which it was first annexed and doubtless it did so as to Voucher but whether as to Rebutter of the Donor the party rebutting having the Land though another Estate in it and deriving the warranty to himself as Assignee is not clear 6. A sixt Objection was made from a Case 27 E. 3. f. 83. of a Formedon in Reverter brought 27 E. 3. f. 83. pl. 42. and the Deed of Tenant in tayl Ancestor to the Demandant shewed forth but the Book mentions no warranty but it is like it was a Deed with warranty and the Plaintiff durst not demurr but traversed the Deed as any would avoid demurring upon the validity of an Ancestor's Deed when he was secure there was no such Deed of the Ancestor 7. 4 E. 3. f. 56. pl. 58. The last Objection was a Case 4 E. 3. f. 56. p. 58. where Tenant in tayl made a Feoffment with warranty and the warranty descended upon him in the Remainder in tayl which barr'd him which is a Case agreed as before For the Statute of Westminster the second provides not at all for hâ—m in Remainder but as to him Tenant in tayls warranty is left as at Common Law In 4 E. 3. a Formedon in the Descender was brought by the Issue in tayl and the Release of his elder Brother 4 E. 3. f. 28. pl. 57. with warranty was pleaded by the Tenant Stoner who gave the Rule in the Case Le statute restraynes le power del Issue in tayl to alien in prejudice of him in the Reversion by express words and à Fortiori the power of the Issue in tayl is restrain'd to alien in prejudice of the Issue in tayl Whereupon the Tenant was rul'd to answer and pleaded Assets descended Here it was admitted 10 E. 3. f. 14 pl. 53. the Issue in tayl could not alien with warranty in prejudice of the Reversioner And in 10 E. 3. soon after a Formedon in Reverter being brought and the warranty of Tenant in tayl pleaded in barr Scot alledg'd the restraint of the Statute as well for the Reversioner as for those claiming by descent in tayl The same Stoner demanding if the Ancestor's Deed was acknowledg'd and answered it was His Rule was That the Iudgment must be the same for the Reversioner as for the Issue in these words Ore est tout sur un Judgment which can have no other meaning considering Scot's words immediately before that the Law was the same for the Reversioner as for the Issue in tayl and Stoner's Opinion in the Case before to the same effect 4 E. 3. Objections from Modern Reports Moore f. 96. pl. 239. In Moore 's Reports this Case is A man seis'd of Land having Issue two Sons devis'd it to his youngest Son in tayl and the eldest Son died leaving Issue a Son the youngest aliened in Fee with warranty and died without Issue the Son of the eldest being within age If this Collateral warranty shall bind the Son within age without Assets notwithstanding the Statute of Westminster the second was the question And the Opinions of Plowden Bromley Solicitor Manwood and Lovelace Serjeants and of the Lord Dyer and Catlin Chief Iustice were clear That it is a Collateral warranty and without Assets did barr notwithstanding his Nonage for that his Entry was taken away And this was the Case of one Evans 12 13 of the Queen as it was reported to me This Opinion makes against me I confess but give it this Answer 1. This Case is not reported by Sir Francis Moore but reported to him non constat in what manner nor by whom 2. It was no Judicial Opinion for Plowden Bromley Solicitor two Serjeants Manwood and Lovelace are named for it as well as Dyer and Catlin who were then Chief Iustices of the several Courts which proves the Opinion not only extra-judicial but not given in any Court 3. The motive of their Opinion was because the warranty was Collateral which is no true reason of the binding or not of any warranty 4. An extra-judicial Opinion given in or out of Court is no more than the Prolatum or saying of him who gives it nor can be taken for his Opinion unless every thing spoken at pleasure must pass as the speakers Opinion 5. An Opinion given in Court if not necessary to the Judgment given of Record but that it might have been as well given if no such or a contrary Opinion had
the Lords of Wales if it be not of Lands between the Lords themselves There is an ancient Book remarkable to the same purpose 8 E. 3. Term. Mich. 59. speaking of the Common Pleas This Court hath more Conuzance of Pleas of the Welch Shires than it hath of Pleas of the County of Chester for the Pleas of Quare Impedits and of Lands and Tenements held of the King in chief in Wales shall be pleaded here and they shall not be so of the County of Chester Fitz. Jurisdiction p. 34. 6 H. 5. Land in Wales immediately held of the King is pleadable in England per Haukford 6 H. 5. no such Book at large The Law and doubtless the Ordinance made by Parliament mentioned in 18 E. 2. concerning Lordships Marchers was the same concerning Land held in chief of the King and are mentioned in the Books as synonimous and were so for all Lordships Marchers were held from the Crown in chief nor could the King probably have other Lands in chief in Wales beside the Lordships Marchers for all was either of Lordships Marchers or Lands belonging to the Principality and held from it and not from the Crown in chief To this purpose there is an ancient Statute 28 E. 3. very convincing 28 E. 3. c. 2. All the Lords of the Marches of Wales shall be perpetually Attendants and annexed to the Crown of England as they and their Ancestors have been at all times before this in whose hands soever the same principality be or shall come And they being no part of the Principality and consequently not under the Statute and Ordinance of Wales 12 E. 1. It was provided by a Law That they should be impleaded in England and the Summons and Tryal to be by the Sheriff of and in the next adjoyning County Accordingly you find the practice was by many ancient Cases remembred but the Year-Books of E. 2 being never printed wherein only that Statute is mentioned otherwise than in Fitz-herbert's Abridgment and the Statute it self not extant gave occasion to men obiter in the time of H. 6. H. 7. long after to say that such impleading for matters arising in Wales in the Courts of England and the Tryals to be in the adjacent Counties because they knew not it came to pass by Act of Parliament was by the Common Law on which had they reflected with seriousness they had found it impossible For that Tryals concerning Lands in Wales quatenus particularly Wales after it became of the Dominion of England should by the Common Law be differing from other Tryals in England and in the adjacent Counties could not possibly be for Wales was made of the Dominion of England within time of memory viz. 12 E. 1. and whatever Tryal was at Common Law must be beyond all memory Therefore no such Tryal for Land in Wales particularly could be by the Common Law It remains then That if such were at Common Law it must be for Lands in all Dominions of the Acquisition of England consequently for Ireland Garnsey and Jersey Gascoign Guyen Calais Tournay as well as Wales but it was never in practice or pretence that any such Tryals should be for any Land in these places Therefore it is evident That it was and it could be no otherwise than by Act of Parliament that Wales differed from the other Dominions belonging to England in these Tryals Nor was it by any new Law made by E. 1. or any his Successors by the Clause in the end of the Statute of Rutland which hath nevâ—r been pretended For by that Clause power was given to change Laws simply for Wales but this way of Tryals changes the Law of England in order to Tryals for Land in Wales which that Clause neither doth nor could warrant Besides this new way of Tryals concerning Lordships Marchers held in chief from the King the Books are full that in Quare Impedits for disturbance to Churches in Wales the Summons and Tryal must be by the Sheriff of and in the adjacent Counties which is often affirmed and agitated in the Books but with as much confusion and as little clearness as the other concerning Land To this purpose is the Case before 8 E. 3. the Pleas of Quare Impedits 8 E. 3. 59. and of Land and Tenements held in chief of the King in Wales shall be pleaded there A Quare Impedit brought by the King against an Abbot 15 E. 3. Fitz. Jurisdiction p. 24. exception taken that the Church was in Wales where the Kings Writ runs not non allocatur for the King was party by the Book as a reason A Quare impedit cannot be brought in Wales 11 H. 6. f. 3. A B. because a Writ to the Bishop cannot be awarded for they will not obey it and so was the Opinion in that Case of Danby Morton and Newton that Quare Impedits for Churches in Wales must be brought only in the Kings Courts and the Opinion is there that the Prince could not direct a Writ to the Bishops in Wales upon Quare Impedits there brought So is the Book of 30 H. 6. of Churches in Wales 30 H. 6. f. 6. B. a Quare Impedit shall be brought in England the Case was cited before concerning Tryals of Lands in Wales A Quare Impedit was brought in the County of Hereford of a disturbance in Wales to present to a Church 35 H. 6. f. 30. A B. exception was taken by Littleton only to this that the Plaintiff did not shew in his Count or Writ that Hereford was the next adjoyning County but by the Book it was well enough for if Hereford were not the next adjoyning County the Defendant might shew it but no exception was taken to the bringing of the Writ into the County of Hereford if it were the next County 36 H 6. f. 33. A B. Quare Impedits shall be brought here of Churches in Wales and shall be sued in the Counties adjoyning for that the Justices read it Bishops will not obey any man there If a Quare Impedit be brought here of a Church in Wales it shall be tryed in the County adjoyning The reason there given is the same as in many other Books Car nous avomus power ad escrier al Evesque mes ils voylont parront ceo disobeyer It is manifestly mis-printed Car nous navomus power ad escrier al Evesque mes ils voylont parront ceo disobeyer which is not sense By these Books and many other it is clear Quare Impedits were formerly brought in England for Churches in Wales as real Writs were for Land and the Tryal was in the next adjoyning English County But as those Tryals for Land were only for Lordships Marchers held of the King in chief or part of them and that by special Act of Parliament as hath been opened So the Quare Impedits brought in England and Tryals there had upon them were not for all Churches in Wales