to the Sheriff for his appearance and therefore it was prayed that the party arrested might be discharged and that the bond given to the Sherif might be delivered up Roll the chief Iustice answered Endict the Bailies that made the Arrest or bring your Action against them if you please Discharge for we will not discharge the party arrested Bois against Cranfield Mich. 1650. Banc. sup rot Q. BOis as Executor to another brought an Action of Debt upon divers Obligations made to his Testator Debt upon divers Obligations by an Execution The Defendant pleaded that he did pay a lesser sum than is expressed in the Obligations to the Testator during his life and that he did accept there of in full satisfaction of the said Obligations To this plea the Plaintif demurred Roll Chief Iustice upon opening the matter said that the question here is whether the payment or the acceptance of the money paid in satisfaction be to be traversed And he held it was indifferent to traverse either of them Traverse but he said it was more proper to joyn issue upon the payment but the Court would advise It was then also said that if one pay money in satisfaction of an Obligation and the party to whom it is paid saith that he will receive it for another cause Satisfaction payment yet if he receive it it shall be judged to be paid in satisfaction of the Obligation for he must receive it upon such terms as the other will pay it Brian against Stone Mich. 1650. Banc. sup STone moves the Court for an Attachment against Brian and others For an Attachment for that he was arrested by a Latitat out of this Court in the County of Wilts and thence carried into the Town of Malborow and there arrested by a Serjeant of that Town by a writ out of that Corporation and the Plaintif procéeds there against him upon that writ and not upon the latitat by which he was first arrested which is a contempt to this Court. Attachment Habeas Corpus cum causa The Court ruled the party should have an Attachment nisi c. and also should have a Habeas Corpus cum causa Mich. 1650. Banc. sup THe Recorder of London moved for the Inhabitants of Bishopsgate against one Withringes For the setting a moderate fine upon one that submitted to a fine who for refusing to serve upon the Ward mote Enquest was indicted for his refusal in London and convicted and fined 20 l. the Defendant being committed for not paying his fine removed himself hither by a Habeas Corpus but now hath submitted himself to a fine it was therefore prayed he may be moderately fined here The Court thereupon fined him 20 l. Beal against VVyman Mich. 1650. Banc. sup Trin. 1649. rot 849. VPon these words of a will Question upon words of a Will viz. I give and bequeath one half of my lands to my wife after her death I give all my lands to the heirs males of any of my Sons or next of Kin Latch made these questions in the Case 1. Whether there were a good estate created by these words of the will 2ly Whether the estate were destroyed by the fine levied of the lands For the 1. he held that the heirs males of any of his Sons are words certain enough to create an estate for it is all one as if he had said to the heirs males of all his sons if they have heirs males or to those who have heirs males and the words or to the next of Kin are also certain enough being joyned with the precedent words and shall be meant to the next of Kin and their heirs males if his sons have no heirs males For in a Win if there be words to express the meaning of the Testator it is sufficient enough though the words be not apt And he cited 21 Rich. 2. Devise 27. and 8 Rep. 46 and said that the case in 30 Ass pl. 47. is the same with this in terminis And here is no contingent remainder but only a contingent devise there is no necessity for a particular estate to support it for it ariseth out of the estate of the Devisor yet if there were néed of a particular estate here to support the remainder here is a particular estate in the wife who by implication of the will doth take all the land during her life as it is 13 H. 7.29 H. 8. Br. Devise 48. Trin. 3 Ed. 6. Bendloes Plow Com. 521. Whelpdales case Pasch 25 Eliz Com. Ban. To the 2 point he spake not holding it not material Hales of Councel on the other side held that the wife had not an estate for life in all the land by implication of the will but only an estate for life in a moyety of the land and so there is no particular estate to support the contingent remainder which he held was in this case that it is not a contingent Devise as Latch urged for the remainder here depends by way of remainder and not as a contingent Devise And he held the Devise it self to be void admitting all the precedent matter alleged to be true 1. Because the devise is uncertain for the intent of the deviser doth not appear for it appears not what heir male shall have the land whether the heir male of his son or the heir male of his next of Kin for the words are disjunctive 41 42 Eliz. Com. Banc. in the Case of Tayler Sawyer land devised to a Mans Issue was adjudged a void devise for the incertainty of it And he held that the intent was that the heir male of his son should inherit before the heir male of the next of Kin otherwise the further off of Kin should have the land before the nearer of Kin. And he said that Hill 2. Car. Rot. 1288. Com. Banc. in Hunt and Fishers case the case at the Bar was adjudged in point Roll chief Iustice said That the intention of the Testator here is coeca sicca Intention and senceless and cannot be known Will. and we ought not to frame a sence upon the words of a Will where we cannot find out the Testators meaning Ierman Iustice held that the devise was not void but that the words are to be interpreted as they may stand with Law and as the words will bear Nicholas Iustice prima facie that the devise is void but yet it is questionable Ask Justice to the same intent Roll chief Iustice said that there is too much way usually given to ambiguous devises But let it be argued again the next Term. Parker against Cook Mich. 1650. Banc. sup Hill 23 Car. rot 660. THe Action was an Action of Trespass quare Clausum fregit Upon a Demurrer the question was whether a Copyhold were forfeited or not The Defendant pleaded a special plea of justification viz. That the Plaintif was a Copyholder to his Manor and that for
words of a will which were these I give all my free lands wheresoever to my Brother Iohn Sanders and his heirs upon condition that he suffer my wife to enjoy all my Freelands in Holford for life the Testator having only a portion of tithes of inheritance in Holford and no lands The question here was whether this portion of tithes shall be accompted free lands within the intent of the will and so the wife be to have them during her life Twisden held the tithes were not devised by the will to the Feme for if I devise my fee-simple lands to Iohn a Stile and his heirs tithes do not pass by this devise for tithes are a collateral thing arising out of land and not part of the land it self 42 Ed. 3. f. 13. 10 Iac. Moyle and Ewers case 31 Eliz. Perkins and Hyndes case In the will here they pass not for there are no words in the will to devise them nor can the words he so expounded and here are other lands devised to satisfie the words of the will A term for years hath more relation to land than tithes and a term could not have passed by the words of the will Next the second Clause doth not pass the tithes for there is no such thing as is expressed in it but if it should pass to the wise by implication yet it cannot pass to Iohn Sanders the Brother for there are neither expresse words nor any implication to devise this portion of tithes to him but the contrary rather is to be collected from the Will Wadham Windham on the other side answered that the Testator calls the tithes in Holford his free lands It is true generally that by the devise of lands tithes do not pass but in a will by the intent of the Devisor they may pass and the word land includes all real things in common intention and legal construction as Lutrels Case is 1 Mar. Bro. Tit. Elegit An Elegit may be of a rent and tithes have a nearer relation to land than rent have 2ly Here is an apparent intention to devise the tithes for he explains his meaning in his second clause of the Will that he intends tithes by the word lands 44 Eliz. Com. Banc. Gery against Gery the question there was what passed by the word rents whether lands passed The words were as to all my lands in Dale I devise my rents c. and here the matter comes in by a Proviso which enlarges the matter Trin. 3 Iac. Fitz. Williams case One devised all his goods Iewels and Plate excepting his lease in C There it was adjudged that all his other Leases passed 4 Ed. â— Br. grants 51. Another circumstance in the Will enforceth this construction viz. the word wheresoever which word expresseth the intent of the Devisor to be so otherwise that word will be idle and to no purpose Hob. rep Stukely and Butlers case It may also appear out of the body of the Will for it appears thereby that his Daughter was provided for in his will by his personal estateâ— and that the intention was to dispose of his lands to the Heir and his Copyhold lands which he had in Holford were surrendred at the time of the making of the Will and so the devise cannot refer to them and besides this is called free lands which distinguisheth them from Copyhold lands and so he prayed judgement for the Plaintif Roll chief Iustice There is a Condition annexed to the Devise Condition that his wife shall enjoy this land though the words in the Will are not very proper to erpress it but we must consider them as used in a Will not in a conveyance Nicholas Iustice said the Devisor himself calls them free-holds and this distinguisheth them from Copyhold lands Adjourned till Saturday following to be argued again Dowse against Masters Pasc 1651. Banc. sup DOwse brought an Action of Debt upon an Indebitatus Assumpsit against Masters for five pound Demurrer to a plea in Debt upon Indebitatus assumpsit in which the Defendant pleaded that he did deliver bils to the Plaintif to the value of 6 l. in which the Plaintif was indebted to him which bills the Plaintif did accept in full satisfaction the Plaintif replyed protestando that he was not indebted to the Defendant that he did not receive bills to the value of 6 l. in satisfaction Vpon this a Demurrer was joyned Roll chief Iustice said Plea the Plea of the Defendant is ill for he doth not say that he delivered the Bills in full satisfaction but that the Plaintif received them in full satisfaction which is not good for the Plaintifs receiving of the Bills must be as they were delivered and not other ways and that is not expressed Therefore let the Plaintif take his judgement nisi c. Ross against Lawrence Pasch 1651. Banc. sup ROss brought an Action of the Case against Lawrence for speaking these Welch words of him viz. Dedingues Will Rols in mudon Arrest of Iudgement in an Action upon the case for Welch words Englished which are in English William Ross hath forsworn himself upon Issue joyned and a verdict for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable as they are rendred in English and so the Action lies not Roll chief Iustice If the words sound in Welch that the Plaintif was perjured yet if the Plaintif do English them in English which doth not amount to perjury it is ill Case and an action will not lie for them Therefore let judgement be stayed Peck against Ingram Pasch 1651. Banc. sup PEck brought an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit and declares Arrest of Judgement in an action upon the case upon an Assumpsit that the Defendant in consideration that she the Plaintif would leave her Fathers house and come to the House of the Defendant in such a place did assume and promise unto her that he would mary her and that thereupon she did leave her Fathers House and did come to the Defendants House et obtulit se in maritagium conjungi and because he had not performed his promise Actio accrevit Vpon issue joyned and a verdict found for the Plaintif the Defendant moved in Arrest of Iudgement and took Exceptions that the Plaintif did not shew in her Declaration when she left her Fathers House and came to the Defendants house nor that she gave him any notice thereof Wild moved for judgement notwithstanding the Exceptions for he said though it be not expresly said that she gave the Defendant notice when she came to his House yet it is said quod obtulit se in maritagium conjungi which implies the Defendant had notice and besides here is no need of notice for the Assumpsit is that if she will come to the Defendants house he will marry her and it is not said that when she comes he will marry her so that he is bound by
one as if the party had appeared for if he had appeared the Case would have béen otherwise So Iudgement was given for the Plaintif nisi c. Pasch 1652. Banc. sup MEmorandum One brought by Habeas Corpus from the Fleet remaâ—â—ed One was brought into the Court by the Mareschall of the Fléet by vertue of a habeas Corpus directed to him out of this Court and because it did appear upon Record that the party was charged with divers debts when he was turned over to the Fleet he was not suffered to put in Bail here but was remanded Gossage against Tayler Pasch 1652. Banc. sup Hill 1650. rot 117. IN an Ejectione firmae upon a Lease for years of a Messuage Special verdict in Trespass and Ejectrueâ—â— and certain lands in Hatfield Broad-Oak in the County of Essex upon a special verdict found the case fell out to be this Rich. Frank seised amongst other lands and Tenements of the Messuage and lands in question upon the mariage of his Son Leventhorp Frank with Susan Cotele levies a fine of the lands to the use of himself during his own life and the life of Leventhorp his Son and after during the life of Susanna Cotele the wife of Leventhorp the remainder to the use of the heirs to be begotten upon the body of Susanna by Leventhorp her Husband The question here was whether the word heirs shall be intended the heirs of Leventhorp and Susanna his wife or whether the estate shall be intended to be limited to the heirs of Susanna only and that Leventhorp shall have barely an estate for life in the lands Serjeant Glyn of Councel with the Plaintif held That Susanna Cotele hath an estate tayl executed in the lands and that the word heirs shall relate only to the heirs of Susanna and not to the heirs of Leventhorp 1. Because that here is an estate limited for life unto Susanna by an express limitation and her heirs shall take immediately after the estate for life ended and they shall not come in as purchasors By express Terms the word heirs is not limited to any person but it is left to the construction of the Law and that doth apply it to Susanna as to a person to whom Richard that setled the lands hath expressed most affection as appears by the Deed Lit. f. 6. Sect. 28. There is an expression of the party to whom the word heirs shall relate but so is not here and therefore the cases differ In 3 Ed. 3. f. 31 32. It is ruled that both parties have an estate tayl because the estate is limited to both but so it is not in our case so those books are not against me In our case it doth not appear that Richard did intend to advance the Husband of Susanna and therefore it is not reason that the word heirs should relate to him but to Susanna his wife only for in case of limitation of estates the intention of the party is to be considered and doth direct the matter and the preceding limiting of the estate to Susanna and not to Leventhorp doth shew that the party did mean to promote the heirs of Susanna Lit. Sect. 27. Dyer 27. A second reason is drawn from the penning of the déed which in the limitation of it doth encline more that the word heirs should be applyed to Susanna than to Leventhorp for the words upon her is as much as to say of her and then it is the same case with Littletons case 3ly The Intention of the Donor appears to be such by the circumstances of the entire limitations which do shew that he did intend that Leventhorp should not have such an estate whereby it should be in his power to deprive his issue and therefore the word heirs are to be applyed to Susanna and not to Leventhorp for if it should be applyed to both then Leventhorp might destroy the estate of the issue contrary to the Donors intent And whereas Dyer 99 is objected against me I answer that case is not against me for there the word heirs is expresly limited to a certain person viz. to the heirs of the body of both of them but so it is not in our case and whereas Hill 13 Iac. Lane and Panels case in this Court is also objected against me I answer that that case is in effect the same case with Dyer and the question in our case came not in dispute And the will of the Donor in deeds is to be ohserved Lit. 22. C. Tayl. 1. rep Shelleys case 103. 〈◊〉 Notwithstanding in gifts in tayl this rule holds not so that a gift in tayl may be limsted contrary to the rule of the Common Law And I know not of any authority in print or writing against me but in 13 Ed. 3. Fitz. tit variance 81 there is an expresse authority for me and 4 H. 4. Fitz. br 448. in my experience I have known many estates limited as this is in the Southern parts held good estates tayl if it should be otherwise many estates would be shaken Roll chief Iustice We have delivered our opinions before against you viz. that it was not the meaning of the donour to apply the word Heirs to the body of Susanna only for this construction would offer violence unto the words as appears by Littleton who interprets that they are to be applyed to the Heirs of both the partyes and your reason is founded upon a wrong ground and expresly against Litletons case and for your second reason it is of no waight for the words are all one as if he had said to the Heirs of the Husband and wife begotten upon the wife 3ly We are not to frame a meaning against plain words which shew the Donors intent to be against you And the Baron cannot Bar the Estate tayl as you suppose Tayl. for the Feme hath an Estate for life and if she survive she may revive the remaining Estate and we must not consider of inconveniences which possibly may happen against the expresse words of the deed and the multitude of conveyances made in this manner are of no force to alter the Law Ierman Iustice as Roll. That the word Heirs shall be applyed to the Heirs of both partyes because voluntas donatoris secundum formam chartae expressa est observanda Nicholas and Ask Iustices of the same opinion Garland against Yarrow Pasc 1652. Banc. sup THis case being in arrest of Iudgement formerly spoken unto in an Action upon the case for these words Arrest of Iudgement in an Act on for words you are a knave and keep a Bawdy house was again moved by Christ Turner who held that the words are not actionable 1. Because they are of spiritual cognisance 2ly It is not said that he kept a common Bawdy house 3ly here is no special damage laid 10 Car. These words he is a pimp adjudged not actionable in Lewis and Whittons case 4ly It is not alleged that he
264 Sale and Wray Pag. 373 Seaman and Edwards Pag. 63 Segar and Dyer Pag. 31 Siocnhams case Pag. 341 Scoble and Tolye Pag. 102 103 Shertliff and Timberly Pag. 219 Shurley and Semaign Pag. 255 Shann and Shann Pag. 256 257 280 Shayler and Bigg Pag. 171 Shann and Bilby Pag. 280 Sherecroft and Weeks Pag. 379 Shepheard and Gray Pag. 445 Sherlocks case Pag. 456 457 Skerlock and La pere Pag. 265 Skete and Clay Pag. 125 Slades case Pag. 138 Smith and Hobson Pag. 112 113 Smith and Stone Pag. 65 Smith and Hancock Pag. 137 138 Smithson and Wells Pag. 141 Smith and Hale Pag. 139 Smith and Dunch Pag. 139 146 Smith and Andrews Pag. 183 184 Smith and the Earl of Dorset Pag. 277 Smith and Ward Pag. 351 Smith and Holyman Pag. 361 Snelgrave and Bosvile Pag. 327 Somes and Sir John Lenthall Pag. 465 Sowthcott and Sowthcott Pag. 103 108 Spitlehouse and Farmery Pag. 290 Spry and Mill Pag. 182 183 203 204 Stoughton and Day Pag. 18 Stents case Pag. 127 Sir John Stowels case Pag. 104 Stradling and Boreman Pag. 129 130 Stubs and Manklin Pag. 165 Staples case Pag. 359 360 Sir Humphry Style and Tullye Pag. 286 287 Starky and Mill Pag. 296 Stroad and Homes Pag. 338 Staples case Pag. 248 Stevenson and Steward Pag. 404 Stavely and Ulithorp Pag. 411 422 Stephens and Ask Pag. 424 425 Wolverly Strachyes case Pag. 118 Captain Streeters case Pag. 415 Strowd and Beckwith Pag. 454 455 Swan and Fenham Pag. 409 410 Simons and Leir Pag. 72 Syms and Wilson Pag. 214 215 T TAnner and Lawrence Pag. 53 Tayler and Webb Pag. 301 302 307 308 309 319 383 Terry and Baxter Pag. 39 Tench and Cletheroe Pag. 59 Tench and Hubrison Pag. 340 Theoballs and Newton Pag. 307 Thomas's case Pag. 461 Thyn and Thyn Pag. 67 68 69 77 78 91 92 98 99 101 143 Thurle and Madison Pag. 462 Theoball and Conquest Pag. 343 Tisons case Pag. 153 Timbrell and Bullock Pag. 15 Tories case Pag. 15 Toby and Angell Pag. 110 Tompkins and Jourden Pag. 131 Toplady and Staly Pag. 165 166 Townsend and Barker Pag. 388 389 394 Tompkins and Clark Pag. 422 Tost and Day Pag. 431 474 Torret and Frampton Pag. 434 435 Tracy and Poole Pag. 143 144 Treton and Squire Pag. 230 Sir Humphry Tracy and Bloom Pag. 356 Trundall and Trowell Pag. 273 Trorman and Standart Pag. 284 285 Doctor Trig and the College of Physicians Pag. 329 330 Trevilian and Welman Pag. 400 401 Trevanian and Penhollow Pag. 452 Turner and his Wises case Pag. 47 Tucker and Cosh Pag. 288 289 Turner and Trapes Pag. 412 Twig and Roberts Pag. 145 Tyler and Johnson Pag. 41 Tyndall and Harington Pag. 162 F VAndicoots case Pag. 52 Vaux and Vaux versus Steward and Draper Pag. 157 203 Vincent and Fursey Pag. 43 44 Vincent and Wallis Pag. 197 Viccary and Barns Pag. 213 Vidian and Fletcher Pag. 472 W VVAtson and Norbury Pag. 3 201 202 Ward and Coggin Pag. 6 Wagstaff and Tempest Pag. 464 Watson and Watson Pag. 28 56 Waineright and Whitley Pag. 115 Walker and Alder Pag. 117 Waldron and Ward Pag. 449 Watson and Scotson Pag. 121 Ware and Chappel Pag. 186 187 Watts and Dix Pag. 188 189 204 205 Watts and Lord Pag. 230 Warry and Bond Pag. 256 Wallis and Bucknall Pag. 291 292 311 312 VVatts and Lowth Pag. 341 Wall and Bye Pag. 352 Walkenden and Heycock Pag. 425 Weeks and Weeks Pag. 90 Weston and Plowden Pag. 173 178 188 Wentworth and Wentworth Pag. 242 Webb and Wilmer Pag. 260 Weld and Rumney Pag. 418 Webb and Washborn Pag. 352 353 360 361 Weeks his case Pag. 371 Welden and Strudder Pag. 379 Webberly and Sir John Lenthall Pag. 454 Whitchurch and Paget Pag. 208 Whitwell and Short Pag. 5 6 Whitley and Fawset Pag. 12 13 Whites case Pag. 17 White and Thomas Pag. 38 39 White and Harwood Pag. 138 Whiteacre and Hillwell Pag. 27 White and Holford Pag. 170 White and Pinder Pag. 22 Whitwely and Pinsent Pag. 300 Whitehead and Buckland Pag. 373 379 380 401 402 403 Wingfield and Sherwood Pag. 5 Williamson and Henly Pag. 11 Willison and Crow Pag. 75 Pawl Williams and the Custodes c. Pag. 244 Williams and Tyrer Pag. 80 Willis and Bond Pag. 260 261 Winn and Stebbins Pag. 405 Williamson and Coleman Pag. 47 Wiatt and Harby Pag. 200 Williamson and Mead Pag. 207 208 Winter and Bernard Pag. 221 Withring and Bishopsgate Parish Pag. 260 VVillis and Bond. Williamson and Norwitch Pag. 337 338 VVingfield and Valence Pag. 414 415 Wise and Jeoffryes Pag. 429 Williams and Poole Pag. 460 Wood and Salter Pag. 53 Worsely and Worsely Pag. 123 Wood and Clemence Pag. 133 126 152 VVood and Holland Wood and Topham Pag. 216 227 234 235 303 Wood and Mountney Pag. 360 Wood and Markeham Pag. 408 Wood and Gunston Pag. 461 464 466 Wroath and Elsy Pag. 16 Wright and Pinder Pag. 34 Wright and Martyn Pag. 107 Wrights case Pag. 139 140 Wrights case Y YAte and Batisford Pag. 195 Yates and Lynden Pag. 47 Yongue and Petit Pag. 356 Yokehurst and Skot Pag. 439 440 HILARY TERM 21 Car. Banc. Reg. A Prohibition was prayed to the Admiralty Prohibition to stop procéedings there upon a Contract betwéen the parties suggested to be made upon the land within the body of a County and not upon the high Sea And the surmise was penned thus If there was any Contract made betwéen the parties as the libel supposeth it was made upon the land within the body of a County and not upon the high Sea The Court held this suggestion ill Suggestion for the uncertainty of it and ordered that it should be amended and made absolute viz. That the Contract was made upon the land c. And that the words if there was any Contract made should be put out because they made it uncertain whether there was any Contract or no and so by consequence did destroy the very ground of the surmise Barnaby against Goodale 21 Car. Banc. reg Trin. 21 Car. rot 201. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a judgement given in an Action upon the Case in the Court at Owse bridge in York Error upon a Judgement in an action upon the Caie and the first Error assigned was in the Process because it was by summons whereas the action being an action upon the Case which is in the nature of a Trespass the Process should be by Attachment and Distress infinite and not by summons But to this it was answered by Roll Iustice that since 10 Iacobi this manner of procéeding is no Error Error Capias and that that Court hath no power to award a Capias in an action upon the case by the Statute of 1◠H. 7. two other light exceptions were taken to the venire but not insisted upon But the main exception was to Iudgement which was entred thus Ideo consideratum est per curiam dicti Domini
to his heir in the singular number And he argued that the word heir includes heirs because it is Nomen Collectivum Next Whether the devising the land to Richard for his natural life and after to his heir for ever makes any difference in the Case and he held it did not and said that Archers case that is objected by the other side differs much from this for there the words are restrained for it is Proximo Haeredi and not Haeredi generally as it is in our Case and there the words next heir are not words of limitation but of purchase and to decipher the person but not to limit the estate and in our case if there should not be a limitation Richard should only take for life which is not the intent of the Will as may appear by the passages and clauses of it And Thomas and Kemishes case in 5 Car. in this Court makes an end of our Case Neither doth the adding of the word in perpetuum make a difference in the Case for if the words had béen omitted the same estate had passed to the Tenant Richard and his Estate is not enlarged by them 2ly The words in perpetuum relate to all the Estate and not to any particular Estate and so the surrender made by R. Hunt is good Next of all supposing that it be a limited Estate and a contingent remainder the question will then be whether this contingent remainder be destroyed or no and I conceive it is because the particular Copyhold estate which must support this contingent remainder is destroyed and the Law is the same in that point in Copyhold cases as it is in other cases at the Common Law for Copyholds are directed by the rules of the Common Law 13 Iac. Banc. Reg. It is also held that there is the same rule to support a contingent remainder of a Copyhold as there is of Land at the Common Law Next it is to be considered whether the particular Copyhold estate be extinguished or not And it is cléer that it is for the customary Estate is in the Lord who hath the Fée simple which cannot both stand together and so there is no estate to support the contingent remainder Copyhold and consequently all objections are by this answered 1. That the surrender shall not do wrong 2ly That the surrender destroys not the Custom Turner on the other side argued that only an estate passeth to Richard for life and that the word Heir is not a word of limitation to make the Ancestor take a Fée simple neither shall the word Heir be taken Collective here but singulariter and so according to the common sence number and matter ought it to be construed And Nowns Collective in the singular number do not signifie the same thing that they do in the plurall number as may be proved by other examples and there is no proper name to signifie one particular Heir in Law if the word Heir in the singular number shall not do it Shellyes case 1. Rep. f. 101. â—ooks institut f. 8.1 Rep. Archers case And there are two Iudgements in the Common pleas in the very point as I am informed by the Attorney on our side In a Will the word Heir shall not be taken Coliective out in the natural grammaticall sence and not as a word of art but it is otherwise taken perchance in conveyances which are made by men of Art and learned in the Laws whereas wills are made commonly by lay gents and unskilfull in the Law And the rule is that words shall be interpreted to make all the parts of a déed in which they are to stand together and to bear sence and to be in esse and effectual which cannot be here if the word heir shall be taken Collective but may be if it be taken singulariter Hob. rep Stukely and Butlers case Next if the word heir should be taken Collective then the Estate for life would merge 30 El. C. B. Hill 3 Iac. C. B. Hiller and Lewis his case 3ly Rich. hath only an Estate for life if it were otherwise the Testator would have otherwise expressed it and he hath well expressed an estate for life and no other Estate in him If one grant 4. parts of his mannor it shall passe 4. parts of 5. and not all For the other poynt the contingent remainder is not here destroyed by the destruction of the Copyhold Estate for Copyhold Estates do not depend one upon another as Estates of the Common Law do and here is one in esse to take the Estate Another question he spoke to viz. whether a Lessee at will being ousted by a stranger can reenter and he held he cannot for he hath but a meer right 38 H. 6. f. 27. Fortescue and Yelverton 3. Iac. Banc. Reg. rot 501. Carpenter and Collins But to this Roll chief Iustice Entry and Nicholas Iustice answered that he may enter notwithstanding it hath been heretofore controverted and the reason is because he hath the primer posseâ—sion Roll chief Iustice enclined that the contingent remainder is not destroyed because it doth not here depend upon the particular Estate but it ought to expect till the remainder happen and he conceived that the word heir and heirs were all one here by the intent of the partyes and the frame of the conveyance Ask Iustice said that it is a good Estate of Fee simple conditionall executed in Richard Ierman Iustice The intent in a Will if it be not contrary to Law ought to be taken and there must be words to make the intent appear and these words must stand together and shall not be made void and he conceived the contingent remainder not destroyed Adjourned till the next Term. Postea Port against Midleton Hill 1650. Banc. sup A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgement given in an Action of debt upon an obligation Error to reverse a judgment in debt and the Error insisted upon was in the entring of the Iudgement which was quod recuperet Debitum suum and doth not say praedictum Roll chief Iustice answered Delivery Escrow that the debt is confessed by the party and the question is whether the deed was delivered as an escrow or not but it was delivered to the party himself and therefore could not be delivered as an escrow Ierman Iustice said that debitum suum without praedictum is not good for the word praedictum is verbum operativum Ask Iustice as Roll and there is but one debt Implication and the word ideo in the record implyes it to be the same debt Nicholas to the same effect The rule was affirmetur nisi causa die Iunae sequenti Hill 1650. Banc. sup AN administrator had a Iudgement against one to recover a debt due to the Intestate and then the Administrator dyed Intestate For a scire facias to revive a judgement denyed Scire facias and another took out new letters of administration de bonis non
a Legacie and it may be there are debts owing which are to be paid before Legacies and here doth not appear to be any assets in the Executors hands besides this debt and if the Testator would have released it he ought to have done it by a deed Roll chief Iustice What shall the Executor do in this case I conceive it is a strong case for the Executor and that it is very unreasonable that the Testator should make such a devise and here is no consent of Mary the Executor expressed to this release besides a will cannot release a thing created by deed and so discharge Creditors Nicholas and Ask Iustices concurred But Ierman Iustice doubted For a fault in the writ of Error and imperfection in the record certifyed the Iudgment was not then affirmed Afterward Sir Humphrey Style preferred his bill in Chancery to be releived herein and obteyned an injunction till hearing but upon a hearing at the Rolls could get no relief but was ordered to pay 100 l. or else the injunction to be dissolved Q. Nota. Hamond against Ward Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Pasc 1650. rot 58. AN Action of debt was brought against the Defendant Error to reverse a judgment in debt upon an insimul computaverunt upon an insimul Computaverunt and a verdict and a Iudgement given against him whereupon he brought his writ of Error and assigns for Error that the Action was brought against him for rent as a Tenant of land and not as a receiver and that therefore an accompt did not lye Roll chief Iustice cited 20 H. 6. that rent alone lyes not in accompt because rent is a certain thing and it is also in the realty but if rent be mixed with other things an accompt will lye Accompt but here it appears the Action is brought against the Defendant as a receiver and if one receive mony due to me upon an obligation I shall have either an Action of accompt Debt or an Action of debt against him so if he receive my rents without my consent Therefore let the Iudgement be affirmed Alleyn against Holden Trin. 1651. Banc. sup Entred Pasc 1650. AN Action of debt was brought against an Heir who pleads riens per discent Error to reverse a judgment in debt against an Heir Iudgment was given against him upon a nihil dicit a writ of enquiry was awarded without the prayer of the party and a special Iudgement thereupon given against the Defendant Vpon a writ of Error brought to reverse this Iudgement it was alleaged for Error that the Iudgement ought to have been a general Iudgement and there ought not to have been a writ of enquiry except the party had prayed it and to this the Court enclined and Roll chief Iustice said that it is otherwise in an Action against an Executor for there assets may be found At another day Roll chief Iustice said Writ of inquiry if the Heir plead riens per discent and if it be a false plea a general Iudgement ought to be against him and there shall be no writ to enquire what lands he hath and it is not necessary as here it is to have a special Iudgement Iudgement that the Plaintiff shall recover of the lands discended for the Iudgement ought to be that the Defendants body and goods be lyable and half his lands and not as it is here a writ to enquire and find what lands he hath by discent Reverset nisi Barcock against Tompson Trin. 1651. Banc. sup THis case was again spoken unto Error brought by the Bail to verse a judgment given against the principal which was this A Iudgement was given in the Comon pleas against the principal without an original upon this Iudgment there issued out a scire facias against the Bail two nichils returned and thereupon Iudgment was given against the Bail a writ of Error was brought by the Bail to reverse this Iudgment And it was now argued by Hales of Councel for the writ of Error that the Iudgment was erroneous because it being given upon a scire facias which is a judicial writ it ought to be grounded upon an original and it not being so here it is Error in fact although it be not Error in Law To this it was answered that two nichils returned upon a scire facias amount to a scire seci and a judgment given thereupon is good and therefore it is too late now to say that the scire facias was not well executed Brook Sc. fac 96. 28. 17 Car. C. B. To this Hales said there was a Iudgement against us in the Common pleas so that we could urge nothing against the scire facias there but here we may Roll chief Iustice answered it is to some purpose to make up the record upon the two nichils otherwise there would be no end of things and the Iudgement is well given by the Iudges and how can you now make Error in it Iudgement and if you be inconvenienced by the Iudgement you are not without remedy Error for you may bring an Audita querela and you might have pleaded to the scire facias nul tief record for it is not matter of fact And therefore shew better matter why the Iudgement shall not be affirmed Audita querela and take liberty to bring an Audita querela Antea Tucker against Cosh Trin. 1651 Banc. sup Entred Trin. 1650. rot 388. TVcker brought a replevin against Cosh Special verdict in a replevin for distreining his Cattel The Defendant makes conusance as Baily to I. S. and upon the Avowry the case fell out to be this A tradesman in consideration of mariage made a conveyance of his lands to the use of himself and of his wife and afterwards becomes a Banckrupt and a commission of Bankrupt is taken out against him and the lands of the Bankrupt are sold by the Commissioners to the avowant that took the distress The question here was whether this conveyance made by the Bankrupt of his lands was within the Statute of fraudulent conveyances or not and the sale made by the Commissioners of this land were good Maynard for the Plaintif argued that it is not within any of the Statutes of Bankrupts The Déed here is without fraud and so it is not within the Statute for a valuable consideration is only expressed in the Statute and not a conveyance upon consideration of mariage as it was in our case 2ly The Feme is but one person with her Husband 3ly By comparing the Statutes together it appears that the wife is not comprised within the Statute of 1 Iacobi which looks back to other Statutes touching Bankrupts for the wife is not named in the Statute of 1 Iacobi but only children and other persons otherwise the words of the Act which do enumerate children and other persons would be frivolous and idle Roll chief Iustice said the Case is of great consequence and
this Case upon the construction of a Will which must be favourably taken and the variation here betwixt Mills and Mill is small and inconsiderable to defeat an Estate for it is only in the termination of the word and is as little as the difference between Baxter and Backster or Hasting and Hastings 9 E. 4.42 44 Eliz. Molyn and Molyns or Pitt and Pitts which differ but in one letter and is not a material difference 2ly It appears by the Verdict that he was commonly called Mill and Mills and common reputation we know doth give names to things 3ly It is found that he was known by one name as well as the other and this will satisfie the Testators intent well enough to carry the Estate 4ly The party himself was known to the Testator at the time of the making of the Will by the name of Mills as appears in eight several places of the Will And if one devise Lands and Goods and excepts one Lease if there be other Leases they are devised 5ly It appears by the Will and the Verdict that the mariage was intended by the Father with this very person that is called Mills and a settlement of Lands made upon it and it shall not be intended that the Testator thought that this mariage would be dissolved and another mariage be had And the devise in the body of the Will doth not make the Proviso in the end of the Will repugnant but if it did the last repugnancy shall stand for here is no dependancy of the last Proviso upon the other part of the Will but it is a substantine clause which revokes not the other Doctor Buts Case 10 Rep. and this shall be counted his last Will and it is the more strong because it appears by the very words that it is a plain substantive clause made to declare the new intent of the Testator and it shall not be intended that this Proviso shall be applyed to another person although there be a particular title given to him by the Will and the Estate altered by the Proviso and the former devise is derogated by it Hob. 2d Case Harding Case and the strength of the Proviso to have one of the true name of Mills is not to be intended for it appears that the intent of the Testator was to have one of his name in reputation and this appears by the former limitation in the Will and the provision made in the last Proviso to preserve his name is no more than that he had done before and the former limitation is as well for the Testators advantage as the latter Proviso and more and his intent was not to sell the Lands but to preserve them and it is no more to say of my own Sirname than to say of my Sirname nor is the videlicet any thing to the purpose Roll chief Iustice if the question were only upon the Proviso there would be no difficulty but that Mill and Mills should be all one and it would be good in a Conveyance also as I suppose and if it were apparent that he intended one and the same person Proviso then the last Proviso would be good to revoke the former part of the Will but the doubt is whether he intend the same person or not because he makes such an alteration of the Estate by the Proviso and puts these words mine own name in it by which it séems he intended to advance his own name and he seems exact in it by the great alteration of the Estate made by the Proviso in the settlement of the Estate At another day the Case was again moved and argued by Wadham Windham that Mills Mill are both one name and differ but in sound as Abacock Habacock and the Verdict finds that both the names are his true Sirname though it could not be so in Christian names 6 Rep. 66. Sirnames are altered by time and Custom of places and being so altred do become true names as the name of Cromwell is now become a true name though antiently the name was Williams but I agree that Christian names cannot be altered by time no more than things can be altered from one thing to another 3ly By the construction of the Will and by the finding of the Verdict the names are made one name although by the Testator he was known by no other name than the name of Mills for he is so called and this answers the Proviso in the Will that he should be of his own Sirname with whom his Daughter was to mary 4ly Here is a particular devise made to her in the body of the Will of the Lands if they should not be devised here 8 Rep. Clausa generalia non extendunt ad ea quae sunt specialiter recitata and there is a difference between a Will and a Deed for all the words in a Deed are spoken together but it is not so in a Will which is ambulatory and may have several constructions and one clause may controll another Instit 11 2. and the Proviso here in the last part of the Will controlls the former part of the Will as a Codicil might have done if there had been any and the very words express the parties meaning 1 Rep. Porters Case Dyer 255. If in a Will a clause may receive a doubtfull construction then a verbis non est recedendum nor shall there be a particular supplyment of words added to expound it except to prevent an absurdity which must not be admitted though in a Will Maynard on the other side made two questions 1. Whether Mills and Mill should be intended to be one and the same Sirname and so to be the Testators Sirname 2ly Whether Elizabeth take the Lands by the first clause in the Will or by the Proviso or latter clause For the first he held that Mills and Mill is not one and the same Sirname because the Testator had a particular eye to his own true Sirname and the Cases put of names that differ yet sound alike do not come to our Case because there was no such special eye or regard as here is 2ly Suppose that his true name be Mills and that he is provided for particularly by the Testator in his Will then the Proviso cannot extend to him for this would be senselesse and it is as much as to make the Testator in one breath to speak contradictories and it would be hard to make such constructions of such words that would argue the party to be irrational that spake them and the words in the Proviso are in nature of an exception in construction of Law 12 Ed. 1. Fitzh Grants 87. and Carter and Ringsteeds Case is not yet answered by the other side Bolton and the Lady Staffords case 8 Iac. C. B. 1. rep Mildmayes Case The words in a Proviso in a Will or Deed may be supplyed with other words rather than to interpret it so that it shall contradict the former part of the Will or Deed
he was taken and imprisoned The Defendant pleaded an award made by Sir John Rivers and Sir Nicholas Miller two Iustices of Peace between the parties in Bar. Twisden of Councel with the Plaintif said that the award doth not bind the Plaintif for the award concerns only the speaking of the words and speaks nothing of the imprisoment And 2ly the Award is not good for there is not satisfaction made by it on both parties Wild of Councel with the Defendant held that the Declaration was not good and that therefore he needs not to justifie the plea for though it should be ill yet the Plaintif can have no judgement and he said the Declaration was naught because it alleged no day when nor place where the Defendant charged the Plaintif with the felony and made him to be imprisoned Twisden answered that there is a place alleged and that though there were none yet it is well enough for part and judgement may be given for that To which Roll chief Iustice agréed Wild replyed then the plea is good But the Court answered it is not and what say you to the Arbitrement Wild answered it was good to which Ierman and Ask Iustices assented Roll chief Iustice answered It is a benefit to the Parish and so to the Overseers of the poor Nicholas Iustice to the same purpose Roll chief Iustice said that the Declaration is ill and the Plea also for the Plea is entire Declaration Plea and yet goes not to all the matter alleged in the Declaration but the plea is only to part of them and therefore if any part of the Declaration be good judgement ought to be given against the Defendant for that part and the plea in Bar is naught so judgement ought to be entirely for the Plaintif But it is to be considered concerning the damages Rosyer against Langdale Hill 1650. Banc. sup Pasch 1650. rot 100. ROsyer an Executor brought an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit against Langdale a Feme Administratrix Error to reverse a judgement in an Assumpsit by an Executor against an Administratrix and declares that the Defendant in consideration that he would forbear sute until she had taken out Letters of Administration did assume and promise to pay unto him the Plaintif a certain sum of money owing unto him by the Intestate Vpon Issue joyned and a Verdict and a Iudgement for the Plaintif The Defendant brought a writ of Error to reverse the Iudgement And Baldwin of his Councel took these Exceptions 1. That the Plaintif had set forth no consideration in his Declaration for the Assumpsit for all that is alleged is that the Plaintif should forbear sute till the Defendant had taken out Letters of Administration which is no consideration at all for the Defendant was not lyable to be sued as Administratrix until she had taken out Letters of Administration except there were a cause depending as here is not And he cited Hob. rep Bidwell and Cottons case That if there be a sute commenced though there be no cause for it yet forbearance to sue is a good cause to ground an Assumpsit upon Assumpsit A second Exception was that the Venire facias is not awarded per Curiam nec in Curia Roll chief Iustice held the 1. a good Exception for the Defendant was not chargeable before Letters of Administration taken forth if she do not intermedle with the goods of the Intestate and it doth not appear here that she did neither is the Defendant compellable to take forth Letters of Administration for they may be granted to the next of Kin if the Ordinary pleaseth according as the Statute ordains Ierman Nicholas and Ask Iustices to the same intent thereupon the rule was reversetur nisi c. But because Day being of Councel on the other side took some Exceptions to the writ of Error and the retorn thereof It was adjourned Staples Hill 1650. Banc. sup THe Court was moved to supersede a scire sacias brought by a prisoner of the Marshalsea For a Supersedeas to a Scire sacias upon the late Act for discharging of poor prisoners because the Certificate of the cause for which he was a prisoner was false and so the procéedings erronious for the party was in execution for Trespass which is not within the Statute made for the prisoners 2ly Because there was no due notice given to the party at whose sute he lay in execution as the Statute doth direct there should The Court ordered to view the Certificate 〈◊〉 Den uneâ— and to file it otherwise there should be no proceedings upon the scire facias and directed the party to demur upon the scire facias if it be not good because the matter alleged cannot be pleaded to it Custodes against Arskot Hill 1650. Banc. sup MAynard moved the Court for one Arskot that was outlawed for murther For time to bring a Writ of Error and had leave to bring his writ of Error that he may have longer time to bring it because the King uses to sign the writ and the Parliament had not ordered who shall do it now and therefore the Attorney General must advise with the Parliament about it which cannot spéedily be done Thereupon time was granted till the Attorney could conveniently do it Newcomin against Leigh Hill 1650. Banc. sup Pasch 16â—0 rot 52. LEigh did assume and promise unto Newcomin Whether a good Assumpsit that if Newcomin would take one Loe for his Debtor in the room of one Cooper and would spare Loe until such a time for the money that then he would pay the money to Newcomin if he did not and upon this Assumpsit Newcomin brought his Action against Leigh The question was whether this were a good Assumpsit And the Court held it was not because it is a collateral thing and he doth not say that he will discharge Cooper and so Newcomin may sue Cooper notwithstanding the Assumpsit For though it may be it was the intention of the parties to discharge Cooper yet it appears not so by the words of the Assumpsit set forth And it was then said by Roll. That if I promise to pay to Iohn a Down a Debt which Iohn a Stile oweth to Iohn a Down Nudum pactum this is nudum pactum Bawsy and Lowdall Hill 1650. Banc. sup Pasch 1650. rot 275. VPon a special verdict in an Action of Trespasse and Ejectment Special Verdict upon the devise of a Copyhold in Fee the case in effect was this A man seised of Copyhold lands in fée devisable by Custom deviseth them in this manner I give and bequeath my lands c. to my son Richard during his natural life and after to the heir of his body for ever Hales of Councel with the Plaintif made these questions 1. whether by the words of the Will a Fee-simple at the Common Law passeth because there is an estate to Richard for life and after