made the Reservation and he relied much upon the last Reason urged by Harper upon the Statute of 27 H. 8. that this was limited to the Executors Co. 13. Rep. and not to him who limited it and therefore the possession shall be executed to the Executors to whom the use was limited and this term shall not be Assets in the hands of the Executors And he said That he had seen a Record 2 H. 8. setting forth That A. having Feoffees to his use devised that his Feoffees should sell his Lands who did accordingly now the money coming by the sale shall be Assets c. but it is not so limited in our case therefore it shall not be Assets A Lease is made to A. for life the Remainder to the right Heirs of B. B. purchaseth the Estate of A. the Estate in Remainder is not executed for it is not conveyed by the Grant of the first Grantor but by the Act of another person after the Grant. A Lease for life to A. the Remainder to a Feme sole for years they entermarry Waste is committed the Lessor brings an Action of Waste he shall recover as well the Estate for years as for life A. Leaseth unto B. for life the Remainder unto the Executors of A. for years the Remainder over in Fee to a stranger the Remainder for years is good for the Lessor cannot limit such an Estate to himself and the Executors shall take the Estate as Purchasors and the term shall be in abeyance untill the death of A. There was a case before the Lord Brook in the time of Queen Mary viz. A Lease was made for life Proviso that if the Lessee dieth within the term of sixty years that the Executors shall have the Lands as in the Right and Title of the Lessee pro termino totidem annorum which do amount to the number of sixty years to be accounted from the said Indenture The Opinion of the Iustices of the Common Pleas upon the Case was That the term was not in the Lessee for life So this future term in the principal Case was not in Tho. Cranmer But see that Case cited by Dyer reported by himself 4 Ma. 150. and there the opinion of the Court was That the same was not a Lease but a Covenant And afterwards in the principal Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff That the future term was not forfeited by the Attainder of Cranmer VIII 7 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THE Case was Dyer 317. b. 318. a. J. S. is seised of a Close adjoyning to the Close of J. D. and J. S. ought to enclose against J. D. J. S. leaseth his Close to another for years rendring Rent J. D. puts in his cattle into his own Close who for want of enclosure escape into the Close of J. S. and before that they be levant and couchant Distress for Rent J. S. distrains them for his Rent It was said by Manwood Iustice that the distress was not well taken Doctor Student 150. 1 Inst 476. Brown 1 part 170. Roll Tit. Distress 1 part in toto for there is a difference when the cattel come upon the Lands of another in the default of the owner of the cattel as by escape or stray and where in the default of another For in the first case the Lord may distrain them before they be levant and couchant but in the latter case not Also a Rent reserved upon a Lease for years is a new Rent and not like unto an ancient Rent due upon an ancient Tenure betwixt the Lord and the Tenant For for a Rent reserved upon a Lease for years Roll 1 part 672. acc Hob. 265. Brown part 2 170. or for a Rent charge a man cannot distrain the cattel before they be levant and couchant upon the Lands although they come upon the Lands by escape estray c. Dyer The Lord cannot distrain the cattel which escape into the Land of his Tenant for want of enclosure of his Tenant before they be levant and couchant and yet the seignory is favoured for the antiquity of it But here is new Rent not in respect of any seignory but of reservation upon a Lease for years and therefore no distress before the cattel be levant and couchant upon the Lands Quod Harper Mounson concesserunt and Iudgment was given accordingly IX 17 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Writ of Entry in the Per. THE Case was In a Writ of Entry in the Per against A. and B. A. pleaded several tenancy It was holden by Dyer chief Iustice that it is not any plea. Harper Iustice In Assise it is no plea for here the Land is not in demand Several Tenancy where no good Plea. but here it is a good plea and the Demandant ought to maintain his Writ Manwood In no action founded upon disseisin is this good For although the Demandant by policy will bring his Writ against the Tenant of the Land and another who he will name in the Writ upon trust and confidence and that he will not agree with the Tenant of the Lord in Dilatories for the Tenant of the Lands shall not be received to plead Dilatories Yet in that case several Tenancy is no plea for the Tenant but in a Formedon or other such like action which is not grounded upon disseisin if the Writ be brought in such manner as above the Tenant by policy that he may have the view and other reasonable delay may plead several Tenancy and so enforce the Demandant to maintain his Writ but contrary in the Case at Bar and so it was adjudged per Curiam X. Creswell and Cokes Case 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Dyer 351. CReswell brought Debt against Coke and demanded 200 Marks upon the Statute of 13 Eliz. of fraudulent Deeds Gifts c. upon the second clause of the Statute Debt viz. That all parties or privies to such fraudulent Deed willingly putting in ure avowing c. as true simple Custome and given bona fide shall forfeit c. And shewed that one A. held of the Plaintiff 12 acres of customary Lands and died seised And that by the custome of the Manor Heriot the Lord was to have for a Heriot the best beast whereof his Tenant died possessed and farther shewed that the said A. in his life time and a little before his death being possessed of 30 Horses of the value of 200 Marks gave the said Horses to the Defendant with intent to defraud the Plaintiff and other Lords of their Heriots and that he went to the Defendant's house to seise his Heriot and the Desendant then strained the said Horses by reason of the Gift aforesaid for which the Action is brought To which the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff had seised one of the Horses nomine Herioti and as to the rest he did demurr in Law. Mounson Iustice was of opinion that the Plaintiff should recover the whole 200 Marks
Iudgment of Action and not rein luy doit and the Court advised the Defendant to plead accordingly XV. Beamont and Dean 's Case Hillar 20 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Dower Dyer 361. IN Dower brought by the wife of Beamont Master of the Rolls in the time of E. 6. The Defendant said that he himself before the Writ brought did assign a rent of 10 l. per ann to the Demandant in recompence of her Dower upon which the Demandant did demur in Law and the cause was because the Tenant had not shewed what Estate he had in the Lands at the time of the granting of the Rent as to say that he was seised in Fee and granted the said Rent so as it might appear to the Court upon the plea that the Tenant had a lawfull power to grant such a Rent which was granted by the whole Court and the demur holden good XVI Hinde and Sir John Lyon 's Case Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN Debt by the Plaintiff against the Defendant as Heir Dyer 124. a. 3 Len. 70. 3 Len. 64. he pleaded That he had nothing by Descent but the third part of the Manor of D. The Plaintiff replied Assets and shewed for Assets that the Defendant had the whole Manor of Dale by descent upon which they were at issue and it was given in evidence to the Iury That the Manor was holden by Knight's-service and that the said Sir John the Ancestor of the Defendant Devises by his Will in writing devised the whole Manor to his Wife until the Defendant his Son and Heir should come to the age of 24 years and that at the age of his said Son of 24 years the Wife should have the third part of the said Manor for term of her life and her Son should have the residue and that if his said Son do die before he come to his age of 24 years without Heir of his body that the Land should remain to J. S. the Remainder over to another The Devisor died the Son came to the age of 24 years and the Question was If the Son hath an Estate-tayl for then for two parts he is not in by Descent And by Dyer and Manwood Iustices here is not any Estate tayl for no tayl was to rise before his said age and therefore the tayl shall never take effect and the Fee-simple doth descend and remain in the Son unless he dieth within the age of 24 years and then the Entail vests with the Remainders over But now having attained his said age he hath a Fee-simple and that by Descent of the whole Manor and a general Iudgment shall be given against him as of his own Debt And an Elegit shall issue forth of the moyety of all his Lands as well those which he hath by descent from the same Ancestor as any else and a Capias lieth against him But Manwood conceived That if general Iudgment be given against the Heir by default in such a case a Capias doth not lie although in case of false Plea it lieth Dyer contrary and the Writ against the Heir is in the Debet Detinet which proves that in Law it is his own Debt and he said that he could shew a precedent where such an Action was maintainable against the Executors of the Heir XVII Hil. 20 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas A Man made a Lease of Lands by Indenture Roll. 1. part 870. to begin after the expiration of a Lease thereof made to one Duffam and in an Action of Covenant brought by the second Lessee against the Lessor Covenant the Lessor said That there was no such Duffam in rerum natura at the time of the supposed Lease made to Duffam it was argued Estoppell That this Plea doth not lie for the Lessor for he is estopped to say against the Indenture That there is no such Duffam c. And also if no such person was then the first Lease was void and then the second Lease shall begin presently which Manwood and Mounson granted and by Manwood the Defendant shall be estopped by the Recital of the first Lease to say That there was no such Duffam And although the common Ground is That a Recital is not an Estoppel yet where the Recital is material as it is here it is otherwise for here the second Lease is to begin upon the expiration of the recited Lease and therefore in this case it shall be an Estoppel XVIII Mich. 20 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Action upon the Stat. of 5 Eliz. for Perjury 3 Len. 68. IN an Action upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. for a Perjury by three the Plaintiffs declared That the Defendant being examined upon his oath before Commissioners If a Surrender was made at such a Court of a Copyhold to the use of A. and B. two of the Defendants The Defendant swore there was no such surrender made c. Exception was taken to the Declaration because that the certainty of the Copyhold did not appear upon the Declaration for the Statute requires that in such Case the party grieved shall have remedy so as it ought to appear in what thing he is grieved quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam Another Exception was taken because the Action is given in this Case to the party grieved and it appeareth upon the Declaration that the Surrender in the negative deposing of which the Perjury is assigned Abatement of Writ was made to the use of two of the Plaintiffs onely and then the third person is not a party grieved for he claims nothing by the Surrender and therefore forasmuch as the two persons grieved have joined with the party not grieved the Writ shall abate against them all which Wray and Southcote granted XIX 19 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Action upon the Stat. of 13 E. 1. of Winchester 2 Inst 569. IN an Action upon the Statute of Winchester 13 E. 1. against the men of the Hundred of A. Barham Serjeant took Exception to the Declaration because it appeareth upon it that the half year after the Robbery is not yet come for by the said Statute it is ordained that the Countrey have no longer time than half a year after the Robbery done within which time facent-gree of the Robbery or respondent the body of the Misfeasors And here the Action is brought within the half year And for this cause the Declaration was holden to be insufficient by the whole Court. And the Lord Dyer spake much in commendation of that Statute being made for the publick benefit of the whole Commonwealth for the Law intends when a Robbery is done That if the Countrey will not pursue the Malefactors that some of them are Receivers or Abettors of the Felons Manwood Iustice said When I was a Servant to Sir James Hales one of the Iustices of the Common-Pleas one of his Servants was robbed at Gadds Hill within the Hundred of Gravesend in Kent and he sued the men
for the abatement of a Writ As in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant acknowledgeth himself to be Villein to a stranger the Writ shall abate without any averment if Frank and of Frank Estate for the Law presumes that the Tenant would not enthral his condition Wray to the same intent But the Demandant may confess and avoid the Fine as to say That he that levyed the Fine was his disseisor upon whom he had before entred c. And if Tenant in Fee-simple be impleaded and he saith that he is Tenant for life the remainder over to A. in Fee and prayes in aid of A. the Demandant shall not take averment that the Tenant the day of the Writ purchased was seised in Fee. Note that in this fine Ioynt-tenancy was pleaded but to parcel It was holden by Wray and Southcot that the whole Writ should abate As in a Writ the misnosmer of one shall abate the whole Writ against all the Defendants and so where the Demandant enters into parcel of the land in demand if the thing in demand be one intire thing it shall abate the whole Writ In this Case the Demandant ought to have in his Writ de Forsprise of the land in demand whereof the Ioynt-tenancy by Fine is pleaded per availe and under the gift of which the Formedon is conceived and therefore in respect of the title of the Demandant it remains in right parcel of the Manor and therefore ought to be demanded accordingly with an Exception But if A. give to B. a Manor except ten acres in tail there if after upon any discontinuance the issue in tail have a Formedon in such case there needs no exception for the said ten acres were never after the gift parcel of the Manor which was given in tail for they were severed from the Manor upon the gift but if land in demand was several as twenty acres except two an exception is not good for he might demand eight acres See E. 1. F. N. B. 866. Praecipe unam bovat terrae except a Seleon and the Writ was abated for every demand ought to be certain but a Seleon is a parcel of land uncertain as to quantity in some places an acre in some more in some less Another point was That because the Tenant hath admitted and accepted this averment scil sole Tenant as the Writ doth suppose If the Court notwithstanding the admittance of the Tenant ought without exception of the party Ex officio to abate the Writ and Wray conceived that they should for it is a positive Law as if a woman brings an appeal of murther upon the death of her brother and the Defendant doth admit it without challenge or exception yet the Court shall abate the appeal 10 E. 4. 7. And see the principal Case there Non ideo puniatur Dominus and if an Action be brought against an Hostler upon the common custome of the Realm and in the Writ he is not named common Hostler and the Defendant doth accept of such Writ without exception to it yet the Court shall abate the Writ Ex officio 11 H. 4. 198. and 38 H. 6. 30. CXCVII 24 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. Antea 150. More Rep. Saffron Walden's Case THE Case was this King Henry the 8. seised of certain lands in the right of his Dutchy of Lancaster Granted them unto another Tenend in Fee-farm Reddend dicto Dom. Regi haeredibus suis aut illi cui de jure reddi debet 10 l. And if this land should be holden of the King in Capite or holden of the Dutchy was the question Egerton Solicitor general argued much upon the Statute of 1 H. 4. by which the Dutchy and possessions thereof were severed from the Crown See Plowden in the Case of the Dutchy of Lancaster 213. And see ibid. the Statute of 1 H. 4. Entituled Charta Regis Hen. 4. 1. De separatione Ducatus Lancastr à Corona by which it is enacted That the Dutchy of Lancaster taliter tali modo deducatur gubernetur pertractetur c. ac si ad culmen dignitatis Regiae assumpti minime fuissemus So as by that Act the Dutchy is dis-joined from the Crown and in such point as to possession as it was in a common person But the possession of the Dutchy doth not bind the person of the King as 10 H. 4. 7. The King brings an Action for certain Lands to him descended from his Vncle the Duke of Lancaster and the Writ was Non omittas propter aliquam libertatem and exception was taken to the Writ because that such clause ought not to be in the King 's Writ but where the King sueth as King but that Writ he sueth as Duke of Lancaster but the exception was not allowed The King cannot sue otherwise but as King for the person of the King ought not to be measured according to his possession so as it was a severance in order survey government and process and not in respect of the person But after the Statute of 1 H. 4. The said Act of Separation was repealed and farther enacted that the said King should hold the said Dutchy to him and his heirs Kings of England so as thereby the Dutchy is settled in the politick Body of the King afterwards came the Statute of 1 H. 7. by which it is enacted That the King shall hold the said Dutchy and the possessions thereof in such manner and form and so separated from the Crown as King Henry the fourth and King Henry the fifth did hold the same so as the Dutchy was devested out of the Body politick of the King where it was setled 1 H. 4. and vested in the Body natural of the King so as the possession of the Dutchy as to their government c. are in the King as they were in the Duke of Lancaster before he was King and if the Duke of Lancaster had made a Feoffment c. the Feoffee should not hold of him but of the King So if the King himself maketh a Feoffment of Lands of the Dutchy the Feoffee shall hold of the King c. which see in the Dutchy of Lancaster's Case in the end of it And he conceived That notwithstanding the union of the Crown and the Dutchy yet the privity of the Tenure doth remain being preserved by the said Act of 1 H. 4. Another matter was That here the Tenure reserved is Tenend in feodi firma Reddend 10 l. c. And he said that this Rent is not parcel of the Tenure but rather a Rent-charge collateral to the Tenure For in all Cases where there is a Tenure expressed in suit or implied in Law before there Reddendo following shall not make the thing rendred parcel of the Tenure 3 Cro. 210 211. but it shall be a Rent in gross and here Tenend in feodi firma makes the Tenure c. and the Reddendo after shall not make the Rent reserved parcel of the Tenure See the
was but Tenant in Law because Vouchee and also that the Recovery was a good bar to him in the remainder notwithstanding that he was within age at the time of the Recovery And afterwards at another day the Case was argued by the Barons and Clark Baron conceived That the Entry of him in the remainder was congeable It hath been said That Sir William Pelham did not know that the Bargainor had an Estate but for his life or that any other person had any remainder therein the same is not to any purpose to excuse him for 42 E. 3. Every Purchasor ought at his own peril take notice of the Estates and charges which are upon the Lands of which he is Purchasor and the Law presumes that none will purchase Lands without advice of Councel and without knowing the Titles to the Lands And although divers Statutes have been made to provide against the practices of particular Tenants yet it is no argument that no other remedy was before And by Littleton If Tenant for life joyneth the Mise upon the mere right it is a forfeiture And he held strongly That the Iudgment did not take away the Entry cause of forfeiture being given before the Iudgment See 5 Ass 3. and 22 Ass 31. to that purpose For where Tenant for life is impleaded he ought to attend upon him in the reversion and to expect instructions from him in defence of his Title c. And therefore if he maketh default or confesseth Action the same is a forfeiture And as to the supposed recompence the same shall not help this Case for this is a common recovery and nothing else but an Assurance And Recoverors they are but Assignees and they shall take advantage of Conditions by 32 H. 8. and a Recoveror shall be seised to the use of him who suffereth the Recovery if no other use be expressed And he also held That when Tenant for life bargains and sells his Lands by Deed enrolled although no Fee passeth yet it is a forfeiture and that by reason of the Enrolment which is matter of Record And he said that if an Infant Tenant for life be disseised and the Disseisor dieth and afterwards the Infant dieth that he in the Remainder might enter Gent Baron argued to the same intent and he said That if Tenant for life suffereth a Recovery the same is not simply a forfeiture for he may have a warranty upon a Release or Confirmation made to him Attornment doth not give a Right but is onely a Consent yet if he who hath not any thing in the Reversion will levy a Fine thereof unto another and afterwards the Conusee brings a Quod juris clamat against the Tenant of the Land and he attorn it is a Forfeiture Manwood Baron to the same intent this is a new Case and I have not seen nor read the Case in any Book nor seen any presidents and it is a great case and a general case and worthy to be argued And I conceive clearly That here is a direct and express forfeiture the Dignity of Iudgments in reputation of Law hath been urged which ought to stand in force until they be reversed by Error or Attaint And also Littleton 481. hath been urged where upon the Statute of West 3. he saith That before the Statute aforesaid if a Lease had been made to one for life the remainder to a stranger and afterwards a stranger by faint Action hath recovered against Tenant for life by default and afterwards the Tenant for life died he in the Remainder had not any remedy But there Littleton doth not report the same as his own Opinion but as an Opinion conceived by a Reader upon the said Statute and in truth it is but a meer conceit And as to the main point he took this difference Such Recoveries in which the title of the Demandant stands indifferent to the Court and non constat if it be good or not being suffered by Tenant for life by default or confession without aid-prayer of him in the Reversion do not make any forfeiture although that the Tenant for life hath not dealt with him in the Reversion not having prayed in aid of him And in such case if a Lease be made for life the Remainder over in Fee upon such Recovery he in the remainder shall have a Formedon in the remainder or a Writ of Right and shall not put out him who recovered without any Action and that by the common Law. Then came the Statute of West 2. c. 3. which gave unto the Wife a Gui in vita upon a Recovery had against the Husband by default where before she had not any remedy but onely Writ of Right and notwithstanding si ulterius quaeratur si necesse habet ostendere jus suum secundum formam brevis quod prius impetraverat And if his Right be not better than the right of him in the Reversion he shall lose it notwithstanding the Iudgment given before for him and that Statute gave Receipt or Writ of Entry ad terminum qui praeteriit and that Statute is to be intended of such Recoveries where a good Title or indifferent is so as non Constat Curiae if it be good or not After that Tenant for life was driven unto a new shift and would not make default or lose for not pleading but he would plead but that faintly for the remedy of which mischief the Statute of 13 R. 2. which gave Receipt in such case the particular Tenant being restrained by this Statute he jugled yet and practised to suffer a Recovery secretly without notice of him in the Reversion for the remedying of which mischief the Statute of 32 H. 8. was made and that makes such Recovery had against such a particular Tenant void against him the Reversion It hath been objected That the said Statute of 32 H. 8. did not give any forfeiture in this case but makes the Recovery void and therefore he in the Reversion ought to stay until after the death of the particular Tenant To that I shall speak after But here our case is of a common Recovery and it doth appear to the Court that the Demandant hath not right for the Tenant might have barred him Also this Recovery is not to the use of the Recoveror but to the use of him who was Tenant in it and in truth it is nothing else but an assurance and in these feigned Recoveries the Recoveror comes in under the Title of the Tenant to it and not paramount as in case of a Recovery upon a good Title A Lease for years made by him who after suffers a Recovery is good and shall not be defeated by the Recovery otherwise it is where the Recovery is upon a good Title See Statute of Glocest cap. 11. where upon default of the Tenant Receipt is given for Lessee for years yet if the Tenant vouch upon default of the Vouchee the Lessee for years shall be received and now Receipt of Lessee for
years is out of the Book for by the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 15. he may falsifie the Recovery but no Receipt lieth in the case of a common Recovery for that he who recovers cannot put out the Termor As to that which my Brother Clark hath said That the bargain and sale in this case is not any forfeiture but when the bargain and sale is enrolled then it is a forfeiture I am not of such Opinion for although that the Enrolment be of Record yet the Deed is not of Record for against a Deed enrolled a man may plead Infancy although none can plead Non est factum Also he held That although by the bargain and sale and the Enrolment of it the Bargainee had not a fee for by such act the Reversion is not removed yet by the Recovery and the Execution of it the Bargainee hath gained a fee out of the Lessor for the Recovery is to the use of the Bargainee against whom it was had It hath been objected that here is onely a Voucher which paradventure was lawfull in this case by reason of a warranty paramount or of a Release or Confirmation with warranty and two Cases have been vouched to that purpose viz. 5 E. 4. 2. Tenant for life being impleaded in a Praecipe voucheth a stranger the Demandant counterpleads the Voucher which is found for him he in the Reversion hath no remedy but a Writ of Right so if the Vouchee had entred into the warranty and lost c. As to that book we ought not to conceive That every Case reported in our books is Law but let us observe of what authority that case is truly it is the conceit of the Reporter himself for he puts the Case and resolves the case but no Iudge or Serjeant is named in the case c. The other case is 5 E. 4. 2. b. Note by Heydon clearly If my Tenant for life voucheth a stranger who entreth into the warranty generally and doth not know how to bar the Demandant the Tenant shall recover in value and the Reversion of that which he hath in value shall be in me in lieu of my former Reversion as a Release to the Tenant for term of life shall enure to him in the Reversion But that is but the Opinion of one Serjeant c. But I answer to these books If the demandant in such recovery hath a good Title so as the Tenant or the Vouchee as Heydon saith do not know how to bar the Demandant there such Voucher of a stranger is no forfeiture nor such Recovery suffered upon it for against his Will volens nolens he suffered it but if the Tenant hath good matter to bar the Demandant and no good cause of Voucher nor any warranty as the matter is in the case of a common Recovery there the Voucher of a stranger or suffering of a Recovery is a forfeiture of his Estate And here in our case if the Demandant hath not any Title the Tenant or Vouchee hath not any warranty but the Tenant might have barred the Demandant if he would And he said That the Voucher onely doth not make the forfeiture but rather the recovery for when Iudgment is given and Execution is had then the Fee is plucked out of the Reversioner vide 6 R. 2. If Tenant for life claimeth a Fee the same is a forfeiture but here Sir William Pelham hath done more for he hath gained Fee by the Iudgment therefore à fortiori it shall be a forfeiture But let us see a little what meddlings or attempts by the particular Tenants are causes of forfeiture and what not 5 Assis 3. A. brought a Writ of Entry against Tenant for life by Collusion to oust B. of his Reversion supposing that the Tenant for life held of his Lease the Tenant confessed the Action upon which Iudgment is given B. enters and his Entry adjudged lawfull for this Recovery is adjudged in Law but an alienation to the disinheritance of him in the Reversion and there it appeareth that such Recovery by Covin is but an alienation and without any strength of a Recovery And he cited many other cases cited before by Altham 14 E. 3. Recept 135. where Tenant for life pleads in chief and prays in aid of a stranger where he might bar the Demandant and would not the same is a forfeiture Also 2 E. 3. 2. and 27 E. 3. where Tenant for life in a Quid juris clamat attorned to the Conusee upon a Fine levyed by him that had not any thing in the Land the same was a forfeiture and yet the Attornment doth not devest the Reversion out of the Lessor 50 E. 3. 7. and 8. Land was given by Fine in tail the Remainder over to a stranger in fee the Donee took a Wife and died without issue the Wife accepted Dower assigned by a stranger he in the remainder brought a Scire facias against the Wife she is Tenant in Dower of the assignment of a stranger and pleads to the Title the Demandant recovereth she hath lost her Dower for she hath not pleaded as she ought being a particular Tenant c. H. 4. Tenant for life loseth his Land in a Recovery against him against his Will and thereupon brings Quod ei deforceat and declares upon an Estate-tail and recovers the same is a forfeiture because he hath challenged a higher Estate than he had 5 H. 5. Tenant for life joyns the Mise upon the meer right 2 H. 6. Lessee for years being ousted brings an Assise and recovers 1 H. 7. Accepts a Fine of a stranger upon condition come ceo c. all these are forfeitures In the principal Case here the Tenant who suffers his Recovery doth not plead at all to defend the Right but whereas he might have barred the Demandant he giveth strength to his pretended Title and makes it a perfect Title and by suffering this Recovery and Iudgment to pass upon it he hath taken the Reversion out of the Lessor to whom he owed Fealty and therefore he shall forfeit his Estate And without any doubt it is apparent to the Court that the Demandant in this Recovery hath not any Title but the Recoverors in such cases are but as Assignees or Purchasors which appears by the Statute of 7 H. 8. ca. 2. which gives Distress and Avowry to Recoverors c. As to the inventing of Recoveries it was a necessary device for it was to take away Estate-tails which were the causes of great mischiefs and inconveniencies in this Realm and there was great reason for it for Tenant in tail might by the common Law alien his Lands post prolem suscitatam and now he hath an Inheritance and may do Waste But he was so restrained by the Statute of West 2. that all the Realm and the Subjects in it were inveigled thereby Ioyntures of Wives Leases of Fermors Mortgages to Creditors Statutes and other Assurances were defeated by the deaths of Tenants in tail which
argued for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error alledged the general Error viz. That Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff where it ought to be found for the Defendant And he said That Erigere stagnum est de novo facere exaltare is erectum majoris altitudinis facere Deexaltare est ad pristinam altitudinem adducere Prosternere stagnum est penitus tollere And in every Action upon the Case such apt and precise words are to be in the Writ according as his Case requires unto the end that Iudgment may in such Action be given to the Plaintiff according to his plaint and his damages In 7 E. 3. 56. In Assise of Nusans Quare exaltavit stagnum ad nocumentum liberi tenementi sui The Defendant pleaded that he had not inhanced it after it was levied and there it was said by Drew Serjeant That there is not any other Writ in the Chancery but Quare exaltavit stagnum But that was denied by Herle For that he said that the Plaintiff might have a Writ out of the Chancery Quare levavit stagnum And there by that Book it is assigned That Levare stagnum exaltare stagnum do differ and therefore he said that in this Case the Writ should abate for the using of one word for another 8 E. 3. 21. Fitz. Nusans 5. by Chauntrel In a Writ of Nusans Quare levavit if it be found that he levied it to the Nusans c. the whole shall be destroyed but in a Writ Quare exaltavit nothing shall be pulled down if it be found for the Plaintiff but that which is enhaunced onely So 8 Ass 9. Br. Nusans 17. the same Case is put And see 16 E. 3. Fitz. Nusans 11. If the Nusans be found in any other form than the Plaintiff hath declared he shall not recover And in 48 E. 3. 27. the Writ was Quare divertit cursum aquae c. and the Plaintiff shewed that the Defendant had set piles and such other things in the water by reason whereof the course of the water was straitened and because the Plaintiff might have had a Writ Quare coarctavit cursum aquae the Writ was abated Another Exception was taken viz. That the Assise of Nusans ought to be brought against the Tenant of the Freehold and therefore it would not lie in this Case it not being shewed that the Defendant was Tenant of the soil Vid. 33 H. 6. 26. by Moile If a way be straitned and impaired an Action upon the Case lieth but if it be altogether stopped up then an Assise must be brought But there it is said by Prisoit That if the stopping up of the way be done by the Tenant of the Land then an Assise lieth if by a stranger then an Action upon the Case But for common Nusances no Action lieth but they ought to be presented in the Court-Leet or Turn and there redressed and such was the opinion of the whole Court in this Case Then it was moved 6 Co. 25. That one of the Plaintiffs in the Writ of Error had released and the Question was whether that release should bar his companion to which nothing was said At another day the Case was moved again and Drew Serjeant said That Exaltare and Erigere are all one but all the Iustices were against that for that Erigere is de novo facere and Exaltare is in majorem altitudinem attollere and afterwards judgment was affirmed CCXXIII. Freeman and Drew 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Action upon the Case by Freeman against Drew The Defendant pleaded That after the Assumpsit whereof the Plaintiff had declared There was an agreement betwixt them That the Defendant and two others should be bound in a Bond to the Plaintiff for the sum promised and that they entred Bond accordingly The Plaintiff confessed the agreement and that the Bond was made according to the agreement and that the parties bound did deliver the same as their Deed cuidam ignoto to the Plaintiff The Defendant said That they did deliver the Deed to one J. S. and gave notice thereof unto the servant of the Plaintiff and that they are now ready to deliver it to the Plaintiff upon which there was a Demurrer Godfrey argued That the said Plea of the agreement specially executed ut supra was good as in a Case lately adjudged between Alford and Leigh 1 Cro. 54. Ante 110. Tr. 29 Eliz Where the Arbitrament was made That Leigh should release unto Alford before the Feast Petri ad vincula and before the said Feast Leigh sealed and delivered such a release unto the use of the said Alford and after the Feast he tendred it to Alford but he refused it and brought Debt upon the Bond for performance of the Arbitrament and it was adjudged That the Action would not lie for if he do recover upon that Action he also should take advantage of the release Coke In Alford's Case a tender was to the Plaintiff himself which is not in this Case and although that it was after the Feast yet it was before the suit commenced and also in our Case the tender is depending the suit Gawdy If the Plaintiff should recover in this Action he might plead the recovery in Bar of the suit upon the Obligation Wray Let the Plaintiff release the Bond and take Iudgment here which was done accordingly CCXXIV. Somers and Sir Richard Buckley 's Case 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN the Case betwixt Somers and Sir Rich Buckley Where the Plaintiff prayed a Prohibition to the Court of Admiralty The Case was That the Defendant sued in the Admiral Court for the moyety of a Ship and prize taken by them upon Letters of Reprizal 2 Inst 205. for the Civil Law is That if two Ships meet at Sea together although they do not go forth as consorts and the one Ship in the presence of the other taketh a Ship with goods in it the other Ship which was present shall have the moyety 2 Roll. 205. or one half of the Ship and goods taken for although it did not take the Ship yet the presence thereof there at the time of the taking was a terrour to the other Ship which was taken Sine quo the other Ship could not be so easily taken And now the Plaintiff for the Prohibition did surmise That after they were arrived in England 2 Roll. 171. they did agree amongst themselves That the Plaintiff should have four parts of the said Ship and goods so taken and the other five parts And the Plaintiff said that he had pleaded this matter in the Court of Admiralty and they would not allow the Plea and thereupon he prayed a Prohibition which was granted but afterwards it was moved on the other side That the said Court of Admiralty would allow the Plea and there trie it and thereupon a conditional consultation was granted by the Court so that that Court allow that Plea and trie
a stranger abateth after the death of the Devisor and dieth seised the same shall take away the descent CCXL The Case of the Town of Leicester for Toll Trin. 28 Eliz. In the King's-Bench 2 Inst AN Action of Trespass Tam pro Domina Regina quam pro seipso and shewed That the Town of Leicester is an ancient Town and ancient Demesne and the Inhabitants there have used to be discharged of Toll and that the Queen by her Letters Patents gave command to all Bailiffs Sheriffs Mayors c. That those of Leicester should be discharged of Toll and notwithstanding that That the Defendant took Toll c. Exception was taken because that the suit was prosecuted Tam pro Domina Regina quam pro seipso whereas the party grieved was onely to have the information See the Case 49 E. 36. Where the Writ is ad respondend tam pro nobis quam c. and no exception is taken to it Another exception The Plaintiff declares That Leicester is an ancient Town and ancient Demesne and doth not shew that it is parcel of a Manor See 20 E. 3. Ancient Demes 25. such exception is taken but after the Defendant pleads That all such Towns whereof the Land in question is parcell is ancient Demesne and such plea was holden good See 30 E. 3. 12. parcell of a Manor which is ancient Demesne and the Plaintiff replied Absque hoc that it is parcell of the Manor Another exception That Lands holden in Socage onely and no other ought to be discharged of Toll and here it is not shewed in the Declaration that the place where c. is holden in Socage To which it was answered That the same needs not to be set down in the Declaration for that is implied in these words Ancient Demesn for otherwise it cannot be but Socage Land onely and of no other Tenure A fourth Exception The Letters Patents here shewed in discharge are of no value for the King by his Letters Patents cannot disinherit any one Erg. nor discharge one of Toll wich is a kind of disinheritance To which it was said That the Plaintiff doth not declare of any Grant but of an usage or custome for those of ancient Demesn and farther hath commanded by the said Letters Patents that such customs and usages should hold place and upon the custome and the contempt this Action is grounded A fifth exception because the Plaintiff hath not shewed that the Toll whereof the Plaintiff hath counted was concerning things for provision for their houses manurance of their lands c. 7 H. 4. 111. In an Action upon the Case for not paying of Toll The Defendant said That he held certain lands of R. Lord of the Manor of H. which Manor is ancient Demesn of which Manor all the Tenants have been free to sell or buy beasts or other things for the manurance of their lands and maintenance of their houses without paying Toll in any Market or Fair c. And so justifies that he came to the same Market and bought certain beasts as the Plaintiff had declared and that some of them he used about his manurance of his lands and some of them he put into pasture to make them fat and more fit to be sold and afterwards he sold them at such a Fair c. and the opinion of the Court was with the Defendant And by Godfrey and Coke Such Tenants shall be discharged of Toll not onely for buying of things which concern their sustenance provision and manurance of their lands but also for all things bought as common merchandizes 28 Ass ult by Thorp Green and Seton of all things bought by any for his own use they shall be quit of Toll and then If the privilege of Tenants in ancient Demesn shall not be quit of Toll but for things bought for their sustenance provision and manurance of their lands they have no more favor than ordinary Subjects See 19 H. 6.66 Some are of opinion That such Tenants shall not pay Toll for things sold and bought coming upon their lands and touching their sustenance See F. N. B. 228. D. such Tenants are discharged of Toll for all things by them sold and bought by way of merchandize as also of things of necessity as sustenance And see Crook in the cases of Itiner 138. he conceives that such Tenants for merchandizes shall pay Toll as other merchants but see the Writ of F. N. B. 228. the words are De bonis rebus suis And Coke said That he had found the reason wherefore such Tenants should be quit of Toll throughout the Realm in an ancient Reading viz. That all the lands in the hands of Edw. the Confessor and Wil. the Conqueror set down in the Book of Doomsday were ancient Demesn and so called Terrae Regis and they were to provide victuals for the Kings Garrisons for then they were troublsome times and for those causes and because they made provisions for others they had many privileges amongst which this one Ut quietius aratra sua exercerent terram excolerent The Lord himself in ancient Demesn shall not have such privilege for his Seignory is pleadable at the Common Law Vid. F. N. B. 228. B. And he said That the Plaintiff ought to alledge that his lands are parcel of such a Manor for there cannot be ancient Demesn if there be not a Court and Suitors c. And he granted that such a Town might be ancient Demesn of the Crown but yet they shall not have the privileges and liberties which the Tenants in ancient Demesn have Towns were before Manors London hath the name of ancient Demesn and yet they have not such liberties nor the lands in it pleadable by Writ of right Close 7 H. 6. 31 32. Shute Iustice was of opinion That an Inhabitant within ancient Demesn although he be not Tenant shall have the privileges See for that F. N. B. 228. B. Tenants at will in ancient Demesn shall be discharged of Toll as well as Tenants of the Freehold for life or for years 37 H. 6. 27. by Moile London is ancient Demesn for they prescribe that a Villein who hath there dwelt c. shall not be taken from thence by Capias or Attachment Billing London is not in the Book of Doomsday Moile They make their Protestation in a Writ of Right Patent Littleton That is used in divers places and at this day in Exeter And by Clench If a Tenant in ancient Demesn levyeth a Fine of his lands then he shall not have the privilege untill the Fine be reversed Quod fuit concessum If the Lord of a Manor in ancient Demesn purchaseth all the Tenancies the whole privilege is gone which Coke denyed The Case was adjorned CCXLI. Lennard 's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Roll. 787. 3 Len. 128. IN the Case of Lennard Custos Brevium who was Plaintiff in an Action of Trespass for breaking of his Close The Defendant pleaded
good answer for they are Pleas onely before the Auditors and not in an Action upon Accompt and farther he said That although the Verdict be found but for part yet it is good for no damages are to be recovered in an Accompt In trespass it is true if one issue be found and not the other and joint-damages be given the Verdict is not good for any part but if several damages be given then it is good as it is ruled in 21 H. 6. Coke 26 H. 8. is That the Plaintiff cannot declare generally of an house Curam habens administrationem bonorum but he must farther say Twenty quarters of Corn or the like c. In the principal Case it is a joint-charge and but one for the shop and goods and he answers unto one onely but he ought to answer to all or else it is no answer at all But Coke found out another thing viz. That there is a thing put in issue which is not in the Verdict nor found nor touched in the Verdict and that was the Verdict of all which is found not to be good and it is not helped by the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Jeofailes I grant that discontinuances are helped by the Statute of 32 H. 8. but imperfect Verdicts are not helped thereby Vid. 205. It was a great Case argued in the Exchequer Chamber and it was Brache's Case An information was against Brache for entring into a house and an hundred Acres of Lands in Stepney He pleaded not guilty The Iury found him guilty for the hundred acres but said nothing as to the house upon which a Writ of Error was brought and Iudgment was reversed and he said it was not a discontinuance but no verdict for part Daniel That was the default of the Clerks who did not enter it and it hath been the usage to amend the defaults done by the Clerks in another Term All the Iustices said That is true if the Postea be brought in and not entred but here it is entred in the Roll in this form Daniel Where I charge one in Accompt with so much by the hands of such a one and so much by the hands of such a one although there be but one Absque hoc to them all yet they are as several issues The Court answered Not so unless there be several issues joined to every one of them But by Gawdy Iustice If there be several issues and the one be found and the other not no Iudgment shall be given Clench Iustice In the principal Case It is not a charge of the goods but in respect of the shop therefore that ought to be traversed Shute Iustice The Traverse of the shop alone is not good Egerton the Queen's Solicitor said That the Books might be reconciled and that there needed not a Traverse to the goods for the Traverse of the shop Prout is an answer to all But now he takes issue upon the goods onely which issue is not warranted by the Declaration and he said That if one charge me as Bailiff of his goods ad Merchandizandum I shall answer for the increase and shall be punished for my negligence But if he charge me as his Receiver ad computandum I shall not be answerable but for the bare money or thing which was delivered CCXLVI Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Postea 215. IN Trespass for taking of goods the Defendant justified as Bailiff to J. S. The Plaintiff by Replication saith That the Defendant prest his Cattel of his own wrong Absque hoc that he is Bailiff to J. S. And by Anderson 1 Leon. 50. If one hath good cause to distrain my Cattel and a stranger of his own head without any warrant or authority takes my goods not as servant or Bailiff to another and I bring Trespass against him he cannot excuse himself by saying that he did it as Bailiff c. for once he was a Trespassor but if one do distrain as Bailiff although that in truth he be not Bailiff if afterwards he in whose right he justifies assents to it he shall not be punished as a Trespassor for this assent shall have relation unto the time of the distress taken which Periam concessit and also Rhodes A. distrains and being asked for what cause he distrains and he assigns a cause which is not sufficient and afterwards an Action is brought against him 3 Co. 26. he may avow the distress for another cause CCXLVII. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas THE Case was That the Queen gave Lands in tail to hold in Capite and afterwards granted the Reversion Windham In this Case the Tenure is not incident to the Reversion but is in respect of the person and therefore the Tenure in Capite doth remain and the Donee shall hold of the Queen as in gross And also the Grantee of the Reversion shall hold of the Queen in Capite and so two Tenures in Capite for the same Lands See 30 H. 8. Dyer 45. If the Queen in this cause had reserved a Rent upon the Gift in tail the same should go with the Reversion CCXLVIII Dighton and Clark 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench DIghton brought Debt upon a Bond the Condition of which was That whereas the Plaintiff was in quiet possession of such lands If now neither J. S. nor J. B. nor J. G. did not disturb the Plaintiff in his possession of the said lands by any indirect means but by due course of Law That then c. that Defendant pleaded That neither J. S. nor J. D. or J. G. did disturb the Plaintiff by any indirect means but by due course of Law upon which there was a demurrer Godfrey The Plea in Bar is not good for there is a Negativa pregnans scil a Negative which implies an Affirmative See 21 H. 6.9 In a Writ of Entry Sur Disseisin the Defendant saith That the Demandant by his Deed after the Darrein continuance did confirm and ratifie the possession of the Tenant c. The Demandant said Not his Deed after the Darrein continuance and the same was holden to be Negativa pregnans See more there and see also 5 H. 7. 7. And see farther 39 H. 6. 8 9. Another Exception was taken to the Plea in Bar because he hath pleaded That neque J. S. neque J. D. neque J. G. had disturbed the Demandant by any indirect means but onely by due course of Law and that issue cannot be tried not by the Countrey for they cannot know what is a due course of Law and by the Court it cannot be tried for the Defendant hath not certainly shewed by what due course of Law the Demandant hath been disturbed which see 22 E. 4. 40 41 c. The Lord Lisle's Case In Debt upon a Bond the Condition was That if the Defendant before such a day or any other for him and in his name come to B. and there shew unto the Plaintiff or one of his
of the Hundred upon this Statute and it seemed hard to the Inhabitants there that they should answer for the Robberies done at Gadds Hill because Robberies are there so frequent that if they should answer for all of them that they should be utterly undone And Harris Serjeant was of Councill with the Inhabitants of Gravesend and pleaded for them that time out of mind c. Felons had used to rob at Gadds Hill and so prescribed and afterwards by award they were charged And note That the Case was that three men were robbed and they three joined in the Action against the Inhabitants XX. Colshil and Hasting 's Case 20 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas AN Extent was sued forth upon a Statute-Merchant by Colshil against Hastings for Lands in his possession in the County of Southampton The Sheriff put the Plaintiff the Conusee in possession of parcel of a House and of Lands and suffered Hastings to continue in the rest of the House Execution executed 1 Leon. 145. by reason whereof Hastings kept the possession of the whole and held the Conusee out The Conusee to the intent that he might have full and perfect possession of the whole caused the Sheriff that he did not retorn the Writ of Extent upon which it is entred on the Roll Quod Vice-Comes nihil inde fecit nec misit breve Whereupon issued an Alias extendi facias upon which the new Sheriff did retorn That in the time of the old Sheriff a Writ of Extent issued forth c. and that the said Sheriff had extended the Lands by reason whereof the now Sheriff could not extend them upon the new Writ It was moved for the Conusee That the retorn was not good For although that the Lands be extended by the first Writ Yet because it is not retorned it is not any Execution in Law nor could the Conusee have an Assise which Manwood Iustice denied Loare Preignothory Our course is when no retorn of such Writ is made to grant an Alias at the prayers of the party and to enter upon the Roll That the Sheriff upon the first Writ Nihil inde fecit nec misit breve And that was taken by the Court to be a good and lawfull course in such Case for upon such surmise that no Execution hath been done and that upon such entry on the Roll an Alias Breve might be well awarded And afterwards this second Writ of Extent was not filed by order of the Court And note that the new Sheriff was examined upon his Oath by the Court of the Action and he said that he made the retorn by the advice of Master Plowden who told him that he might safely retorn that the Land was formerly extended and although that the said Extent was not retorned yet it is an Execution for the Party Manwood Certainly this is an insufficient retorn But perhaps Master Plowden did not know of this entry in the Roll as aforesaid for now it appeareth upon Record that no Execution was done If this entry had not been I should well agree with Master Plowden that the same is an Execution for the party although it be not retorned XXI Steward 's Case 19 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas THE Case was A. seised of certain Lands in Fee granted a Rent-charge out of the same to another and afterwards aliened the Lands to a stranger The Grantee in a Replevin did avow for the Rent and the other party pleaded that nothing passed by the Deed It was holden by the whole Court to be no plea nor can any issue be joined upon it but the Plaintiff ought to have said That he did not grant by the Deed For the same is a Rent newly created and which had not his essence before the grant and it cannot properly be said That nothing passed by the Deed but not of a thing that is in esse but of things not in esse That he did not grant is the most natural issue for a thing not in esse non potest transire XXII 19 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Action upon the Case upon a Trover and Conversion to his own use per venditionem quibusdam hominibus ignotis Trover and Conversion the Defendant pleaded That the goods were bailed to him to bail over to J. S. to whom he had delivered them absque hoc that he did convert them to his own use per venditionem hominibus ignotis It was moved by Egerton that that matter is not traversable quod Wray concessit for the conversion to his own use is the cause and ground of the Action and not the selling of the goods c. XXIII Mich. 19 and 20 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas A Man was outlawed in the Court of Hustings of London and the Hustings in which the Iudgment of Outlawry was given Outlawry was holden two Weeks next after the last Hustings so as there was but two Weeks betwixt the two Hustings whereas commonly the Hustings is holden but every three Weeks and now the Sheriffs of London were in doubt if they might safely retorn the Outlawry without danger of an Action upon the Case brought against them by the party outlawed It was holden by Dyer and the whole Court that they ought and might safely retorn the said Outlawry for the Lord Dyer said That there is a Record in the time of R. 2. whereby it appeareth that in London they might hold their Hustings every Week if they pleased and afterwards he commanded Mosley and Christopher Secondaries to retorn the Outlawry which was done accordingly XXIV Lovelesse 's Case 19 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Debt upon Recognizance 1 Cro. 608. 817. LOvelesse Serjeant brought a Scire facias upon a Recognizance and had Iudgment upon default Quod habeat Executionem and afterwards he brought an Action of Debt upon the said Iudgment and exception was taken to the Action for that he ought to proceed upon the Iudgment given upon the Scire facias and ought to sue Execution according to the said Iudgment by Elegit or Scire facias but not by Capias but the Exception was not allowed For the Recognizance is a Iudgment in it self and an Action of Debt will lie upon it without any Iudgment in the Scire facias And Debt lieth as well upon the Iudgment as upon the Recognizance it self and so was the opinion of the whole Court. XXV Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Brent 's Case Dyer 340. b. THE Case was That Robert-Brent being seised of Lands in Fee made a Feoffment thereof unto the use of himself and Dorothy his Wife for their lives and if he do survive his said Wife then to the use of him the said Robert and such a Woman as he should after marry for the Iointure of such Wife the Remainder over to a stranger in Fee And afterward with the privity and assent of the Feoffor he in the Remainder and the Feoffees join in a Feoffment to divers persons Note both Feoffments were
Postea 82 83. IN Ejectione firmae It was found by special Verdict That Mr. Graunt was seised of the Lands c. and by his Will devised the same to Joan his Wife for life and farther he willed That when Richard his brother shall come to the age of 25 years he should have the Lands to him and the heirs of his body lawfully begotten Mr. Graunt died having issue of his body who is his heir Richard before he had attained the age of 25 years levied a Fine of the said Lands with Proclamations in the life and during the seisin of Joan to A. Sic ut partes ad finem nihil habuerunt and if this Fine should bind the Estate-tail was the Question And the Iustices cited the case of the Lord Zouch which was adjudged M. 29 and 30 Eliz. Tenant in tail discontinues to E. and afterwards levieth a Fine to B. although the partes ad finem nihil habuerunt yet the Fine shall bind the entail But the Serjeants at Bar argued That there is a great difference betwixt the Case cited and the Case at Bar for in that Case the said Fine was pleaded in Bar but here the Fine is not pleaded but found by special Verdict To which it was said by the Court that the same was not any difference For the Fine by the Statute is not any matter of Estoppel or conclusion but by the Statute doth bind and extinguish the Estate-tail and the right of it and Fines are as effectual to bind the right of the entail when they are found by especial Verdict as when they are pleaded in Bar And by Periam Collateral Warranty found by Verdict is of as great force as if it were pleaded in Bar And afterwards Iudgment was given That the Estate-tail by the Fine was utterly destroyed and extinct XLIX Jay 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas JAY brought an Action of Debt before the Mayor of Shrewsbury c. and declared upon an Obligation which was upon condition to pay money at London and issue was there joined upon the payment And it was moved how this issue should be tried viz. 4 Inst 205. If it may be removed by Certiorare into the Chancery and thence by Mittimus into the Common-Pleas and from thence sent into London to be tried and when it is tried to be remanded back to Shrewsbury to have Iudgment See 21 H. 7. 33. Vpon voucher in the County Palatine of Lancaster the Law is such in matters real for real actions cannot be sued but in the said County Palatine but in personal matters it is otherwise for such actions may be sued elsewhere at the pleasure of the party And thereunto agreed the whole Court and although such matters have been removed before yet the same were without motion to the Court or opposition of the other party and so not to be accounted Precedents See 3 H. 4. 46. abridg'd by Brook Cause de remover Plea 41. Where he saith That a Foreign Plea pleaded in London in Debt goes to the jurisdiction but upon a Foreign Voucher in a Plea real the Plea shall be removed in Bank by the Statute to try the Warranty and afterward shall be remanded L. Sands and Scagnard 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Case The Plaintiff declared that he was possessed of certain Chattels which came to the Defendant by Trover The Defendant pleaded That heretofore the Plaintiff brought Debt against the now Defendant and demanded certain moneys and declared that the Defendant bought of him the same goods whereof the Action is now brought for the summ then in demand to which the then Defendant waged his Law and had his Law by which Nihil Capiat per breve c. was entred And demanded Iudgment if c. And by Windham and Rodes Iustices The same is no bar in this Action for the waging of the Law and the doing of it utterly disproves the Contract supposed by the Declaration in the said Action of Debt and then the Plaintiff is not bound by the supposal of it but is at large to bring this Action and so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff LI. Spittle and Davie 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Owen Rep. 8 55. IN a Replevin the Case was That one Turk was seised of certain Lands in Fee and by his Will devised parcell of his said Lands to his eldest Son in tail and the residue of his Lands to his younger Son in Fee Provided that neither of my said Sons shall sell or make Leases of the Lands given or bequeathed unto them by this my Will or doe any Act with any of the said Lands to the hindrance of their children or mine by any devise or means before they come to the age of 30 years and if any of my Sons doe so then my other Son shall have the portion of my Lands so devised to his Brother the eldest Son before his age of 30 years leased the Lands to him devised ut supra for years against the intent of the said Proviso The younger Son entred 2 Cro. 398. and he leased the same Land for years before his age of 30 years Vpon which the eldest Son did re-enter and the opinion of the Court was that here is a Limitation and not a Condition and here the re-entry of the eldest Son was holden unlawfull for this Proviso did not extend but to the immediate Estate devised expresly to them and not to any new Estate which did arise upon the limitation and when the younger Son enters upon the eldest Son by the said Limitation he shall hold his Estate discharged of the Proviso or any limitation contained in it LII Martin Van Henbeck 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer AN Information was exhibited in the Exchequer against Martin Van Henbeck Merchant-stranger upon the Statute of 18 H. 6. Cap. 17. concerning the gaging of vessels of Wine and shewed That the Defendant had sold to such a one so many pipes of Wine and that none of them did contain as they ought 126. gallons and although they were so defective yet the Defendant had not defalked the price c. according to the want of measure for which he had forfeited to the Queen all the value of all the Wine so defective Exception was taken to the Information because there is not set down how much in every pipe was wanting as one or two gallons c. To as a ratable defalcation might be made according to the proportion of the want of measure But if the Informer had set forth in his Information that no defalcation was at all such general allegation of want of measure without other certainty had been good And the Case was cited 32 E. 4. 40. Lysle's Case Where the plea wants certainty or where he pleads that he was ready to shew to the Council of the Plaintiff his discharge of an Annuity c. and doth not shew
ratione calumniae praedict ac praedict jurament tenebat proficua inde provenientia diutius quam aliter si praesens Triatio habita fuisset sine aliqua calumnia tenere potuisset See the Statute of 5 Eliz. against Perjury the words are grieved letted or molested c. LIV. George ap Rice 's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench George ap Rice Tenant in Tail after possibility of Issue extinct assigned his Estate to one A. against whom he in the Reversion brought a Quid juris clamat and it was adjudged that he should Attorn for although Tenant in Tail after possibility of Issue extinct himself is not compellable to attorn yet his Assignee shall attorn for the privilege is knit to the person who is in truth Tenant in Tail after possibility of Issue which cannot be the Assignee for by the Assignment the privity and the privilege are destroyed 1 Len. 290.291 And where the Defendant in a Quid juris clamat is adjudged to attorn Distress infinite shall issue forth against him to compell him to attorn and if he when he appears doth refuse to attorn he shall be imprisoned until he doth attorn And this Iudgment That the Assignee of Tenant in Tail after possibility should attorn being given in a Court in Wales was afterwards affirmed in a Writ of Error brought upon it in the King 's Bench. LV. Lucas and Picrost 's Case 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THE Case was 3 Len. 137. That an Assise of Novel disseisin was brought in the County of Northumberland of two Acres of Land and as to one Acre the Defendant pleaded a Plea tryable in a Foreign County upon which the Issue was adjourned into the Common Pleas and from thence into the Foreign County where by Nisi prius it was found for the Plaintiff And now Snag Serjeant prayed Iudgment for the Plaintiff and cited the Book of 16 H. 7. 12. where Assise is adjourned in Bank for difficulty of the Verdict they there may give Iudgment But the whole Court is of contrary Opinion for here is another Acre the Title of which is to be tryed before the Iustices of the Assise before the Tryal of which no Iudgment shall be given for the Acre for which the Title is found And the Assise is properly depending before the Iustices of the Assise before whom the Plaintiff may discontinue his Assise And it is not like unto the Case of 6 Ass 4. 8 Ass 15. where in an Assise a Release dated in a Foreign County is pleaded which was denyed for which cause the Assise was adjourned in Bank and there found by Inquest not the Deed of the Plaintiff now the Plaintiff if he will release his damages shall have Iudgment of the Freehold presently But in our Case Postea 199. 14 H. 7. part 118. parcel of the Lands put in view doth remain not tryed which the Plaintiff cannot release as he may the damages And therefore the Court awarded That the Verdict should be sent back to the Iustices of the Assise LVI Povye 's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In communi Banco POvy an Attorny of the King's Bench brought an Action of Trespass there against the Warden of the Fleet who came into the Common Pleas and demanded the Advice of the Court because he is an Officer of this Court and therefore ought not to be impleaded elsewhere But it was said by the Court 3 Cro. 180. That because that the Plaintiff hath also his Privilege in the King's Bench as well as the Defendant hath here this equality of Privilege shall render the parties at liberty and he shall have the benefit of the Privilege who first begins Suit and so the Warden of the Fleet was advised to answer LVII Inchley and Robinson 's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione Firmae it was found by special Verdict Owen Rep. 88. 3 Len. 165 That King E. 6. was seised of the Manor and hundred of Fremmington and by his Letters Patents granted the same to Barnard in Fee rendering 130 l. per annum and also to hold by Homage and Fealty and afterwards Queen Mary reciting the said Grant by E. 6. and the Reservation upon it granted to Gartrude Marchioness of Exeter the Manor of Fremmington and the said Rents and Services and also the Manor of Camfield and other Lands and tenements to be holden by the twentieth part of a Knight's Fee Gertrude so seised devised to the Lord Montjoy the Manor of Fremmington the Manor of Camfield c. and also bequeathed divers sums of money to be levied of the premisses and they farther found That the said Rent of 230 l. was the full third part of the yearly value of all the Lands and Tenements of the Devisor The Question was If by those words of the Devise Of the Manor of Fremmington the Rent and Services of the Manor did pass i. the Rent and the Homage and the Fealty reserved the Grant of King E. 6. of the Manor and Hundred of Fremmington and if the said Rent and Services are issuing out of the Manor for if the Rent doth not pass then the same is descended to the Heir of the Marchioness and then being found the full and third part of the value the King and the Heir is fully answered and satisfied and then the Inheritance of the residue discharged and settled in the Devisee And if the Rent doth not pass then is the Heir of the Marchioness entitled by the Statute to a third part of the whole Shuttleworth Serjeant If the Marquess had devised by express words the said Rent and Services they could not have passed for as to the Services they are entire things as Homage and Fealty and they cannot pass by Devise in case where Partition is to follow for such things cannot receive any Partition or Division therefore they are not divisible for the Statute doth enable the Proprietor or Owner to devise two parts of his Inheritances in three parts to be divided i. as Catalla Felonum cannot be devised for the reason aforesaid which was granted by the whole Court. And as to the Devise he argued much upon the grounds of Devises and put a ground put by Fineax 15 H. 7. 12. where every Will ought to be construed and taken according as the words do import or as it may be intended or implyed by the words what the meaning of the Testator was out of the words of the Will. See thereof a good Case 19 H. 8. 8. and 9. and he relied much upon the Case of Bret and Rigden Plow 342. So he said in this case because the intent of the Devisor doth not appear upon the words of the Will that this Rent should pass it shall not pass for there is not any mention made of any Rent in all the Will. Fenner contrary and he argued much upon the favorable construction which the Law gives to Wills 14 H. 3. Reversion for Remainder
15 E. 4. 29. And he agreed the Case That if the Lord doth improve part of the common that he shall not have common in the residue of the Land for the Lands improved because That he cannot prescribe for that which is improved as the Book is in 5 Ass But here in the principal Case he doth not prescribe in any person certain or in or for any new thing but he sets forth that the use of the Town hath always been that the inhabitants should have common there And this common is not common appendent or appertinent but common in gross See Needham 37 H. 6. 34. b. And he said That if the house of a Freeholder which hath used to have such common doth fall down and he erecteth a new house in another place of the Land that he shall have common to that new erected house as he had before And he took a difference betwixt the case of Estovers where a new Chimney is erected and this Case and he stood much upon the manner of the prescription Gawdy Serjeant contrary And he took exception to the prescription For he said that it is said therein That it is Antiqua Villa but he doth not say that it hath been so time out of mind c. and so it ought to be said as the Book is in 15 E. 4. 29. a. And then if it be not an ancient Town time out of mind the parties cannot prescribe as Inhabitants of the said Town to have common time out of mind c. And he said That if such a prescription as is said in this Case be good in Law viz. That every one who erected a new house within the said Town should have common to his said new house the same should be prejudicial to the ancient Town and to the utter overthrow and manifest impairing of the common there and it might so happen that one who had but little Lands in the said Town might erect twenty new houses there and so an infinite number of houses might be newly erected there and there should be common allowed to every Inhabitant within the said new erected houses which should be inconvenient and unreasonable Anderson chief Iustice He who erects a new house cannot prescribe in the common for then a prescription might begin at this day which cannot be and he insisted much upon the general loss which should happen to the ancient Tenants if such a prescription for new erections should be good Periam If it should be Law That he should have common in this Case That all the benefit which the Statute gives to the Lord for improvement should be taken away by such new edifications and erection of new houses which were not reasonable And such was the opinion of the other Iustices and therefore they all agreed that in the principal Case the Plaintiff should not have common to this new erected house but the entry of the Iudgment was respited untill the Court had seen the Record and after they had seen and considered upon the Record Anderson and Periam were of opinion as before But Windham did not encline to the contrary but they all agreed That he who set up again a new Chimney where an old one was before should have Estovers to the said new Chimney and so if he build a new house upon the foundation of an old house That he should have common to his said house new erected So if a house falleth down and the Tenant or Inhabitant sets up a new house in the same place Also if a man hath a Mill and a Water-course to it time out of mind which he hath used time out of mind to cleanse if the Mill falleth and he erecteth a new Mill there he shall have the Watercourse and liberty to cleanse it as it had before and afterwards the same Term Iudgment was given for the Defendant to which Windham Iustice agreed LIX Rous and Artois Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THE Case was large but the points in this Case were but two Owen Rep. 27. 4 Co. 24. The first was If Tenant per auter vye after the death of Cestuy que vye holdeth over If he be a Disseisor or not The second point was If Tenant at will or at sufferance be such a Tenant of the Manor as he may grant Copyhold Estates to Copyholders For the first point It was agreed by Godfrey and he held that the principal Case was That if Tenant pur auter vye holdeth over the life of Cestuy que vye that he thereby gaineth the Fee But he granted the Cases That where a man holdeth at the will of another that after the Estate determined if he holdeth over he hath not thereby gained fee for he is Tenant at sufferance and as Littleton saith in his Chapter of Releases 108. Tenant at sufferance is where a man of his own head occupieth the Lands and Tenements at the will of him who hath the Freehold and such an occupier claims nothing but at will But he said That in the principal Case he otherwise claimed than at the will of the Lessor for that it appeareth that he hath granted Copy and he said that this difference doth give answer to the Case which is t. H. 8. br t. per Copy 18. where it is said for Law That none is Tenant at sufferance but he who first enters by authority of Law As if a man makes a Lease for years or for the life of another and he holdeth the Lands after his term expired or after the death of Cestuy que vye If he claim nothing but at the will of him who hath the Freehold he is a Tenant at sufferance But if he holdeth in the Lands against the will of his Lessor then he is a Disseisor and so if he do act after such continuance of possession contrary to the will of his Lessor he is a Disseisor 10 E. 4. If an Infant maketh a Lease at will and the Lessor dieth and the Lessee continueth in possession and claims Fee the Heir shall have Mortdancester 18 E. 4. If Cestuy que vye dieth and the Tenant hold in and was impleaded The Lessor shall not be received and he conceived the reason of the Case to be because that the reversion was not in him but that the Fee was gained and rested in the other 22 E. 4. 39. g. by Hussey If a Termor holdeth over his term there an Estate in Fee is confessed to be in him because he holdeth the possession of the Lands by wrong but there is a Quaere made of it if he be a Disseisor or not but I conceive that he is for Trespass doth not lie against him before the Lessor hath made his entry and therefore if the Lessee doth continue in the possession of the Lands by reason of the first entry that is the reason as I conceive that the Writ of Entre ad terminum qui praeteriit lieth against such a Termor who holds so over his Term and
that Writ is a Praecipe quod reddat which doth not lie but against a Tenant of the Freehold And such is the opinion of Tilney 7 H. 4. 43. That if the Guardian holds in the Lands at the full age of the Heir or if the Tenant for years after the term expired holdeth over the Lands their Estates shall be adjudged a Fee. And in our Case here he doth not claim to hold in at the will of the Lessor for he hath done an act contrary to the will of the Lessor For he being Lord of the Manor in manner as aforesaid 3 Cro. 302. hath granted Estates by Copy and it is holden 12 E. 4. 12. by all the Iustices That if Tenant at will or Tenant at sufferance at will makes a Lease for years that the same is a Disseisin to the Lessor and the Tenant at will thereby gains the Freehold and the reason of the Book seems to be because he claims to hold a greater Estate than of right belongs unto him The second point was If Tenant at sufferance might grant Copies and he said that he might and such grant should be good because he is in by lawfull means and an Assise doth not lie against him as in the Book of 22 E. 4. 38. before and he is Dominus pro tempore And this Case is not like to the Cases where Copies are made by Abators or Disseisors for the Law doth adjudge that Copies made or granted by them are void and his act here as a Tenant at sufferance of making and granting of the Copies stands with the custome of the Manor which warrants them as in the Case of Grisbrook and Fox if an Administrator made by the Ordinary sells the goods of the Intestate and with the money thereof arising payeth the debts of the Intestate and afterwards he who was made Executor proves the Will he shall not avoid such sale of the goods because he hath made it according to Law and hath done no more than an Executor is compelled to doe So 12 H. 7. 25. b. If a Baily cut down trees to repair an ancient pail the same is good So 4 H. 7. 14. b. If he payeth a Quit Rent it is good And note 4 Mariae Br. Tenant by Copy 27. That the Lessee of a Manor in which there are Copyholds after the death of the Copyholder may admit the Heir of the Copyholder to the Land and so he may doe who hath but an Estate in the Manor durante bene placito and yet it seems by the Book that such a Tenant of the Manor cannot reserve and lessen Rent but he ought to reserve the ancient Rent or more Coke contrary And first he said that he who holdeth over the life of the Cestuy que use doth not gain any Fee where he comes in first by right for that he is but Tenant at sufferance 35 H. 8. Dyer 57. in the Case of the Lord Zouch Cestuy que use for life the remainder over in tail makes Lease for life of the Lessee he dieth the Lessee continueth his Estate and the opinion of the Iustices of the Common-Pleas and of others was that he is but a Tenant at sufferance for the Lease was not any discontinuance of the Remainder because he had authority by the Statute of Rich. 3. to make a Lease and that is intended of such Estate which he might lawfully doe and this is our Case and so it is adjudged already As to the second point I grant that Tenant for years or at will or at sufferance is Dominus pro tempore but there is a difference as unto granting of Copies by them For it was adjudged 25 Eliz. that they might grant Copies which are to be granted upon surrenders made by Copyholders As if a Copyholder doth surrender to the use of another they may accept of such a surrender and grant the Lands by Copy to him to whose use the surrender is made But if a Copyholder dieth they cannot grant voluntary Copies de novo And he said that Popham who argued the said Case in 25 Eliz. That this difference was agreed and so adjudged in one Sleer's Case And so 17 El. in the Case of one Stowley where the Case was That a Manor was devised to one and the Devisee entred and granted Copies and afterwards it was found that the Devise was void and it was there holden that Copies made by such Devisee upon surrenders were good and were not to be avoided but contrary of Copies made after the death of Tenants upon voluntary grants I grant that when Cestuy que use dieth the Estate for life is utterly void and gone and therefore he is in by wrong but he cannot thereby gain so great an Estate as a Disseisor because he came in at the first by right Atkinson put a difference betwixt Tenant at will and Tenant at sufferance for Tenant at will shall have aid but contrary of Tenant at sufferance as the Book is 11 H. 4. a Release to Tenant at will is good contrary to Tenant at sufferance when after the death of Cestuy que use he holdeth over he hath some interest scil to this purpose that he shall not be a wrong doer for he is neither Abator nor Desseisor therefore not a wrong doer and then if he be in by a right or rightfully he is then Dominus pro tempore and then the grants made by him by Copy are good 7 H. 7. 3. Tenant at sufferance was to justifie the distraining the cattel of another damage feasant Coke True it is the beasts of a stranger but not of the Tenant of the freehold Gawdy Iustice The Lessor cannot have Trespass against him before entry not because he is not a wrong doer but because it is his folly that he doth not enter All the Iustices did hold with the Plaintiff against the Copy granted and that he which granted it was but Tenant at sufferance and not a Desseisor nor had gained the Fee because he came in first by right And therefore they awarded that if the Defendant did not shew better cause that Iudgment should be entred for the Plaintiff LX. Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN the Exchequer Chamber there was this Case An Indenture Tripartite was betwixt three A. was one of them and he covenanted with them Et quolibet eorum And the Covenant was that the Land which he had aliened to one of them was discharged of all incumbrances and he to whom the limitation of the Lands was but a Writ of Covenant sole Buckley argued that it was well brought and cited the Case of 6 E. 2. Br. Covenant 49. where one covenanted with twenty to repair the Sea-banks and he did not repair against two of them and they two brought a Writ of Covenant solement and the Writ holden maintainable because they onely were damnified and so he said in this Case But notwithstanding this it was afterwards 5 Co. 18. viz. M. 30 Eliz.
adjudged by the whole Court that the Covenant did not lie by one of them onely but ought to be brought by them both LXI Carter 's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Being seised of the Manor of Staple in Odiham 1 Cro. 208. Owen Rep. 84. 8 Co. 119. and of divers other Lands in Odiham suffered a common Recovery of the whole and by Indenture expressed the uses in this manner viz. of all his Lands and Tenements in Odiham to the use of his wife for life the remainder over c. And of the Manor of Staple to the use of his youngest son in tail but by the clear opinion of the whole Court although the Manor of Staple was in Odiham yet the wife shall have nothing therein for the intent of the party was that the son should have the same and his wife the residue and accordingly Iudgment was given LXII Cobb and Prior 's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THE Case betwixt Cobb and Prior was this A man seised of Lands in Fee devised the same to his Wife during the minority of his Son upon condition that she should not do Waste during the minority of the said Son and died The Wife married a Husband and died the Husband committed Waste It was holden by all the Iustices That the same was not any breach of the Condition and Iudgment was entred accordingly LXIII Taylor and Brounsal 's Case Trin. 33 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. IN an Information upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. by Taylor against Brounsal the Case was That John Brounsal was seised and gave the Lands to T. B. and the Heirs of his body c. the Remainder to R. B. and the Heirs male of his body the Remainder to the right Heirs of J. B. T. B. died having issue a Daughter and R. B. made a Lease for years of the Lands And it was holden by the Court to be no maintenance within the said Statute for he in the Remainder might make a Lease for years Then it was given in Evidence That a common Recovery was had against the Husband and Wife with a single Voucher and so the Remainder limited to R. B. destroyed and that after that Recovery R. B. made the Lease To which it was said by the other side That the said Recovery was never executed and no discontinuance of the Remainder and then the Lease made by R. B. was good and the truth of the Case was That such a Recovery was had and an Habere facias seisinam awarded and retorned but no Execution was in truth had upon it nor the Recoveror never entred And if R. B. who is a stranger to the said Recovery shall be admitted against the Recovery to say That no Execution was thereof was the Question and therefore all the matter was found by special Verdict It was also given in Evidence That the Land was given to T. B. and the Heirs males of his body and then when the Daughter which is not in truth inheritable entereth if that Entry she being privy in bloud to R. hee Vncle shall be a Disseisin or Abatement c. as in the Case of Littleton where the youngest Brother entreth after the death of the Father for in such case the youngest Son doth not get any Freehold but is but a Tenant at sufferance Anderson When the Daughter enters and takes a Husband who leaseth for years and the Lessee entreth the same is a Disseisin Periam doubted it for he said When the younger Son entred the Freehold was in him which Anderson doubted LXIV Maunsel and Vernon 's Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IQ Debt by Maunsel against Hen. Vernon Esquire who came in by Capias i. compulsary Process and pleaded That he was Hen. Vernon Lord Powis and so a Baron of the Parliament and demanded Iudgment of the Writ Note some said That if the Defendant had come in by Issue joyned or gratis and not by compulsary Process he could not have pleaded this Plea or any other Misnosmer The Plaintiff replyed That the Defendant is an Esquire absque hoc that he is Lord Powis and a Baron of the Parliament and as the Iury was ready at the Bar to try this Issue this matter was objected And Anderson conceived That this Plea to the Writ was not good for the name of Lord is not any degree as Knight Duke Earl nor is it parcel of the name nor parcel of addition and therefore it is no Plea in abatement of a Writ and all the Writs of Parliament directed to Barons to summon them to Parliament shall have their Names Sirnames and Additions as if they be Knights Knights and if Esquires they shall be named Esquires and if a Bond be made by J.S. Lord R. the Writ shall not be so for the King by his Writ doth not name any one Lord but otherwise it is of Duke Earl c. for these are Offices of Dignity and parcel of their Names and not onely Additions Windham and Periam contrary and they conceived that there was no difference in this point betwixt a Lord and an Earl for which cause the Court being in doubt although that the Exception was entered of Record would have saved the same to the party and taken the Iury de bene esse but afterwards because it appeared it was joyned in the prejudice of Sir Edward Herbert who was a stranger thereunto and whose Title was concerned therein and there was none on his part to inform the Iury the Iury was at last dismissed by the Court. LXV Penruddock and Newman 's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Ejectione Firmae by Penruddock against Newman 1 Leon. 279 the Plaintiff declared of a Lease made by the Lord Morley and upon Not-guilty pleaded the Iury found this special matter scil That W. Lord Mounteagle seised of the manner of D. whereof c. became bound in a Statute in such a sum of Money to A. who died the Executors of A. sued Execution against the said Lord scil Extendi facias a Liberate issued upon which the said Manor was delivered to the Executors but the said Liberate was not retorned and it was farther found That the Executors being so possessed of the Manor the Lord commanded a Court Baron to be holden there which was done by sufferance and permission of the Executors and in their presence at which time the Executors said to the Lord the Conusor We have nothing to do with this Manor And upon this Verdict several matters were moved 1. If the Execution were well done because the Writ of Liberate was not retorned and as to that divers Books were cited 21 H. 6. 8. 18 E. 3. 25. And there is a difference betwixt a Liberate and a Capias ad satisfaciend and Fieri facias these Writs are Conditional Ita quod habeas corpus c. Ita quod habeas denarios hic in Curia 32 H. 8. ca. 28. 16 H. 7.
14. but contrary in a Writ of Habere facias seisinam or in a Liberate for in these Writs there are not such words and therefore although they be not retorned Execution done by virtue of them is good enough See 11 H. 4. 212. If the Sheriff by force of an Elegit doth deliver the moyety of the Land and doth not retorn the Writ if the Plaintiff will plead a new Action of Debt the Defendant may plead in Bar the Execution aforesaid although the Writ be not retorned nor doth remain upon Record and it is not like unto the Case of Partition made by the Sheriff for that must be retorned because that after the Retorn of it a secondary Iudgment is to be given scil Quod Partitio praedict firma stabilis remaneat in perpetuum firma stabilis in perpetuum tenetur says the Book of Entries 114. And Egerton the Solicitor-General cited a Case to be lately adjudged betwixt the Earl of Leicester and the Lady Tanfield Earl of Leicester and Tanfields case That such an Execution was well enough although the Liberate was not retorned The second point was Admitting that it be a good Execution If the Executors being in possession of the Manor and suffering the Conusor to hold a Court there and saying the words aforesaid in the presence of the Lord who is Conusor if the same do amount unto a Surrender or not And it was the Opinion of Wray chief Iustice That it was not a Surrender for that here the words are not addressed to the Conusor who was capable of a Surrender but to other persons And it is not like unto the Case of 40 E. 3. 23 24. Chamberlains Assise where Tenant for life saith to him in the Reversion That his Will is that he enter upon the Land the same is a good Surrender because here is a person certain who may take the Land But in our case it is but a general speech and therefore it shall not be a Surrender LXVI Baskervile and Bishop of Hereford 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit brought by Walter Baskervile against the Bishop of Hereford and others the Plaintiff counted That Sir Nicholas Arnold Knight was seised of the Advowson in gross and granted the same to the said Baskervile and others to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of Richard Arnold his Son in tail Proviso That if the said Nicholas died his Heir being within the age of twenty three years that then the Grantees and their Heirs should be seised to themselves and their Heirs until the said Richard had accomplished the said age Sir Nicholas died Richard being but of the age of fourteen years by force whereof the Grantees were possessed of the said Advowson c. and afterwards the Church became void and so it appertained to them to present Exception was taken to the Count by Serjeant Gawdy because the Plaintiff had not averred the life of Richard upon whose life the interest of the Plaintiff did depend and he compared the same to the Case of the Parson which had been adjudged where the Lessee of a Parson brought an Ejectione Firmae and it was found for him and in Arrest of Iudgment Exception was taken to the Declaration because the life of the Parson was not averred and for that cause the Iudgment was stayed Anderson Vpon the dying of Sir Nicholas Richard being but of the age of fourteen years an absolute Interest for nine years vested in the Grantees not determinable upon the death of Richard or rather they are seised of a Fee determinable upon the coming of Richard to the age of 23 years Rhodes and Windham Iustices contrary and that here is an Interest in the Grantees determinable upon the death of Richard within the term for if Richard dieth without issue within the term the Remainder is limited over to a stranger And as to the Exception to the Count it was argued by Puckering Serjeant That the Count was good enough for although the life of Richard be not expresly added yet such an averment is strongly implied and so supplyed For the Count is Quod dictus Nich. obiit dicto Richardo being of the age of fourteen years non amplius by force of which the Plaintiff was possessed of the said Advowson quo quidem Nich. sic possessionato existente the Church voided and possessed he could not be if not that the said Richard had then been alive and that is as strong as an Averment See 10 E. 4. 18. In Trespass for breaking of his Close the Defendant pleaded That A. was seised and did enfeoff him to which the Plaintiff said That long time before A. had any thing B. was seised and leased to the said A. at will who enfeoffed the Defendant upon whom B. re-entred and leased to the Plaintiff at will by force whereof he was possessed untill the Defendant did the Trespass and that was allowed to be a good Replication without averring the life of B. who leased to the Plaintiff at will for that is supplied by the words scil virtute cujus the Plaintiff was possessed untill the Defendant did the Trespass See also 10 H. 7. 12. In an Assise of Common The Defendant made Title that he was seised of a House and a Carve of Land to which he and all those whose Estate he hath c. had common appendant and doth not say That he is now seised of the House but the exception was disallowed for seisin shall be intended to continue untill the contrary be shewed LXVII Morgan and Chandler 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN Debt for Arrerages of Rent by Morgan against Chandler It was found by special Verdict That the Land out of which c. was assured by an Act of Parliament to the Marchioness of Northampton for the term of her life the remainder to the Lady Bourcher her daughter and the heirs males of her body the remainder to King H. 8. in Fee And it was ordained by the same Act Quod omnes concessiones dimissiones Anglice Grants and Leases factae vel in posterum fiendae by the said Marchioness of the Lands aforesaid per script Indentat dict Marchio bonae validae in Lege erunt durante termino c. The Marchioness made a Lease for 21 years to Kenelm Throgmorton rendring 10 l. Rent who assigned the same to the Defendant The Lady Bourcher died without Issue the Marchioness died and if the Lease should now bind the Queen was the Question And it was moved by Clark of Lincoln's-Inn That it should for the King was party to the Act of Parliament and those Estates for life in Tail and in Fee are all as one Estate and derived out of one Estate and the Estate of the King is bound with the Lease and it was moved by Broughton That the Lease should not bind the Queen and so by consequence not her Patentee and he
the Reign of King H. 8. And if the Common Law doth not warrant such Executions Truly the presidents cannot make such imprisonments lawfull without Act of Parliament It hath been said that Executions ought to be favoured that is true but also Liberty to which the Law hath special respect See the Statute of Magna Charta Nullus liber homo capiatur vel imprisonetur nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terrae and this is not Lex terrae but usage onely and Malus usus est abolendus 26 Eliz. Error was brought upon a Iudgment given in Curia de Woodstock which is a Court of Record and Error assigned for that they had awarded Execution secundum consuetudinem Villae against one who had bailed the Defendant without a Scire facias first sued forth against him i. the bailee and it was adjudged Error and the custome could not maintain it for the Bailee might have a release or other matter of discharge to plead And he cited the Case of 13 and 14 Eliz. Dyer 306. That upon a Scire facias out of a Recognizance in Chancery Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and the Warden of the Fleet was commanded to detain the Conusor in his custody in Execution for the Plaintiff and afterwards the Conusor escaped the Plaintiff not satisfied And it was holden no escape for his body was not liable in case of a Recognizance to the Execution and see also the book of Entries 500 there is a Rule put If the Recognizee will have execution within the year he may have a Fieri facias or Elegit but not a Capias ad satisfaciendum And he conceived that this Process is not onely erroneous but also utterly void As a Capias in a Formedon antea 77. contrary where in Debt a Capias is awarded after the year where it ought to be Scire facias the same is but erroneous for such Process lieth upon such Iudgment if he had not surceased his time Another matter he moved because this issue is not well tried for it was tried by Nisi prius out of the Exchequer and the Statute of West 2. cap. 30. Mar. 14 E. 3. cap. 1. do not give Nisi prius in Causes out of the Exchequer but onely out of both Benches but Causes out of the Exchequer are tried by Commission and here their Commission was insufficient for it was directed Chr. Wray and Williel Periam without saying Et eorum alteri so as it was joynt and not several and Wray at the time of the trial was as the Parliament at London and so the cause was tried before Periam onely and therefore coram non Judice At another day The Case was argued by the Barons of the Exchequer And Clark Baron conceived that the Plaintiff ought to recover and he said That upon the escape the Common Law gave an Action upon the Case against the Sheriff and the reason why the Sheriff shall be charged is that one cannot be in Execution but once and then if the Sheriff should not be charged the party Plaintiff should by negligence of the Sheriff lose his Suit and also his Debt And admit that a Capias doth not lie in the Case yet the Execution by force thereof is not void but voidable onely and Error may be assigned as well in the Execution as in the Iudgment which see 17 Ass 24. where the Recognizor in a Statute Merchant aliened the Land and afterwards the Conusee sued forth Execution so as the Land was extended supposing the payment i. Solvend 14 E. 3. whereas in truth it was 16 E. 3. and the Feoffee brought a Writ of Error thereupon and it was allowed but the Sheriff shall not take advantage of the same And truly the common course is That a Capias lieth upon a Recognizance and 7 H. 4. 101. upon a Recognizance acknowledged for the Peace a Capias lieth for the King and a Recognizance is but an Obligation of Record and wherefore should not a Capias lie thereupon as well as upon an Action brought upon an Obligation The Statute of West 2. cap. 45. Si recens sit Cognitio statim habeat Querens Breve de Executione illius Recognitionis and the Statute doth not speak in certain what manner of Writ or what manner of Execution therefore we ought to resort to the Common Law for it as that is a Capias Gent Baron argued and agreed in every point with Baron Clark. Manwood chief Baron argued That the Plaintiff should recover and he put the Case of Recognizance The Plaintiff sueth two Scire facias's upon which two Nichel's are retorned and afterwards a Levari facias and upon that also Nihil is retorned and then issueth a Capias ad satisfaciendum for to take the said Francis Woodhouse who then was in Prison for Felony upon which Capias the Sheriff did arrest him and he being afterwards convicted of Felony escaped upon this matter Debt is brought against the Sheriff A Recognizance taken in the Chancery is a thing upon Record in a Court of Record an Obligation of Record and a Debt upon Record It hath been objected where no Capias lieth in the Process upon the Original there no Capias lieth upon the Execution but it is good to examine the Reason thereof for Lex plus laudatur quando ratione probatur The Capias upon a Recognizance is not by 25 E. 3. but by the common Law for here is a Debt upon Record wherefore shall not this body be subject to it as well as in the case of a Debt upon a bare Obligation I do admit the Rule That where there is no Capias ad respondendum there is no Capias ad satisfaciendum but that ought to be intended in cases where there is an Original and Mesn Process before Iudgment but here is no Original nor Mesn Process before Iudgment ergo our Case is not within the same Rule But I will put a good Rule It is Debt upon Record ergo a Capias lieth In the King's Bench If the Defendant comes in by Latitat if the cause whereof the Action is brought be of importance he is to put in special Bail and those who bail him shall be bounden in a Recognizance c. The Defendant is condemned in the Action Now if the Defendant cannot be found so as Execution may be sued forth against him then a Scire facias shall issue forth against the Sureties which bailed him and upon that a Capias and that is very frequent therein use So also is the course of the Court of Common Pleas ergo it shall be so in the Chancery in case of a Recognizance If one be taken in Execution upon a Statute Staple and sueth an Audita Querela upon a Release or other matter and be bound with Sureties in the double value c. to the King and to the party If he be condemned in the Audita Querela c. and cannot be found a
also of Statutes We cannot deny but that we have Lands of the Conusor and of the Gift of the Conusor our Ancestor whose Heir we are who was indebted to the Queen and yet we are not within this Statute Was or shall be indebted shall not be intended after the Gift made for if he first convey his Land and afterwards becomes indebted the same is not within the Statute and where a mischief is to be remedied by a Statute the remedy in exposition of the Statute is to be applied according as the mischief doth require Shall be is to be intended of future Debts after the Statute and in our case the Father was not Receivor or other Officer to the Queen And if this Statute should be so construed the Father might take 10000 l. for the Marriage of his son and assurance of Lands unto him and then if he will acknowledge a Debt to the Queen he should defeat the whole which should be a very great mischief The words are By Gift after the Debt acknowledged to the Queen And he cited the Case 19 Eliz. Plow 191. betwixt Ludford and Gretton upon the Statute of 18 H. 6. the words of which are That whatsoever Warrant hereafter to the Chancellor of England addressed the day of the delivery of the same it be entred of Record in the Chancery and that the Chancellour make Letters Patents upon the same Warrants bearing date the day of the said delivery in the Chancery and not before and all Letters Patents made to the contrary shall be void And the Case was That a Warrant was directed to the Chancellour for the making of Letters Patents and delivered to him before the making of them but the day of the delivery was not entred of Record c. And it was holden that notwithstanding that the Letters Patents were good for the mischief at the Common Law intended to be reformed by that Act was not the post-dating of the Letters Patents but the ante-dating and therefore that ought to be principally taken into consideration which mischief being understood the words of the said Statute are to be applied to it ipsae etenim Leges cupiunt ut jure regantur i. with an Equity according to the Mischief and not always according to the precise words and in that case it is sufficient if the Letters Patents bear date after and not before the delivery of the Warrant and that was the matter intended to be reformed Also as our Case here is we are not within this Statute for the words are Of the Gift of his Ancestour but here the Son hath not the Lands of the Gift of his Ancestour but rather by the Statute of Vses and so he is in the Post and not in the Per by his Ancestour for here the Fine was levied to divers persons unto the Vses aforesaid and here the Gift was not a mere gratuity to his Son but in consideration that he should marry the Daughter of Sir Edw. Huddleston and also the Father was the King's Debtor after the Gift and not before Popham Attorney-General to the contrary The letter of the Statute is with us for he comes in of the Gift of his Ancestour who was indebted to the Queen and although that the Gift was by way of use yet the precedents in the Common-Pleas and other Courts are That he may declare of the Feoffment of such a one although it was by way of use and he said If A. be bound to enfeoff B. of such Lands if he maketh a Feoffment to the use of B. and his Heirs he hath well enough performed the Condition and if the Case should not be within the Statute then should that branch of the Statute be idle and to no purpose For if the Ancestour be seised and becometh indebted to the Queen and after makes a conveyance ut supra the same is provided for by the first branch of the Statute For the Land is liable to the Recognizance or Obligation made to the King and that they shall be as effectual as a Statute Staple and reason requires that the son who comes in by mere gratuity of his Ancestour should be charged And it was a common practice before the making of that Statute That the King's Officers would convey their Lands to their children and then become the King's Debtors for the remedy of which mischief the Statute was made and the Statute of 27 Eliz. doth not respect the Heir because he is Heir but as a purchasor onely and that upon good consideration Coke If any fraud can be found in our Case then without doubt we should be within the Statute but being upon good consideration it is out of the Statute nor was there any purpose in the father when he made the said Conveyance to become the King's Debtor or Officer to him for if there were then he is within the Statute also the Gift had been a mere gratuity c. And afterwards at another day the Case was moved by Coke and he said That here is not any Gift because it was in consideration of Marriage and then no gift for it is an old Proverb What is freer than gift Egerton The father giveth to his son and heir the same is within the Statute and yet here is consideration scil of blood Coke contrary Where the father giveth to his younger son or to his daughter which is not his heir and of that opinion was Manwood chief Baron And afterwards as Coke reported the son and his Lands were discharged CXV Amner and Luddington 's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Error 3 Len. 89. 8 Co. 96. ERror was brought in the King's-Bench by Amner against Luddington Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. Rot. 495. The Case was That one Weldon was seised and leased unto Pierpoint for ninety nine years who devised the same by his Will in this manner I bequeath to my Wife the Lease of my House during her life and after her death I will that it go amongst my Children unpreferred Pierpoint died his Wife entred and was possessed virtute legationis praedict and took Husband one Fulshurst against whom one Beswick recovered in an Action of Debt 140 l. upon which Recovery issued forth a Fieri facias and upon that a Venditioni Exponas upon which the Sheriff sold the said term so devised to one Reynolds Fulshurst died his Executor brought Error to reverse the Iudgment given against the Testator at the Suit of Beswick the Wife did re-enter and sold the Land and died Alice an unpreferred Daughter of Pierpoint did enter and upon that matter found by special Verdict in the Common-Pleas the entry of Alice was adjudged lawfull upon which Iudgment Error was brought in the King's-Bench And it was argued upon the words of the Devise because here the House is not devised but the Lease it self scil all his interest in the thing devised And it is not like unto the Case betwixt Welchden and Elkington 20 Eliz. Plow 519.
where the Case was That Davis being Lessee for years devised that his Wife should have and occupy the Land demised for so many years as she should live nor unto the Case of Paramour and Yardley 21 Eliz. Plow 539. for there the Lesse devised That his Wife shall have the occupation and profits of the Lands untill the full age of his Son For in these two Cases the Land it self is quodam modo devised but in our Case all the Estate is devised i. the Lease it self And also in those two Cases a certain person is assigned and named in the Will who should take the residue of the term which should be expired after the death of the Wife But in the Case at Bar there is not any person certain appointed c. but the Devise as to that is conceived in general words to Children unpreferred therefore neither any possibility nor Remainder in any person certain therefore all the term is wholly in the Wife and then she might well dispose the whole But all the Court was to the Contrary and that in this case the possibility should rise well enough to the death of the Wife to that Daughter unpreferred Another matter was moved If the said term being sold in the possession of the Wife of the Devisor by force of the Execution aforesaid If now the judgment being reversed the sale of the term be also avoided for now the party is to be restored to all that which he had lost And it was argued by Coke That notwithstanding the reversal of the Iudgment the sale did stand good for the Iudgment for the Plaintiff in a Writ of Error is That he shall be restored to all that which he hath lost Ratione judicii praedict and the Iudgment was That the Plaintiff should recover 140 l. and therefore by the Iudgment in the Writ of Error he shall be restored to so much but the mean act scil the sale of the Lease shall stand and shall not be defeated or avoided As 7 H. 6. 42. A Statute Staple is bailed in Ouster le main the Conusee brings Detinue against the Bailee and hath Iudgment and recovers the Statute and upon that hath Execution The Baylee brings a Writ of Error and reverseth the Iudgment given in the Detinue yet the Execution shall stand and Audita Querela doth not lie for the Conusor And see 13 E. 3. t. Bar. 253. Accountant found in Arrearages committed to the next Gaol escapes and reverseth the Iudgment given against him in accompt by an Ex parte talis yet the Action upon the escape lieth and the Court as to that point all agreed but that point did not fall in Iudgment for by the sale nothing shall pass but the interest in praesenti which was in the Wife of the Devisor but the possibility to the children unpreferred was not touched thereby And afterwards the Iudgment was affirmed CXVI Edwards and Halinder 's Case Mich. 36 Eliz. In the Exchequer RIce Edwards brought an Action upon the Case against Halinder See the Case reported in Popham's Reports fol. 46. very short but not with the Arguments and declared That whereas one Banister had demised unto the Plaintiff a Cellar to have from week to week Quandin ambabus partibus placuerit And also whereas the said Banister had leased to the Defendant a Shop directly over the said Cellar there the Defendant had laid so great a burthen upon the floor of the said Shop that there by the said floor fell down and brake certain vessels of the Plaintiff's full of Wine by reason whereof the Plaintiff lost his Wine to the value of c. to his damages c. The Defendant said That before the charging of the floor ut supra The said floor had sustained greater weight and farther that the said Banister let unto him the said Shop for to lay there the weight of 30 Tun and he had laid there but the weight of 12 Tun and also that the Walls of the said Cellar are so weak that the floor of the said Shop fell by reason thereof upon which there was a Demurrer in Law. It was argued by Godfrey for the Plaintiff Where injury or wrong is done unto any the Law gives remedy to the party grieved and although that the Shop was let unto him to lay wares there which he hath done and that it was not his intent to surcharge the said Warehouse although the event be contrary yet forasmuch as by the laying of wares there a wrong and damage follow to the Plaintiff the Defendant shall be punished for the rule is Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas If I have a house and another buildeth so high over me that rain-water descends and falls from his house upon my house an Action upon the Case lieth See F. N. B. 184. So if by his building he stops my light as it was lately adjudged in the King's-Bench in the Case betwixt Bland and Mosely See 6 E. 4. 7. 8. Damages recovered for a wrong done against the will of the party and see other Cases upon this Learning 13 H. 4. t. Action upon the Case 48. The Plaintiff had sold certain trusses of Hay to the Defendant within such a Meadow to be carried away from the said Meadow within a certain time but the Defendant let the Hay lie there without carrying the same away so it putrified the Meadow by reason whereof the Plaintiff lost the profit of his Meadow for a great time and thereupon brought an Action of the Case against the Defendant and the Action was adjudged maintainable See 22 E. 4. 8. where the owners of the Plough in turning of the Plough according to the custome in the common fields upon the Land of another one of the Plough Cattel against the will of the driver takes a mouthfull of Grass the same is justifiable but if the driver of the Cattel suffereth the same to continue an Action will lie against him So 22 E. 4. 49. Where I am bound to enclose my Land against another and in default of enclosure the Cattel of the other escaped into my Land and Close I shall not punish him but if he after notice doth suffer them to continue there he shall be punished although it be through my default Also it is alledged in our Declaration That the Defendant intending to hurt and spoil the Plaintiff's Wines did lay such a weight c. And the Defendant answers thereunto That the floor fell in default of repairing of the walls of the Cellar or for the ruinousness of them where he ought to have pleaded farther Absque hoc that the Shop was surcharged with the intent to hurt the Plaintiff's Wines In an Action upon the Case upon a Trover The Defendant pleads that the goods whereof c. were pawned unto him for the security of certain money not yet paid The same is no plea without saying farther Absque hoc that he did convert c. See
upon the floor there so as vi ponderis it fell down To which the Defendant hath said That the walls were ruinous in occultis partibus and doth not answer to the surcharging scil Absque hoc that he did surcharge it Clark Baron It is a general Rule That every material thing alledged in the pleading ought to be traversed confessed and avoided which the Defendant hath not done here but he would excuse himself through the default of another and answer nothing to that with which he himself is charged And afterwards Iudgment was given in the Court of Exchequer for the Plaintiff Whereupon afterwards the Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber where the Case was argued again But there the Iudgment given in the Court of Exchequer was affirmed See this Case reported short in Popham's Reports lately published CXVII Linacre and Rhode 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Co. Rep. Blomfield's Case 3 Len. 230. THE Case was That Linacre was bound in a Statute and his body taken in Execution and the Sheriff voluntarily set him at large and afterwards the Conusee sued Execution of the Lands of the Conusor who thereupon brought an Audita Querela It was moved by Yelverton Serjeant That by that voluntary discharge of him by the Sheriff the whole Execution was discharged for the Execution is intire See 15 E. 4. 5. Where the Conusee in a Statute Merchant hath the body and lands of the Conusor in Execution and afterwards the Conusee surrendreth his Estate which he hath by Extent now the Execution of his body is discharged and the Conusor shall have a Scire facias or Audita Querela to discharge his body So if three Conusors be in Execution and the Conusee doth discharge one of them the same is a discharge of them all and in the principal Case the body is the principal and therefore the discharge of the principal part of the Execution is the discharge of the whole Hammon Where the Conusee himself dischargeth the Execution in part it is good for the whole but where discharged by the Sheriff Nihil operatur Anderson If the Conusor dieth in Execution yet the Conusee shall have Execution against his Heir of his land for the having of the body in Execution is not any satisfaction to the party for his body is but a pledge untill the money be paid and there is no reason that the act of the Sheriff should discharge the Execution Windham to the same intent And if the Conusee sueth Execution and hath the body of the Conusor in Execution this day he may the next day sue Execution of the lands and the next day after of the goods and if the Conusee doth discharge the body the whole Execution is discharged and it is true That if A. recovereth against B. in an Action of Debt and B. is taken by a Capias ad satisfaciendum and afterwards the Sheriff permitteth B. voluntarily to escape here B. is discharged although it be not the act of the party for there the Plaintiff had a full Execution which is not here for in Case of Execution upon a Statute-Merchant the Execution by the body is not the full Execution and therefore although the Sheriff hath discharged the body yet the Conusee may have Execution of the goods and lands but not of the body and afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff That the Audita Querela did not lie and that Execution might be sued of the goods and lands but not of the body CXVIII Webbe and Mainard 's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Ejectione firmae The Case was Walter Goldsmith seised of certain lands made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life and after to the use of John his eldest son in Fee Proviso That after his death his said son shall pay unto his younger son William 30 l. by 3 l. per ann at the Feast of St. Michael untill the entire sum be paid and if he fail of payment then to the use of the said William and his heirs Will. Goldsmith the Feoffor dieth the money is not paid but afterwards the said younger son makes an Acquittance and thereby acknowledgeth the Receipt of the said money according to the Proviso John dieth Now if the younger son may enter And first if the younger son be concluded by that Acquittance to say that the 30 l. was not paid And if he be not concluded Then if because that the words are but words of limitation the younger brother hath Title of Entry and then if this Entry be bound by the descent from John to his Heir or if John by continuance of the possession after the breach of the Proviso be a Dissesor or not were Questions propounded to the Court which the Court took time to consider of yet it was then said That the use was settled in William and the possession executed unto it but not such a possession upon which an Assise or Trespass lieth CXIX Willis and Jermine 's Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the King's Bench. Rot. 647. IN Ejectione firmae It was found by special Verdict 1 Cro. 167. Roll Tit. Estate 830. That the Dean and Chapter of Exeter Leased the Land where c. to Jermine rendering Rent to be paid at their Chapter-house at Exeter and for default of payment that such Lease shall be void and cease and that the said Jermine conveyed his interest to the Defendant and afterward the Rent was demanded at the Chapter-house but not paid and afterwards The Dean and Chapter by the name of Dean and Chapter of St. Mary of Exeter where they are incorporate by the name of Dean and Chapter of St. Mary in Exeter make an Indenture of Lease for forty years in their Chapter-house to Willis and thereunto put their seal in the Chapter-house and made a Letter of Attorney to another to enter and to make Livery of the said Deed which was done accordingly it was moved by Harris Serjeant That this Lease made in manner c. is not good for the Corporation is misnamed i. of Exeter for in Exeter but the Court disallowed that Exception for there is not any material variance and so it was said it hath been ruled And he said that for another cause the Lease is not good for when the Dean and Chapter in their Chapter-house make this Indenture of Lease Davis Rep. 42. and set their Chapter-seal to it It was their Deed presently without other delivery and then Jermine being in possession at the time of the putting of the seal to it they were out of possession thereof and so the new Lease void because they were not in possession at the time of the making of it for no delivery is necessary to the Deed of a Corporation but the date of the sealing of it makes it a perfect Deed and then the delivery of the same by the Attorney is of no effect Wiat to the
's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 291. 1 Len. 247. 3 Len. 174. That whereas he was possessed of a parcel of Land called the Parsonage lying adjoyning to a certain River from the 29 of May 29 Eliz. untill the day of the bringing of this Writ the Defendant had the said twentieth day of May stopt the said River with certain Loads of Earth and so it continued untill the fourteenth day of February by which his land was drowned and so he had lost the profit of it by that time And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That upon the Declaration there doth not appear any cause of Action for the Plaintiff hath made Title to the Land drowned from the twentieth of May so as that day is excluded and the Nusance is said to be made the twentieth day and so it appeareth the Nusance was before the possession of the Plaintiff and if it were so then cannot he complain of any wrong done before his time To which it was answered That although the stopping was made before his possession yet the continuance of the same is after and a new wrong for which an Action lieth as 5 H. 7. 4. It was presented That an Abbat had not cleansed his Ditch c. by reason of which the Highway is stopt The Successor shall be put to answer to the said Indictment by reason of the continuance of it And see that continuation of a Nusance is as it were a new Nusance 14 and 15 Eliz. 320. And it may be that the Plaintiff was not damnified untill long time after the twentieth day of May scil after the stopping And the words of the Writ here are satisfied and true And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXXX Trusto and Ewer 's Case Pasc 31 Eliz. In the King's-Bench 1 Cro. 23. IN this Case it was agreed for Law That if a Controversie be betwixt two for the Title of a Lease for years and they submit the matter to Arbitrement and the Arbitrators award that one of them shall have the term the same is a good Gift of the interest of the term See 12 Ass 25. 14 H. 4. 19. 24. But if the Award be that the one shall permit the other to enjoy the term the same is no Gift of the interest therein See as to the Arbitrement 9 E. 4. 44. CXXXI Andrew 's Case Pasc 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. 1 Cro. 214. IN the Case of Andrews of Grays Inn it was holden by Gawdy and Fenner Iustices That if a Lease for years be made by Deed indented with these words demisi ad firmam tradidi That upon that Writ of Covenant lieth against the Lessor if he himself entreth upon the Lessee but contrary if a stranger enter if it hath not clause of Warranty For by Fenner when Covenant is brought upon that word Demisi the Plaintiff shall recover the term it self but not damages and that cannot the Plaintiff do when a stranger entreth and that was holden for clear Law See 9 Eliz. Dyer 257. A covenant against the Heir in such case CXXXII Bigg and Clark 's Case Hill. 32 Eliz. Rot. 549. In the King 's Bench. IN an Action upon the Case in the Court of Hertford the Plaintiff declared How that the Defendant hired a Horse of the Plaintiff to carry three Bushels of Coals from Ware to his House in Hertford and that the Defendant in consideration thereof did promise the Plaintiff quod ipse in via praedicta nollet onerare the said Horse aliter than with the said three Bushels of Coals And the Plaintiff said That the Defendant had loaded the said Plaintiff's Horse with a greater weight than with the said Coals and so had hurt his Horse upon which the Plaintiff recovered And Error was brought and the Error assigned was this That it is not specially shewed how the Defendant aliter loaded the said Horse with what thing As 19 H. 6. In Debt against Executors they plead That they have onely expended such a sum of the Goods of the Testator in Funeral expences absque hoc that they have administred aliter vel alio modo the Plaintiff cannot Reply and say that they have administred aliter vel alio modo without shewing how Another Error was assigned because it is not certainly shewed how the Horse was hurt but that Exception was not allowed for it is not the point of the Action but for the first matter the Iudgment was reversed CXXXIII Toley and Windham 's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 206. 3 Len. 150. That whereas certain controversies were betwixt the Plaintiff and Defendant for the profits of certain Lands which the Father of the Defendant had taken in his life time and whereas he had brought a Writ of Subpoena out of the Chancery against the Defendant for the said profits taken by the Father of the Defendant in his life intending to put in a Bill against the Defendant in the said Court The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would stay his intended Suit promised That if the Plaintiff can prove that the Father of the Defendant took the profits or had the possession of the said Land under the Title of the Father of the Plaintiff that he should pay to him for all the said profits And farther declared That he had proved that his Father had taken the profits under the Title of the Father of the Plaintiff Coke took up Exception to the Declaration because it is not shewed How and by what means under the Title of the Father of the Plaintiff he took the profits as by Lease for that is traversable Gawdy Iustice The Son hath not any cause of Action or Suit for the profits taken in the time of the Father therefore the staying of Suit arising from such matter is not any consideration But as to the other Exception because it is not shewed how and by what Title he took the profits it is well enough As unto the other Exception it was moved at another day that there was a Case betwixt Stone and Withypool An Infant promiseth to pay a simple Contract Stone and Withypool's Case and thereupon there was a Suit in the Chancery but it was holden that it was not maintainable for the promise was void because there was no consideration And it was agreed by all the Iustices that this Action would not lie for the Plaintiff hath declared That where certain Controversies were betwixt the Father of the Defendant and him scil the Plaintiff himself for the profits of certain Lands which the Father of the Defendant had taken in the time of the Father of the Plaintiff c. and he doth not shew that he himself is Heir or Executor of his Father and therefore the Chancery cannot give him any remedy And on the other
Williams and Linford 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. WIlliam's brought an Action upon the Case against Linford 3 Len. 177. for standerous words spoken of the Plaintiff's land viz. Williams is worth nothing and do you think that the Manor of D. is his It is but a compact between his brother Thomas and him And farther declared That at the time of speaking of the words he was in speech with one J. S. to give to the said J. S. the said Manor of D. for his Manor of K. and that by reason of the said slanderous words 1 Cro. 346 787. the said J. S. durst not proceed in the said intended exchange It was objected That upon this matter an Action upon the Case doth not lie For the scandalous words were not spoken to him who was to be the Purchasor of the said Manor Smith and Johnson's Case but to a stranger For in the Case betwixt Smith and Johnson Johnson was in speech with another to sell his lands to him and Smith said to him who was to purchase them Will you buy Johnson's land Why it is troubled with more charges and incumbrances than it is worth Wray Iustice There is no difference whether words be spoken to the party or unto a stranger for in both cases the Title of the Plaintiff is slandered so as he cannot make sale of his lands Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXLVIII Barefoot and Luter 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. THE Case was A. B. and C. Ioynt-tenants in Fee C. granted his part unto D. and afterwards A. B. and D. Leased for years rendring Rent and afterwards A. died and they brought an Action of Debt for the Rent reserved and declared generally and upon the Evidence the special matter appeared that two parts of the Rent did belong to B. and but the third part to D. And the opinion of the Court was That the Declaration ought to have been special upon the whole matter For Prima facie it was conceived that each of the Plaintiffs ought to have had the moiety of the Rent and that is a supposal of the Declaration But now upon the Evidence it appeareth to the contrary So as the Defendant nil debet in that form Another matter was The Plaintiff declared of Rent of a whole year ended at the Feast of St. Michael last past whereas the Rent was not due at Michaelmas as the Plaintiff had declared but the thirtieth day after CXLIX Brown and Ordinacre 's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. HEnry Brown and Joice his wife Executors of Thomas Brown brought an Action upon the Case against Van Ordinacre Alien and declared That where A. and B. were indebted to the Testator The Defendant in consideration that the Testator respectuaret the said A. and B. pro solutione debiti praedict per spacium unius septimanae tunc proxime sequen to pay the Debt to the said Plaintiffs modo sequent viz. one moyety within one week after and the other moiety at the end of the said week and farther declared That the Testator did forbear by the space of a week and after Imparlance Joice was summoned and severed The Defendant pleaded That he did not promise modo forma prout praâ—dict Brown allegavit and that it was alledged by both Executors And by a Iury De medietate Linguae it was found for the Plaintiff It was objected by Coke That here is not any issue prout Brown querens allegavit where in truth it was alledged by both the Executors before severance and not by Brown onely Also here is not any sufficient consideration alledged for the Plaintiff hath declared That he hath forborn by a week without saying next following as the consideration is laid in the Declaration But that was not allowed for so it shall be intended It was also objected That the Declaration is contrary to it self for it shewed That in consideration that the Testator should forbear for a week he promised to pay him within a week but that exception was not allowed For the week in the Assumpsit shall be construed the week after the week in the consideration Another exception was against the trial for the Defendant being an Alien The Venire facias was to summon twelve persons Quorum quilibet eorum habeat 4. l. in lands of annual Rent and that cannot be for Aliens cannot have lands not being made Denizens By the Common Law before the Statute of 27 E. 3. An alien by the Grant of the King might have an Action depending betwixt him and a Denizen per medietatem Linguae which see 22 E. 3. 14. and afterwards to make the same a general Law the Statute of 27 E. 3. was made but the same doth not extend to cases where the King was party which defect was supplyed by the Statute of 28 E. 3. cap. 13. Afterward came the Stat. of 2 H. 5. by which it is enacted That where the debt or damages amount to 10 marks every Iuror retorned for the trial should be able to expend lands of the value of 40 s. which was mischievous as to aliens and for the remedy of that The Statute of 8 H. 6. cap. ult was made which took away the effect thereof as unto aliens Then came the Statute of 27 Eliz. which enacted That every Iuror c. should expend 4 l. lands but that is where 40 s. was required onely and doth not extend to our Case and therefore the Venire facias in our Case was not well awarded To which it was said by the Clarks That after the Stat. of 27 Eliz. It had always so been to make the Venire facias generally according to the Statute but that is not a thing material and the Sheriff needs not regard that Wherefore it was holden That the Venire facias in the principal Case was well awarded CL. Mingey and Earl 's Case Pasc 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN Debt upon an Obligation The Defendant pleaded 1 Cro. 212 267. That the Obligation was with condition That whereas the Defendant had sold to the Plaintiff certain wood growing upon certain lands called S. in the County of Sussex If the Plaintiff might quietly take and enjoy the said woods and if the ground whereupon it groweth be four miles from the Town of Rye that then c. And for plea he said That the Plaintiff had quietly taken and enjoyed the said wood and that the said land by the next high and usual way for carriages is 4000 paces from the Town of Rye reckoning to every pace five foot upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law. Gawdy Iustice For the computation of a mile in common understanding it is 1000 paces and if it shall be counted by the common way is the doubt but the meaning of the Parties was That the Plaintiff by felling of that wood should not encur the damage of the Statute of 23 Eliz. cap. 4.
And the Statute doth not respect the way of carriage but that altogether and to all intents it be the distance of four miles betwixt the place where c. and the said Town of Rye and here it is not material which is the common and usual way to Rye for carriages but the nearness of the place where c. Quomodocunque is the matter and therefore the Defendant ought to have pleaded That the place where c. is every way distant four miles from Rye and as to that that he hath answered four miles with 4000 paces the same is well enough for although he doth not answer the direct the words yet if he doth answer in effect it is well enough for 1000 paces and a mile are all one in substance Wray The distance shall be accounted the nearest way not as a Bird may fly CLII. Wellock and Hammon 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the King's-Bench 3 Co. 20. 1 Cro. 204 205. THis Case is reported by Sir Edw. Coke in his 3 Reports See the principal case there Here is a Limitation and not a Condition for if it should be a Condition it should descend to the Heir at the Common Law which is the Devisee and so shall be extinct in his person and then the restraint is of no effect for there shall be then no means to compell the Heir who hath the Land to pay the Legacies nor have the Legatories any remedy to compell the son to pay the Legacies which shall not have effect if it be not taken by way of Limitation and to that intent Scholasticas Case was cited 15 Eliz. Dyer 317. And this word paying in a Devise shall never be construed to be a Condition And it was holden by the Iustices That where a man deviseth lands to his younger son paying such a sum unto such the Devisee hath a Fee-simple and if he do not pay the monies accordingly his Estate shall determine by the same Limitation and shall go to the heir without any other limitation and the quantity of the monies be it great or small is not material And they were of opinion also that here the monies were not payable but upon request Coke 2 Cro. 56 57. 1 Roll 439. If a man be bound to perform Covenants and one Covenant is to pay Legacies there he needs not pay them without a demand But where one is expresly bounden to pay such a Legacy there he must pay it at his peril And he said That the Case 28 H. 8. Dyer 33. is not Law for there it is holden by Fitz-herbert and Baldwin That where land was devised unto the Prior and Convent of S. Barthol Ita quod reddant annuatim Decano Capitulo Sancti Pauli 5 l. and they fail of payment of it that their Estate shall cease and the Dean and Chapter c. shall have c. such conditions void And that upon one Fee-simple another Fee-simple cannot be limited For by Coke Common experience is otherwise That upon a Fee-simple determinable another Fee-simple may be limited which Gawdy Iustice granted And as to the principal Case Iudgment was given with the limitation CLIII Parker and Harrold 's Case Pasc 28 Eliz. Rot. 485. In the King 's Bench. 3 Len. 142. IN Debt upon an Obligation The Condition was That whereas the Plaintiff and Defendant be now joyntly seised of the Office of the Register of the Court of Admiralty If the Defendant shall permit the Plaintiff to use the said Office and take the profits of it wholly to his own use during his life without lett or interruption done by him that then c. The Defendant Pleaded That the custome of the Realm of England is That the Lord Admiral for the time being might grant the said Office and that such grant should be good but for the life of the Grantor antea 103. and shewed farther That the Lord Clinton Lord Admiral granted the said Office unto the Plaintiff and the Defendant and died and that the Lord Howard was appointed Lord Admiral and that he 27 Eliz. granted the said Office to one Wade who ousted and interrupted him before which time the Defendant did suffer the Plaintiff to enjoy the said Office and to take the profits of it upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law Coke argued for the Plaintiff That the Plea of the Defendant is not good for he hath not entitled the Lord Admiral to grant the Office for he hath said That the custome of the Realm of England is and that cannot be good for it cannot be tried for a Visne cannot be from the Realm of England Also if it lie through all the Realm then the same is Common Law and not custome which see Br. Custome 59. and see 4 5 Ph. Ma. 152 153. an express Case of the same Office and there he prescribed Per consuetudinem in Curia c. and also that such grant is good but during the life of the Admiral who granteth it Also he doth not answer to any time after the grant of the Admiral Howard for if we were lawfully put out by Wade yet the Defendant against his Bond shall not put us out or interrupt us As 5 E. 4. 115. In a Quare Impedit against an Abbat and the Incumbent who make default upon the distress upon which a Writ was awarded to the Bishop for the Plaintiff upon which the Bishop retorned That the Incumbent had resigned of which he hath given notice to the Prior and lapse incurred and the Bishop collates the former Incumbent and then this Writ came to him Now although the Incumbent be in by Title yet he is bound by the Iudgment So here although the Defendant hath another Title and the former Title of the Plaintiff be determined yet against his own Bond and Deed he shall not put out the Plaintiff c. And the Court was clear of opinion That Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff but afterwards the Cause was compounded by order of the Lord Chancellour CLIII Bedel's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THE Case was 3 Len. 159. That A. leased to B. certain Lands for 40 l. per ann and a stranger covenanted with A. that B. should pay unto him the 40 l. for the Farm and occupation of the said Lands A. brought an Action of Covenant the Defendant pleaded That before the day of payment the Plaintiff ousted B. of his Farm It was moved by Godfrey that it was no Plea because this is a collateral sum and not for Rent issuing out of Land Also the Defendant is a stranger to the Contract for the Farm But the opinion of the Court was to the contrary for the Defendant hath covenanted that the Lessee shall pay for the said Farm and occupation 40 l. so it is as a conditional Covenant and here is Quid pro Quo and here the consideration upon which the Covenant is conceived scil the Farm and the occupation
Writ of Account against Robston Hil. 29 Eliz. Rot. 1. and now Robston brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error That whereas the said Writ of Account was brought against the said Defendant as Receiver of Monies for to render Account quando ad hoc requisitus fuerit the said Writ ought to have been more special But the opinion of the Court was That the Writ in his generalty was holden good And so it was adjudged in the Case of one Gomersal scil quod reddat ei rationabilem computum suum de tempore quo fuit Receptor Denariorum ipsius A. Another Error was assigned That the Iury had assessed damages which ought not to be given in an Action upon Account which see 2 R. 2. Acco 45. and 2 H. 7. 13. But see the Book of Entries fo 22. In a Writ of Account against one as Receivor to Account render damages were given For if my Bailiff 1 Leon. 302. by imploying of my Moneys whereof he was the Receivor might have procured to me profit and gain but he neglects it he shall be chargeable to me in right and shall answer for it And here in our case damages shall be given and afterwards notwithstanding all objections made to the contrary the Iudgment given before was affirmed CLXI Yates 's Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the King ' s-Bench 3 Len. 231. A Writ of Error was brought by Yates and others upon a Iudgment given in a Writ of Partition and it was assigned for Error that the Writ of Partition was not sufficient for it is there set forth That the Plaintiffs insimul pro indiviso tenent cum defendente c. and do not shew of what Estate or whose inheritance See F. N. B. 61. 5. and 62. a. insimul pro indiviso tenent de haereditate quae fuit A. matris of the Plaintiff and the Defendant 1 Cro. 759 760. And yet see F. N. B. 62. A. A Writ of Partition betwixt strange persons without naming haereditate in the Writ And see also that a Partition of Lands in London without shewing of what Estate Courtney and Polewheel's Case Finch and Firrel's Case L. Cheney and Bell's Case See Register 76. 6 Eliz. in a Partition by Courtney against Polewheel no Estate shewed in the Writ so betwixt Finch and Firrel and betwixt Fry and Drake 14 Eliz. Devon. 26 Eliz. betwixt the Lord Cheney and Bell and Mich. 4 and 5 Ph. and Ma. Rot. 208. It was holden That it is not necessary in such a Writ to shew the Estate and such also was the opinion of the Court in the principal Case but Tenants in common ought to shew it in the Count And the Iudgment given was affirmed CLXII Phillips and Stone 's Case Mich. 29 and 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN Debt upon an Obligation the Defendant pleaded the Statute of 32 H. 6. upon which this special matter was found That one J. S. had heretofore recovered against him 100 l. in an Action of Debt and upon the Capias ad satisfaciend he was taken and committed to the Plaintiff who was Gaoler c. to the Sheriff and so being in Execution he escaped and afterwards he was re-taken by the Plaintiff and kept in prison and so being in prison made the Bond upon which the Action is brought It was said by the Court That if a Prisoner being in Execution escapes with the permission of the Gaoler the Execution is utterly gone and extinguished and the Plaintiff at whose Suit he was taken in Execution shall never resort to him who escapes but shall hold himself to the Goaler for his remedy but if such a Prisoner escapeth of his own wrong without the privity or consent of the Gaoler the Gaoler may well take him again for his indemnity untill the Plaintiff hath determined his Election whether he will have his remedy against the Gaoler or that he will maintain his Execution 13 H. 7. 1 and 2. But as unto the Statute of 23 H. 6. the Court was of Opinion That posito that the party who escapes cannot be taken again yet being taken the Bond which is taken colore Officii is within the said Statute because the party was retaken colore Executionis and so the Bond was void CLXIII Gering 's Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN Debt upon an Obligation against one as Executor 1 Len. 87. the Case was That the Testator of A. by his Will appointed certain lands and named which should be sold by his Executor and the monies thereof coming to be distributed betwixt his daughters when they have accomplished the age of one and twenty years The lands are sold and if the monies thereof being in the hand of the Executor untill the full age of the daughters shall be Assets to pay the debts of the Testator was the question and it was the opinion of the whole Court that the said monies should not be Assets for they said that that money is limited to a special use Quaere of this Case For I have heard that it was afterwards resolved in another Case that the monies in the like Case remaining in their hands should be Assets CLXIV Davies and Percie 's Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. BEtween Margaret Davies and one Perce the Case was 2 Roll 284. Goldb 58. That one Anth. Perce upon speech of a marriage to be had betwixt the said Anthony and the mother of Margaret covenanted by Indenture with certain friends of the mother to pay to all the daughters of the mother 20 l. a piece at their several ages of four and twenty years and to perform the Covenant was bound to the said friends in an Obligation Anthony Perce made his Will and willed that his Executors should pay to each of the daughters 20 l. at their several ages of four and twenty years in discharge of the said Covenant and died Now the said Margaret sued the Executors in the Spiritual Court for the 20 l. bequeathed to her and upon this matter the Executors prayed a Prohibition And by the Lord Anderson a Prohibition will lie for here is no Legacy but the Will refers to the Covenant and is in discharge of the Covenant As if A. be indebted to B. in 20 l. And if A. by his Will willeth that his Executors shall pay to the said B. 20 l. in discharge of the said debt the same is not any Legacy but a Declaration that the intent of A. is that the debt shall be paid Periam Iustice was of the same opinion as the Lord Anderson and Anderson said If a Legacy be bequeathed to me and the Executor covenants to pay me the said Legacy and afterwards J. sueth the Executor in the Spiritual Court he shall have a Prohibition Quod caeteri Justiciarii negaverunt See F. N. B. 44 Br. If the Testator by his Will charge his Executors to pay his debts and his creditors they do
Covenant wherein the breach was assigned was That if R. W. Brother of the Plaintiff should say Make assurance of such a Manor to the Defendant as the Council learned of the said Defendant should advise Then if the Defendant pays unto the Plaintiff 50 l. the Obligation to be void The Defendant by advice of Council demanded a Release with Warranty c. And by Periam and Windham The same is not any Assurance but a means to recover in value Anderson contrary That it was a Collateral Warranty c. CLXXIII Cropp and Hambleden 's Case Hill. 28 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. 1 Cro. 48. IN Trespass by Cropp against Erasmus Hambleden upon the special Verdict the Case was That one Martin Hastings was seised of the lands where c. in the right of his wife for the life of the wife and that they both did Lease unto the Defendant for years rendring Rent payable at the Feast of S. Michael and the Feast of the Annunciation c. with clause of re-entry if the Rent be behind by a Month after any of the said Feasts and after the feast of S. Michael 26 Eliz. and before the Month expired the Lessee the now Defendant sent his servant unto the house of the Lessor for to pay to him the Rent then due the servant went unto the house of the Lessor and there asked for him to whom it was answered by one Mary Briggs daughter of the wife of the Lessor who there dwelt in the said house with her mother that the Lessor was not at home for which the said servant delivered the said Rent to the said Mary requiring her to deliver the same over to the Lessor upon his retorn to the house in the name of his servant Mary reserved the said Rent and upon the retorn of the Lessor at his house told him all the matter aforesaid and that the servant of the Lessor the Defendant had required her to tender the said Rent to the Lessor in the name of the Defendant and thereupon offered and tendered to him the said Rent and the Lessor refused it And the Iury found That the third half year before the tender mentioned before the Lessor commanded the said Mary to receive the Rent then due who did accordingly and that the next half year then following the said Mary did receive the said Rent without commandment of the Lessor but after the Lessor agreed unto it and that the immediate half year before this tender in question the Defendant paid the Rent then due to the Lessor himself who received it And it was the opinion of Wray chief Iustice that this tender was good and it is not like unto the case of an Obligation for there the Obligee cannot have an Action of Debt before the last day but here the Lessor might have distrained or have had an Action of Debt before the Month expired and so the Lessor is bound by this tender and by Gawdy Iustice This tender cannot be said a tender by a stranger for here Mary came in privity of the servant of the Lessee and as it is found by Verdict Mary tendered it to the Lessor as being requested by the servant of the Lessee And afterwards upon consideration had betwixt the Iustices themselves the Iustices viz. Clench Gawdy and Wray for Shute was then sick it was clearly resolved against the Plaintiff and that the said tender as it is found in the Verdict is a good and sufficient tender and the Lord Wray delivered the reason as before and farther said That if the said Rent had been reserved payable at the feasts aforesaid or within a Month after each of them there the tender as above had not been good nor should bind the Lessor for in such case the Lessor could not distrain or have an Action of Debt for the said Rent before the Month expired And this is a case of extremity and deserves no favour and here is no mischief to the Lessor for he might have had his Rent in due time if he would and his captious refusal shall not avail him And Iudgment was given accordingly CLXXIV Bostock and Covert 's Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas BOstock and his Wife brought a Writ of Dower against Covert son and heir of her former Husband who pleaded That the Husband of the Demandant was seised of Lands amounting to the number of 300 Acres and held the same by Knights-service and died seised after whose death by virtue of the Statute of 34 and 32 H. 8. he entred into 100 Acres of the said Lands as the third part of the said Lands descended and held the same in severalty being the third part of the clear yearly value of the whole discharged of a Dower and that the Wife ought to have all her Dower out of the two parts devised And Anderson said That the Plea was not good for the heir who will take advantage of the Statute in that point ought to enter generally as Tenant in common with the Devisee and then in a Writ of Dower it is a good Plea so if after his entry as Tenant in common Partition be made betwixt him and the Devisee such a Plea is good but here he hath entred severally into a third part distinct from the residue and so hath ousted the Devisee of a third part severally for which cause he cannot have advantage of this Plea To which the rest of the Iustices Non contradixerunt CLXXV Sir John Southwel 's Case Pasch 37 Eliz. In the Exchequer 3 Len. 147. SIR John Southwel of the County of Lancaster 7 Julii 19 Eliz. made a Conveyance of his Lands to divers Feoffees and their Heirs upon condition that they should find him and his Wife and so many persons in his house c. prefer his Daughters in marriage pay his debts c. And if there fell out at the years end upon accompt made by the Feoffees any surplusage that then at the end of every such year they should answer such surplusage as should then remain in their hands unexpended of the Rents and profits of his said Lands with clause of revocation c. Afterwards the said Conveyance being in force came the Statute of 23 Eliz. concerning Recusants upon which Statute the said Southwel is now endicted and afterwards upon a Commission issuing out of the Exchequer to the Sheriff of Lancaster to enquire of the Lands of the said Southwel although against the said Conveyance it was given in Evidence That after the said Conveyance the said Sir John Southwel had granted Trees from off the said Lands and had received Fines and Incomes for Leases c. yet the Iurors charged to enquire would not find that the said Sir John Southwel had any Lands c. And by special command from the Queen it was referred out of the Exchequer to all the Iudges of England If the Lands of the said Sir John Southwel conveyed as aforesaid were subject to the said
Tho. Henage Hungate's Case the Queen leased for years unto Hungate provided that he should not do Waste Waste is done the Queen granted the Reversion to Sir Tho. Henage Office is found the Grantee entred and his entry was adjudged lawfull and that the Queen should have the mean profits from the time of the Waste done untill the time of the Grant. Some say Sir Walter Mildmay's Case that that case was not adjudged but compounded And he vouched Sir Walter Mildmay's Case The Lord Sturton held Lands of the Queen in Knights-service and was attainted of Felony by which the Lands escheated to the Queen who granted those Lands and it was holden that the Queen should have the mean profits betwixt the time of the Felony committed and the Grant. And after in the principal Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff scil the Patentee of the Queen against the Lessee who cast in a Writ of Error and by his Council prayed That the Writ of Error be not broken open untill the Iudgment be entred Manwood The Iudgment hath reference and relation unto the first day of this Term and therefore do not doubt of that CLXXIX Sted 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer 3 Len. 259. STed of Great Melton in the County of Oxford was assessed to 7 s. for Fifteens and upon refusal to pay it the Collectors distrained the Beasts of Sted and sold them Sted brought Trespass thereupon in the King's-Bench and the Collector exhibited his Bill into this Court against Sted who shewed by his Council That the Statute of 29 Eliz. which enacted this Fifteen provideth That the said Fifteen shall be levyed of the movable Goods and Chattels and other things usual to such Fifteens and Tenths to be contributary and chargeable and shewed farther that the Cattel distrained were tempore districtionis upon the Gleab Land of a Parsonage presentative which he had in Lease which Gleab Land is not chargeable usually to Fifteens granted by the Temporalty nor the Chattels upon it But it was the Opinion of the whole Court Although that the Parson himself payeth Tenths to the King yet the Lay-Farmor shall pay Fifteens and his Cattel are distrainable for it even upon the Gleab Land of the Parsonage and therefore it was adjudged that in the principal Case the Distress and Sale were good and lawfull CLXXX The Dean and Chapter of Winsors Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer 3 Len. 258. IN this Case it was moved If one hath a Rectory impropriate and by the Statute of 26 H. 8. cap. 3. is to pay an annual Rent for the same in the name of a Tenth and by that is discharged of Tenths and first fruits If he shall have the Privilege of the Exchequer for he is to pay the same sum yearly And the Barons were of Opinion that he should not for so every one who is to pay any Tenths or first fruits should draw another who sueth him into the Exchequer and so all Controversies concerning Tithes and Parsonages should be drawn hither which should be a great prejudice to the Spiritual Courts But Egerton Conier's Case Solicitor vouched a Case scil Conier's Case where the King gave a Parsonage to a Priory in Frankalmoign and the Tithes thereof being withdrawn the Prior impleaded him who withdrew his Tithes in the Exchequer and in that Case it was holden that the Prior should have the Privilege for the King is in danger to lose his Patronage or rather his Foundership if the Rectory be evicted Gent Baron The Tenant of the King in chief or he who pays first fruits or he who holds of the Queen in Fee-Farm shall not have in such respect the Privilege here Quaere CLXXXI Cony and Beveridge 's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 3 Len. 216. IN Debt upon a Bond the Case was That the Plaintiff leased unto the Defendant certain Lands lying in the County of Cambridge rendring Rent and afterwards the Defendant became bounden to the Plaintiff in a Bond for payment of the said Rent upon which Bond the Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt in the County of Northampton to which the Defendant pleaded payment of the Rent without shewing the place of payment and upon payment they were at issue and found for the Plaintiff by Nisi prius in the County of Northampton In Arrest of Iudgment it was moved that the issue was mis-tryed for here the payment of the Rent being pleaded without shewing the place of payment it shall be intended that the Rent was paid upon the Land which is in the County of Cambridge See 44 E. 3. 42. Anderson was of opinion that no Iudgment should be given for the cause aforesaid Rhodes and Windham contrary for it doth not appear that the issue is mis-tried because that no place of payment is pleaded and it might be for any thing is shewed that the Rent was paid in the County of Northampton CLXXXII Berry and Goodman 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Ejectione Firmae upon a special Verdict the point was Ow. 95 96. One intruded upon the possession of the Queen into Lands in Kisgrave in Suffolk and during this Intrusion the Queen granted these Lands to A. B. by her Letters Patents and the Patentee before any Entry made in the said Land granted the same over Some held that the Grant was good for the Intruder had gained nothing against the Queen and by the Grant of the Queen and the assignment over nothing accrued to him and where a man hath possession of Lands his continuance therein cannot gain to him any interest or increase his Estate without some other act done of later time If the Guardian do continue in possession after the full age of the Heir he is not a Disseisor nor hath any greater Estate in the Lands and upon the Book of 21 E. 3. 2. this Case was collected The Tenant of the King dieth his Heir within age a stranger intrudes the Heir at full age sueth his Livery out of the King's hands the Intruder dieth in possession the same descent shall not take away Entry Coke contrary The Intruder cannot be Tenant at sufferance for at first he enters by wrong and none can be Tenant at sufferance but he who comes in by Title And it is clear That the Intruder by his first Entry doth not gain any Estate in possession upon which he can have an Action of Trespass but after the Grant of the Queen he hath presently Fee by wrong 8 H. 4. 129. A stranger enters upon the King to which he hath right in the right of the Ward yet the Freehold doth remain in the Heir And he said that if A. levyeth a Fine to B. sur Conusans de droit c. now the Conusee hath possession in Law but not in fact and if before the entry of the Conusee W. entreth and dieth seised he hath no remedy for he had not possession
Statute and it was moved If it should not be a good Indictment for the assault so as he might be fined for it and by Sands Clerk of the Crown and the whole Court The Indictment is void for the whole for the conclusion of the Indictment is contra formam Statuti and there the Iury cannot enquire at the Common Law. CCXXXV Mead and Cheney 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench MEad brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond against Cheney Executor of one Skipwith and recovered and upon a Fieri facias the Sheriff did retorn Devastavit and it was moved to have an Elegit and the Iustices would advise of it and afterwards at another day a Precedent was shewed to the Court of 17 Eliz. and thereupon the Elegit was granted CCXXXVI Tompson and Trafford 's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Rot. 910. Poph. 8 9. IN an Ejectione firmae the Case was That the Warden and Fellows of New College in Oxford 8 Eliz. leased a Mansion house in the Burrough of Southwark to one Standish for 21 years and afterwards 25 Octob. 21 Eliz. they demised the same Mansion house to the said Standish for 21 years to commence the Michaelmas after And the Stat. of 14 Eliz. cap. 11. and 18 Eliz. cap. 11. were also found And if this second Lease shall be said a Lease in Reversion and so be void by the Statute of 14 Eliz. was the Question Foster moved That it is a Lease in Reversion for the first Lease doth continue untill Michaelmas and so was the opinion of the Iustices of Assise at the trial Towse contrary For when Standish accepteth the second Lease the same is presently a surrender of the former Lease for he giveth power unto the Lessor for to contract for the house presently and to that purpose he cited Corbet's Case 8 Eliz. Coke It is a surrender presently for you cannot apportion the Term. It was adjourned CCXXXVII Wood and Avery 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench DEBT upon a Bond by Wood against Avery the Condition was That where the Plaintiff had demised to the Defendant for term of years two Messuages c. If the Defendant at all times during the term shall maintain sustain and repair the said two Messuages with good and sufficient reparations that then c. And the Defendant pleaded That he had performed the Conditions in all but as to one Kitchin which was so ruinous at the time of the Demise that he could not maintain or repair and therefore he took it down and rebuilt it again in so short a time as he could possible in the same place so large and so sufficient in breadth length and heighth as the other Kitchin was and that the said Kitchin all times after the re-edifying of it he had sustained and maintained and well repaired and demanded Iudgment c. upon which Plea the Plaintiff did demurr in Law and by the Court the Plea were a good Plea if it were in an Action of Waste but here where he hath by his own Act tied himself to an inconvenience he ought at his perill to provide for it And here it was said That if the Condition be impossible the Bond is single contrary where a man is charged by an Act in Law. CCXXXVIII Bostwick and Bostwick 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas DOrothy Bostwick brought Dower against Bostwick an Infant Ante 59. and the Case was That the Husband of the Demandant was seised of certain Lands holden by Knight's-service of M. C. and by his last Will devised two parts of the Premisses to his Executors during the non-age of his heir and died his heir within age after whose death M. C. entred into the third part descended as Guardian in Knight's-service and the Executors into the other two parts upon which the Demandant brought one Writ of Dower against the Guardian to be endowed of the third part and another Writ of Dower against the heir within age in whom the Freehold of the two parts was The heir appearing by Attorney pleaded to issue which was found for the Demandant but the Iudgment was afterwards reversed because the heir being within age did not appear by Guardian but by Attorney for which cause she again brought a Writ of Dower against the heir and the Sheriff did retorn him summoned but the heir made default for which cause the Court was moved in the behalf of the Demandant to have the aid of the Court in this Case for if upon default of the Tenant a Grand Cape should issue forth and so a Recovery by default should follow the same would be Error which see 6 H. 8. Br. Liver Defaul 50. And therefore it was prayed that some person be appointed Guardian to the heir who may appear and plead for him for otherwise the Demandant is at great mischief for the Guardian now will not suffer the heir to appear in person And if the Widow now Demandant should stay for her Dower untill the heir should come of full age it would be a great mischief But by Walmesley Periam and Windham We cannot appoint a Guardian to the heir for his appearance here unless the heir be here in person in Court before us and he was appointed to be brought in person into Court. CCXXXIX Sir Anthony Denny 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas SIR Anthony Denny seised in Fee of the Manor of Chessam extending into Chessam and in the Town of Hertford and also of other Lands in Hertford by his last Will devised the Manor of Chessam to Henry Denny his son and heir in tail and his Lands in Hertford to Edward Denny his younger son c. It was holden by Walmsley Periam and Windham absent Anderson That the younger son should have that part of the Manor of Chessam which lieth in the Town of Hertford Another point in the Case was That upon the death of Sir Anthony and Office was found without any mention of this Devise for which cause the Queen seised and leased all the Lands so devised to a stranger during the minority of the heir The heir comes of full age and hath Livery of the whole and without any express entry leaseth the Lands for years rendring Rent the Lessee entreth and payeth the Rent to the heir the heir dieth the Lessee assigns over his term and the Rent is yearly paid to the right heir of Sir Anthony And how Edward Denny entred and per Curiam his entry is lawfull for if the heir entreth in this Case and many descents follow yet the Devisee may enter at any time for his entry doth not make any abatement or wrong but may well stand with the Devise for if the Devise be waved or the Devise doth defer the execution of the Devisee 1 Inst 111. a. 240. b. 3 Cro. 145. Ow. 86 87. it is reason that the heir enter and take the profits untill the Devisee entreth But if
Council by him assigned a sufficient and lawfull discharge of an annual Rent which the Plaintiff claims out of two houses of the Defendant in B. aforesaid That then the said Bond shall be void and the Defendant said That he at the day assigned contained in the Condition that A. and B. by assignment of the Defendant came to B. and tendred to shew to N. and W. of the Plaintiff's Council a sufficient discharge of the said annual Rent and that they did refuse to see it upon which there was a demurrer in Law and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and that the Plea was no Plea for the Defendant ought to have shewed in his Plea what manner of discharge he would have shewed as a release unity of possession c. But as the Case is here If the Plaintiff shall traverse the Plea in Bar the issue joined upon it cannot be tried for the Iury cannot know which is a lawfull and sufficient discharge but the same shall be tried by the Court for if the Defendant had tendered to the Plaintiff a discharge by unity of possession the Iury cannot know if it be a sufficient discharge and as the Plea is here he hath not shewed what discharge he would have shewed to the said Council and therefore we cannot judge of the same If one be bound to plead a sufficient Plea before such a day in such a Court in such an Action it is not sufficient that he hath pleaded a sufficient Plea but he ought to shew what Plea he hath pleaded otherwise the Court cannot judge if the Plea be sufficient or not Vid. 35 H. 6. 19. and 37 H. 8. Br. Cand. 16. where a man will plead that he hath saved the party harmless he ought to shew how Shute Iustice and Clench Iustice If the Defendant had pleaded not disturbed by any indirect means such a Plea had been good enough Gawdy Iustice If he had pleaded not disturbed contra formam Conditionis praed it had been a good Plea In a Writ of Entry Ne entra pas contra formam Statuti He did not alien within age is a Negative pregnant but the party may say he did not alien Modo forma all the part to this Plea which comes after the But is surplusage and Negation Gawdy It is a Plea which is pleaded with all the words of the Condition intirely Clench The Case put by Godfrey 22 E. 4. differs from the Case at Bar For there he pleaded all in the affirmative therefore in such a Case he ought to plead specially but in the Case at Bar all is in the Negative in which Case such special pleading is not necessary If I be bounden that I shall not go out of Westminster-hall untill night but tarry in the Hall till night In an Action against me upon that Bond I may plead in iisdem verbis If I be bound upon Condition That I will not return to Serjeant's-Inn the direct way but by St. Giles I shall plead in totidem verbis Godfrey I agree those Cases for the matter which comes after the But is triable by the Countrey but so it is not in the principal Case Clench But is but a word of surplusage and if that and all which follows had been left out it had been well enough It was adjourned CCXLIX Courtney and Kelloway 's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas COurtney brought an Action upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. concerning Perjury against Kelloway and declared That where Sir Gawen Carew had heretofore brought an Action upon the Case against the now Plaintiff for slanderous words viz. because that the said now Plaintiff had affirmed that the said Sir Gawen had had the Pocks To which Declaration the now Plaintiff had pleaded that Kelloway the now Defendant reported to the said now Plaintiff That he himself i. e. Kelloway had heretofore healed the said Sir Gawen of the Pocks Absque hoc that he spake them simply of his own head upon which they were at issue and the said Kelloway was produced as a witness on the part of the said Courtney and the said Kelloway upon his oath deposed at the Trial of the said issue That he never had reported to the now Plaintiff That he himself had healed the said Sir Gawen of the Pocks for which the Iury found for Gawen and also assessed greater damages in respect that they found That Courtney spake the said words of his own head c. and not of the report of Kelloway It was the opinion of the whole Court that the now Plaintiff should have this Action For notwithstanding that that oath doth not trench much unto the proof or disproof of the issue yet because that by reason of the oath the Iury have aggravated the damages the Action doth lie as in case of Trespass of breaking his Close and spoiling his grass the Defendant pleads Not guilty and at the trial of the issue a witness is produced on the Plaintiff's part who deposeth upon his oath That the Land where c. was so rich in grass that it was ready to be mowed whereas in truth none or very little grass was there growing yet if the Iury find upon other evidence the Defendant guilty it is an occasion to induce the Iury to tax the greater damages all which the Court granted CCL Holland and Drake 's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae brought by Holland against Drake and five others Drake pleaded Not guilty the other five Quoad 20 acres pleaded Not guilty also and as to the residue that long time before that Andrews Lessor of the Plaintiff had any thing in the land That Hen. Lord Cromwel was seised and leased the same to them for two years and afterwards granted the Reversion to Andrews to whom they attorned Andrews within the said term entred upon them and leased to the Plaintiff upon whom they re-entred as was lawfull for them to do The Plaintiff by Replication said That long time before the said Lord Cromwel had any thing c. Andrews himself was seised untill by the said Lord Cromwel disseised and leased to the Defendants Ut supra and granted the Reversion to the said Andrews with attornment who entred and leased to the Plaintiff who entred and was possessed untill by the said Defendants ejected Modo forma pro ut c. And upon this Replication the said five Defendants did demur in Law. It was argued That the Plaintiff in his Replication hath departed from his Declaration for by his Declaration he hath supposed himself to be ejected by all the six Defendants and in the Replication he saith That he was possessed untill by the said five Defendants who plead in Bar he was ejected so he hath departed from his Declaration in the number of the Ejectors for he ought to have said untill he by the said five and also by the said Drake was ejected as 12 E. 4. 6. in trespass upon Entry
upon the Statute of 5 R. 2. against J. and E. J. died pendant the Writ and E. pleaded in Bar and the Plaintiff did reply and conclude and so was he seised untill the said E. Simul cum dicto J. named in the Writ entred upon the Plaintiff c. But the opinion of the whole Court was clear to the contrary for here in the case at Bar Drake by his several issue which he hath joyned with the Plaintiff upon Not guilty is severed from the other five Defendants and then when they plead in Bar The Plaintiff ought to reply to them without meddling with Drake who upon his several Plea and issue joyned upon it is a stranger to them as if the said five had been the onely Defendants But if he had not replyed to Drake as if Drake had made default or had died after the Writ brought as in the case before cited of 28 E. 4. there he ought to have replyed as it is objected So in an Ejectione firmae of twenty acres The Defendant as to ten acres pleads Not guilty upon which they are at issue and the Plaintiff replies and says as to the other ten acres and so was he possessed untill by the Defendant of the said ten acres he was ejected this is good without speaking of the other ten acres upon which the general issue is joyned And the Court was ready to have given Iudgment for the Plaintiff but they looked upon the Record and seeing that one issue in this Action was to be tryed between the Plaintiff and the said Drake And although the Plaintiff offered to release his damages and the issue joyned and to have Iudgment against the five Defendants who had demurred Vid. antea 41. yet the Court was clear of opinion that no Iudgment should be given upon the said Demurrer untill the said issue was tryed for the Action is an Ejectione firmae in which Case the possession of the land is to be recovered and it may be for any thing that appeareth That Drake who hath pleaded the general issue hath Title to the land c. But if this Action had been an Action of Trespass there in such case Ut supra upon release of damages and the issue joyned the Plaintiff should have Iudgment presently CCLI French 's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IT was presented before the Coroner That John French was Felo de se and that certain goods of the said John French were in the possession of J. S. and this presentment was certified into the King's Bench upon which Process issued forth against the said J. S. and continued untill he was Outlawed And now came J. S. and cast in his Writ of Error to reverse the said Outlawry and assigned for Error because that in the presentment upon which he was Outlawed there is not any addition given to the said J. S. And at the first it was doubted If upon that presentment Process of Outlawry did lye and Ive one of the chief Clerks of the Crown-Office said to the Court That such Process in such case did lye and that he could shew five hundred precedents to that purpose Another matter was moved upon the Statute of 1 H. 5. 5. of Additions If this Outlawry by the Statute aforesaid ought to be reversed by default of Addition for as much as the said Statute speaks onely of Outlawries upon original Writs in personal Actions Appeals and Indictments But it was agreed by the whole Court That as to this purpose the presentment should be accounted in Law as an Indictment and afterwards the Outlawry against French was reversed CCLII Mich. 26 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. A Lease for thirty years was made by Husband and Wife if they so long should live and if they die c. That the land should remain to A. their son during the term aforesaid And it was holden by Wray Iustice That if the Husband and Wife do die within the term that the son should have the land De novo for thirty years But Gawdy was of opinion that he shall have it for so many years which after their death should be expired CCLIII Cooper 's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN an Ejectionefirmae The Case was That the Husband and Wife had right to enter into certain lands in the right of the wife and a Deed of Lease for years is written in the name of the Husband and Wife to one A. for to try the Title and also a Letter of Attorney to B. to enter into the land and to deliver the said Deed of Lease to the said A. in the name of the Husband and Wife 3 Cro. 118. 2 Cro. 617. Yel and as well the Letter of Attorney as the said Deed of Lease are sealed by the said Husband and Wife with their seals and entry and delivery is made accordingly the said A. enters and upon Ejectment brings an Ejectione firmae and the whole matter aforesaid was found by special Verdict and the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover for the special matter found by Verdict i. e. the Deed of Lease and the Letter of Attorney do maintain the Declaration well enough and here is a Lease made by Husband and Wife according to that the Plaintiff hath declared CCLIV Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Action of Trespass for breaking of the Plaintiff's Close Owen 114. 1 Cro. 876. 2 Cro. 195. 229. Godb. 123. and killing of eighteen Conies there the Defendant as to all the Trespass but to the killing of the Conies pleaded Not guilty and as to the killing of the said Conies He said that the place Where is a Heath in which he hath common of pasture and that he found the Conies eating the grass there and he killed them and carried them away as it was lawfull for him to do Cowper Although Conies be Ferae naturae yet when they are in in-grounds they are reduced to such a property that if they be killed or carried away I shall have an Action of trespass Vid. 43 E. 3. 24. And if a Deer be hunted by the Plaintiff in a Forest and afterwards in hunting it be driven out of the Forest and the Forrester doth follow the chase and the Plaintiff kill the Deer in his own grounds yet the Forrester may enter into the land of the Plaintiff and re-take the Deer 12 H. 8. 9. And although the Defendant hath common in the soil yet he cannot meddle with the wood there nor with the land nor with the grass otherwise than with the feeding of his cattel for he hath but a faint interest And if he who hath the Freehold in the land bringeth an Action of trespass against such a commoner for entring into his land and the Defendant plead Not guilty he cannot give in evidence that he hath common there And it hath been late adjudged That where commoners prescribe Godb. 123. That the Lord hath used to put in
such a pasture but so many beasts that such a prescription is a void prescription It was argued on the other side That the owner of the soil hath not the true property of the Conies in him but a kind of property And see F.N. B. 86 and 87. Quare clausum fregit 20 Cuniculos cepit Against a stranger he may have an Action but not against the commoner because he hath wrong in his common by the feeding of the Conies there for although he hath not an interest in the soil yet he hath an interest in the profits of it and a commoner may distrain the beasts of him who hath not right of common for damage-feasance as the books are 4 H. 7. 3. 15 H. 7. 15. and there the commoner hath not any remedy if he cannot enter and kill the Conies for he cannot take them damage-feasance nor can impound them for no Replevin lyeth of them if the owner of the soil ploweth the lands yet the commoner may put in his cattel claiming his common and he may well justifie the same because the wrong beginneth in the owner of the soil At another day the Case was moved again and then it was argued by Coke and he said The point is Whether a commoner having common of pasture may kill the Conies which are upon the ground and he argued That he might not And first he said It is to be considered what interest he who hath the Freehold may have in such things as are Ferae naturae and then what authority a commoner hath in the ground in which he hath common As to the first point he said That although such beasts are Ferae naturae yet they are reduced to such a property when they are in my ground by reason of my possession which I then have of them that I may have an Action of trespass against him who taketh them away as in the book in 42 E. 3. If one hath Deer in his Park and another taketh them away he may have an Action of Trespass for the taking of them See 12 H. 8. If a Keeper or Forrester follow a Buck which is chase out of the Park or Forrest although he who hunteth him killeth the Buck in his own ground yet the Keeper or Forrester may enter into his ground and seize the Deer because the property and possession of the Deer is yet in them by their persuit In 7 H. 6. It is holden That if a wild beast doth go out of the Park the owner of the soil hath lost his property in it but upon the said book it may be well collected that whilest it remains in the Parke That the owner of the Park hath property in it for 18 E. 4. 14. It is doubted whether a man can have property in such things which are Ferae naturae But in 10 H. 7. 6. it is holden That an action of Accompt lyeth for things which are Ferae naturae and see 14 H. 8. 1. In the Bishop of London's Case and 22 H. 6. 59. That as long as such things are in the parties ground they are in his possession and he hath a property in them and in an Action brought for them The Writ shall be Quare damas suas cepit by Newton And see in the Register fol. 102. where an Action was brought Quare ducent Cuniculos suos pretii c. cepit It hath been objected on the other side That the Defendant hath common there To that I answer Admit he hath common yet he hath not an interest in the soil for he cannot meddle with the wood grass or other profit arising of the soil but the interest which the commoner hath is onely the feeding of the grass with â—he mouths of his cattel and if he who hath the Freehold in the ground doth bring an Action against the commoner for entring into his land If the Defendant pleads Not guilty he cannot give evidence that he hath common there for such evidence will not maintain the issue See 22 Ass A commoner cannot take in the cattel of a stranger to agist upon the common and therewith agreeth the book of 12 H. 8. and so it hath been adjudged in this Court. Godfrey contrary And he argued That it is lawfull for the commoner to kill the Conies feeding in the common And he agreed all the cases which were put by Coke and farther he said That the owner of the ground had not an absolute but a kind of a qualified property in the Conies and therefore see the Book of 3 H. 6. and F.N. B. If a Writ of Trespass be brought Quare Cuniculas suas cepit the Writ shall abate and yet he hath a kind of property or a possession rather in them I grant that against a stranger the Plaintiff might have his Action for killing of his Conies but not against the commoner because the commoner hath a wrong done unto him by the Conies eating of his common and therefore he may kill them and although the commoner may not meddle with the land because he hath not an interest in it yet in some cases he may meddle with the profits of it and he may distrain the cattel of a stranger there damage-feasance as the Book is in 15 H. 7. I grant that it is not lawfull for Tenant for life to kill the Conies of him who hath free-warren in the land For if a man bringeth an Action of Trespass Quare warrenam suam intravit Cuniculos suos cepit It is no Plea for the Defendant to say That it is his Freehold See 43. E. 3. accordingly In L. 5 E. 4. In Trespass Quare clausum fregit Cuniculos suos cepit The Defendant said That the Plaintiff made a Lease at will to J. S. of the land and that he as servant to the said J. S. did kill the Conies there and it was holden a good Plea and yet it is there said That by the grant of the land the Conies do not pass but the reason of the book might be as I conceive because the feeding on the land with the Conies is to his damage and therefore that he might justifie the killing of them and so are the Books of 2 H. 7. and 4 E. 4. If I have common of pasture in lands and the Tenant ploweth up the land I shall have an action upon the Case in the nature of a Quod permittat And in 9 E. 4. If one hath lands adjoyning to my land and levyeth a Nusance I may enter upon the land and abate the Nusance So if a man taketh my goods and carrieth them unto his own lands I may enter therein and seize my goods So if a Tenant of the Freehold plows the land and soweth it with corn the commoner may put in his cattel and therewith eat the corn growing upon the land So if a man do falsly imprison me and put me in his house I may justifie the breaking open of his house to get forth In 21 H.
moved the Case That the Plea is good and Iudgment was entred accordingly CCLXXI. Richmond and Butcher 's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas 1 Cro. 217. IN a Replevin the Case was this A man made a Lease for years reserving Rent to the Lessor his Executors and Assigns where the Lessor had a Fee-simple in the Lands it was holden by the Court That the Rent should go to the heir notwithstanding the special Reservation because the words of the Reservation are During the term and the other words To his Executors and Assigns shall be void and then the Rent shall go with the Reversion to the heir which see 27 H. 8. 19. by Awdley And it was said by some That a Rent reserved during the term shall go to the heir with the Reversion and 12 E. 4. was cited where a Rent reserved to the Lessor and his Assigns should not go to the heir and that these words During the term did not mend the matter for the Lessor might well overlive the term But in the principal Case it was said by Periam Iustice That the Executors should not have the Rent for they have not the Reversion but if the Lessor grants over the reversion the Grantee shall have the Rent And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff for it was in a Replevin and Iudgment was given for the Avowant who was heir to the Lessor CCLXXII Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN an Action of Trespass brought by a poor woman for breaking of her Close she declared of a Continuando of the Trespass by six years and upon Nihil dicit pleaded she had Iudgment to recover upon which issued forth a Writ of Enquiry of Damages and now came the poor woman and shewed to the Court That the Iury had found too little damages i. e. but 10 s. whereas the Land is worth 4 l. per ann and the Trespass had continued by six years together and prayed that the said Writ might not be received and that the Court would grant her another Writ to have a Melius inquirendum of the damages but the whole Court denied to grant any such Writ for so there might be infinite enquiries But sometimes at the prayer of the Defendant when excessive damages are found or any misdemeanors alledged in the Plaintiff procuring or using such a Writ of Enquiry of damages we use to relieve the Defendant by granting and issuing forth of a new Writ but to the Plaintiff never because the suing forth of the Writ is his own act And by Rhodes Iustice The late Countess of Darby brought a Writ of Dower and had Iudgment to recover and she surmised that her husband died seised and prayed a Writ of Enquiry of damages and had it granted unto her and because too small damages were found she would have suppressed the said Writ and procured a new Writ but she could not obtain it and at last she was driven to bring in the first Writ and so it was done CCLXXIII Scrog 's and Griffin 's Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN an Action upon the Case upon a promise by Scrogs against Griffin The Plaintiff declared That whereas such a day one Brown and another did run for a wager from Saint-John-Street to High-gate That he of the said two that first got thither and came again should have 5 l. which wager the said Brown did win and whereas after the said match so performed the said Plaintiff affirmed that there was deceit and covin in the performance of the said match upon which the Defendant in consideration of twelve pence to him delivered by the Plaintiff promised that if the Plaintiff can prove that any deceit or covin was used or practised in the performance of the said match that then upon request he should pay to the Plaintiff 5 l. And upon Non Assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and it was moved by Foster in arrest of Iudgment That here is not any request set forth in the Declaration and also that this deceit is enquired of in London whereas it ought to be in Middlesex where the Race was run and it was agreed by all the Iustices That the proof ought to be made in this Action as in the common Cases of voyages and that request now is but matter of conformity and not of necessity Wray Iustice It is clear That always proof ought to be as it is here if not that the matter be referred to a special proof before a person certain And as to the trial The deceit is not in issue but onely the promise and therefore the issue is well tried in London Also this Action here includes proof and request for there cannot be made any other proof and the proof is the effect for which cause he concluded that Iudgment should be entred for the Plaintiff which was done accordingly CCLXXIV Fuller and Trimwell 's Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin by Fuller against Trimwell who made Conusance 1 Roll 46. â—… as Bailiff to one house for damage fesance The Plaintiff in Bar of the Conusance shewed That one A. T. did pretend right to the land where c. and the Defendant in the right of the said A. T. took the cattel c. Absque hoc that he took them as Bailiff to the said House upon which the Defendant did demur in Law and it was argued by Shuttleworth Serjeant That the traverse is not good which see 26 H. 8. 8. 5 H. 7. 2. Not his Bailiff but if the truth of the Case be so he may plead of his own wrong without such cause c. And see also 28 H. 6. 4. The Commandment is not traverseable but in special Cases where the Commandment determines the interest of the other party which see 13 H. 7. 12 13. Antea 196. in the Case of the Earl of Suffolk in Trespass the Defendant pleaded That before the trespass the Plaintiff was seised and thereof enfeoffed one B. by whose commandment he entred to which the Plaintiff said That after the Feoffment and before the trespass the said B. leased to the Plaintiff to hold at will Absque hoc that the said B. did command him and that was holden a good traverse for the commandment determines that Lease at will and in the principal Case all the Iustices were of clear opinion That the traverse is good and they all said That the Custos Brevium had shewed to them many presidents thereof See 15 H. 7. 17. and see also 7 H. 4. 101 102. In trespass for taking of cattel the Defendant did justifie as servant to such a one for Rent arrere due to his Master The Plaintiff Replicando said That the Defendant was not Bailiff at the time of the taking where it is said by Gascoigne That if the Defendant takes the cattel claiming property as a Heriot due to himself although that afterwards the Lord agrees to the distress
Legacies c. did promise to pay to the Plaintiff 400 l. at four several days The first day of payment incurred and no money was paid whereupon the Plaintiff brought the Action the Defendant pleaded That he made no such promise and it was found for the Plaintiff and damages were assessed for the default of payment at the first day and that was moved in arrest of Iudgment because the Assumpsit was intire and the Plaintiff ought to have forborn his suit until all the days of payment were past and then to have one entire Action for the whole but the opinion of the whole Court was against that for they said It is not like unto a Debt upon a Contract or a Bill where the debt is to be paid at several days for here no debt is to be recovered but onely damages for the debt and this default of payment is a wrong and therefore the Action will well lie and so it was adjudged CCLXXX Pasch 16 Eliz. In the King's-Bench A. Devised that his lands should descend to his son but he willed 1 Cro. 252. Hob. 285. Dyer 251. a. Dy. 210. a. 3 Len. 9. 79. Yel en Ayleff Choppins Case Vaugh. 184. That his wife should take the profits thereof until the full age of his son for his education and bringing up and died the wife married another husband and died before the full age of the son and it was the opinion of Wray and Southcote Iustices That the second husband should not have the profits of the lands until the full age of the son for nothing is devised to the wife but a confidence and she is as Guardian or Bailiff for to help the Infant which by her death is determined and the same confidence cannot be transferred to the husband but contrary if he had devised the profits of the land unto his wife until the age of the Infant to bring him up and educate him for that is a Devise of the land it self CCLXXXI Bawell and Lucas 's Case Pasch 16 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN a Replevin by Bawell against Lucas It was agreed by all the Iustices viz. Mounson Manwood Harper and Dyer That if a man seised of a Manor leased part of the Demeans for years or for life That the reversion doth remain parcel of the Manor but such a Reversion by the Grant of the Manor doth not pass without Attornment of the Lessee And where a Manor is granted by Feoffment unto another and afterwards the Tenants attorn the services pass by the Livery and not by any Grant and although in the first Grant the Lessee doth not attorn but a long time after yet the Reversion is not severed from the Manor for the Attornment as to that intent shall have relation to the Livery to make the Reversion to pass from the time of the Grant but not to charge the Lessee with Waste and Dyer said That if a Feoffment in Fee be made of a Manor with an Advowson appendant and the Tenants do not attorn yet the Feoffee shall have the Advowson for the Advowson is appendant to the principal part of the Manor scil the Demeans and cannot be appendant to the services and Dyer said That if A. maketh a Feoffment in Fee of a Manor part of which is in Lease for years Habendum to the Feoffee and his heirs to the use of the Feoffee and his heirs upon condition that the Feoffee shall pay to the Feoffor within ten days 1000 l. and if he fail then to the use of the Feoffor for life the remainder to the use of his son in tail and the money is not paid the Lessee attorns after the ten days to the Feoffee 2 Leon. 265 266. the same is a good Attornment to raise secondary uses although that the first uses did not take effect for the condition is not annexed to the Estate of the Land but unto the use onely and the meaning was that the Feoffor should never have again the Inheritance A Feoffment is upon condition that the Feoffee shall give the Land in tail to a stranger who refuseth the gift there the Feoffor may re-enter but a Feoffment upon condition to enfeoff a stranger or to grant a Rent-charge if the stranger refuseth there the Feoffor shall not re-enter for his intent was not that the Land should revert c. CCLXXXII Vavasor 's Case Hill. 16 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas THE Case was That Nicholas Ellis seised of the Manor of Woodhall leased the same to William Vavasor and his wife for the life of the wife the remainder to the right heirs of the husband The husband made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his wife for their lives the remainder to his right heirs the husband died the wife held in and committed waste in a Park parcel of the Manor It was moved If the Writ of Waste shall suppose that the wife holdeth in Ex dimissione Nichol. Ellis or Ex dimissione viri and the opinion of all the Iustices was That the Writ upon this matter ought to be general viz. That she holds in de haereditate J. S. haeredis c. without saying ex dimissione hujus vel illius for she is not in by the Lessor nor by the Feoffees but by the Statute of Uses and therefore the Writ shall be Ex haereditate c. And also the opinion of the Iustices was That the wife in this case is not remitted but that she is in according to the form of the Feoffment Dyer The Formedon brought against Manures rehearsed in the Writ a Will and divers Conveyances by reason of which the Writ was of exceeding length and in such cases the Writ is good yet if the Writ be general it is sufficient Note in this Case That the Plaintiff assigned the waste in destroying of Deer in the Park And Mead Serjeant said That waste cannot be assigned in the Deer unless the Defendant hath destroyed all the Deer and of that opinion was Dyer Manwood If the Lessee of a Pigeon-house destroy all the old Pigeons but one or two couple the same is waste and if the Keeper doth destroy all the Deer so as the ground is become not Parkable the same is waste although he hath not destroyed the whole See 8 R. 2. Fitz. Wast 97. If there be a sufficient store left in a Park Pond c. it is well enough c. CCLXXXIII Mutton 's Case Hill. 16 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. JAne Mutton brought a Writ of Entry Sur disseisin 1 Anders 42. More 96. against Anne Mutton who pleaded That one John Mutton was seised and levyed a Fine to the use of himself and such wife and wives as the said John should after marry by what name or names they should be called for term of their lives and afterwards to the use of the same Jane now Demandant in tail the remainder over to the right heirs of the said John Mutton and afterwards the said
J. S. he was constrained to pay the money J. S. promised for the same consideration to repay the money 286 D DIminution 3 Distress for Rent 8 Debt 10 26 33 49 88 90 122 126 136 150 153 162 163 172 181 189 200 208 248 Debt for Rent 14 28 67 121 Dower 15 85 174 238 Devise 16 92 123 165 171 198 239 243 276 279 280 287 Debt upon Recognizance 24 Descent no plea nor any title against the Queen 37 Debts of the King by the Statute of 33 H. 8. 39 Disseisin 80 Distress 179 Detinue 201 Discharge of a promise a good plea upon an Assumpsit 270 E ERror 2 3 4 77 86 100 115 132 135 160 161 222 231 244 251 255 256 263 Entry of Records 3 Estopell 3 17 Extent 20 75 167 Exceptions to a Writ 47 Extendi facias sued out and the Liberate not returned if good 65 Escape an Action of Debt brought upon it 112 Execution upon a Statute and the Sheriff voluntarily sets him at large 117 Execution 202 Enquest taken at the instance of the Plaintiff 203 Ejectione firme 250 Exposition of Statutes do belong unto the Queen 's temporal Courts 267 F FEoffments to Uses 7 25 118 183 194 218 233 257 282 285 False imprisonment 43 Fine 38 73 139 169 191 206 263 Formedon 84 196 Feoffment in Fee of Lands parcell of the Dutchy of Lancaster how and of whom the Tenure shall be 184 Fines in Courts 219 G GRant de Advocatione Ecclesiae what passeth 106 Grant of Lands of the Dutchy of Lancaster by the King unto another Tenend in Fee-farm if this Land shall be holden of the King in Capite or holden of the Dutchy 197 Gift where void both by Common-Law and the Statute of 13 Eliz. 284 H HEriot 10 Habeas Corpus not well returned day given to amend it 213 I JUdgment against Bail 2 Indictment upon the Statute of 23 Eliz. of Recusancy 6 Justicies no Original but a Commission to the Sheriff 41 260 Information upon the Statute of 18 H. 6. cap. 17. concerning the gaging of vessels of wine 52 In consideration that the Plaintiff would stay an intended suit in Chancery promised that if the Plaintiff can prove that the father of the Defendant took the profits of the Lands in question that he would pay to him for all the said profits 133 Information upon the Statute of Usury 144 In consideration of marriage the Defendant promised to pay to the Plaintiff 100 l. 146 Joint-tenants in Fee grant a Lease for years rendring Rent and one dies how the Rent shall be divided 148 In consideration that the Testator would forbear the payment of a sum of money for a week he promised to pay him within a week if the Action will lie for the Executors 149 Judgment not to be reversed but by Error or Attaint 154 Information upon the Statute of 27 Eliz. cap. 4. by the party grieved The Plaintiff was non-suit yet shall not pay costs and damages 156 Indenture delivered at another day and not the day of the date 157 Indictment for inclosing of Common vi armis c. not good 159 Intruder dying in possession the same descent taketh not away an Entry 182 Indictment upon the Statute of 23 Eliz. of Recusants 204 Indictment upon the Statute of Praemunire of 13 15 R. 2. 225 Indictment upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. of forcible entry 226 232 Indictment for not repairing of a Bridge 227 Indictment for an unlawfull assembly and entry 228 Indictment upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. cap. 4. for drawing of his dagger in the Church 234 Indictment upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. of Perjury 262 Judgment joynt against three will not lie against one of them in particular 277 L LEases 1 40 78 96 102 110 116 119 131 134 169 178 192 207 236 252 253 261 Leet how holden 31 98 266 Love is no consideration upon which to ground an Action 35 Letters Patents Bona Catalla felonum c. 81 Letters Patents of Offices not to be repealed after the death of the Grantor 128 Limitation and Condition with their difference 52 M MAintenance in returning a partial Jury 177 N NUsance for stopping a River with earth by which land was drowned 129 222 Nudum pactum quid 187 O OUtlawry 23 166 Obligation for appearance upon a Latitat where void 103 220 Office found 169 Obligation that the Obligor shall not exercise his Trade within a Town nor within a certain precinct of it void and against Law 259 P PArtition 3 Prescription 13 Property 35 113 Partitione facienda 69 Privilege is not for an Atturney against an Attachment by the custome of London 190 Presentments several make the Church litigious 205 Privilege pleaded for a Lord of Parliament 209 Prohibition prayed to the Court of Admiralty 224 Payment no good Plea without alledging it upon Record 269 Proof how to be made 273 Q QVare Impedit â—â— 83 Quo Warranto 266 R REceit of the wife 11 Rectory Quid 13 Rent charge 21 185 186 Replevin 29 58 82 87 107 158 168 170 211 274 281 Rents and Services 57 Reparations 72 Replicando of his own wrong how construed 108 Remainder in tail who was attainted of Felony 169 Recognizance of good behaviour 199 Recovery in a Writ of Entry 214 Return of a Devastavit upon a Fieri facias a motion to have an Elegit 235 Replication where good by Executors 265 S SEals 27 Special Plea to an English Bill if it may be relinquished 38 Sheriff must deliver all the prisoners in his custody over to his successor 76 Scire facias against the bail in an action of Debt to which was pleaded the death of the Defendant before Judgment given against him 125 T TEnancy several where no good Plea 9 Trover and conversion 22 50 217 278 Tythes 30 32 93 95 98 105 124 180 216 Tail. 51 54 63 170 247 Trespass against the Warden of the Fleet brought in the King's Bench 56 Tenant per auter vye after the death of Cestuy que use holdeth over if he be a Disseisor 59 Tenant at will if he may grant Copihold Estates to Copiholders 59 Trespass upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. of forcible entry 70 Trespass for an assault and battery 104 Tender of rent if refused where good and where not 173 Trespass by one Administrator against another for taking away the goods of the intestate 188 Trespass Quare clausum fregit and new assignment pleaded 230 Toll no lands to be discharged of it but lands Socage onely 240 Trespass Quare clausum fregit 241 Trespass for taking of goods and the Defendant justifies as Bailiff to J. S. 246 Trespass for breaking of the Plaintiffs close and for killing his Conies 254 Trespass for cutting down of four Oaks and the Defendant pleads that he and all those whose Estate he hath c. Habere consueverunt rationabile estoverium suum for fuel c. 258 W WRit of entry in the Per 9 Will of the Request of Land and the name of the Devisor not in it if good 44 Waste 45 46 62 210 282 Writ of Annuity 68 Wager of Law 143 Writ of Enquirie of damages if too little damages be found no other Writ pro meliore Enquir can be granted 272 Writ of Entry Sur Disseisin 283 FINIS
indictment and prayed his Clergy c. and demanded Iudgment If the Plaintiff should have this appeal The Plaintiff Replicando said by protestation Nul tiel record and for plea did demur in Law. Dalton for the Plaintiff took Exception to the plea for the conclusion of it viz. Iudgment if appeal where it ought to be Iudgment if he shall be again put to answer And he took a difference where a matter is pleaded against the Plaintiff to which the Plaintiff is party As where a man pleads a Fine levied by the Plaintiff himself there he shall conclude Iudgment if action but where the Fine is pleaded levied by the Ancestors of the Plaintiff there he shall plead Iudgment if against such Fine c. Vide 9 H. 7. 19. At the common Law before the Statute of 3 H. 7. such conviction at the suit of the King did discharge the party convicted from farther trouble but if the indictment upon which he was arraigned be insufficient then it is not any plea. And here the indictment is insufficient for by the Statute of Articuli super Chartas cap. 3. the Coroner of the County together with the Coroner of the King's Houshold shall do the Office which belongs to it and send the roll to which Office two Coroners are requisite but here in the taking of this inquisition there was but one person although two capacities id est Coroner of the County and also Coroner of the Verge and so the indictment was taken Coram non Judice See the Statute of the Star-Chamber which is That the Chancellor c. calling to them one Bishop and one temporal Lord of the King's Council c. If the Chancellor be a Bishop yet another Bishop ought to be called c. If I devise that my lands shall be sold by two Bishops and J. S. hath two Bishopricks yet his sale is not sufficient Egerton contrary Although here is but one person yet there are two Coroners Quando duo jura concurrunt in una persona aequum est ac si essent in diversis At the common Law before the Statute De Articulis super Chartas The Coroner of the Verge by himself might enquire of Murther but because the Kings Court oftentimes removed into another County by reason whereof no enquiry could be made for the remedying thereof that Statute was made which is in the affirmative and doth not abridge the common Law before and therefore it shall have a reasonable construction See the Statute of West 1. cap. 10 By which it is enacted that sufficient men shall be chosen Coroners of the most loyal and the most sage Knights this Statute shall not be taken Stricto sensu that none shall be chosen Coroners but Knights but the Statute requires that sufficient persons shall be chosen As to the Statute of 3 H. 7. It is to be known That the common Law before acquitted was a good Plea and the cause was for the great regard that the common Law had to the life of a man In which case a great mischief as the Statute recites did ensue that to save the appeal of the party they would not arraign the party within the year and day after the murther within which time the offender did compound with the party interessed and so after the year expired all the matter concerning the prosecution at the King's suit was put in oblivion wherefore it was enacted That such offender shall be within the year arraigned at the suit of the King and if the party be acquitted at the Kings suit within the year and day That the Iustices before whom c. should not set the party at large but to remain in prison or to let him to bail untill the year and the day be past and within the said year and day the wife or next heir to the party slain may take their appeal against the party so acquitted or attainted the said acquittal or attainder notwithstanding and he said that these words person attainted did not extend to person convicted for they are two distinct conditions in Law for attainder procures corruption of bloud but the same is not wrought by conviction and every Treason imports in it self Felony but yet notwithstanding they are distinct Offences See 22 E. 4. Coron 44. where it was ordered by all the Iustices of England That none should be arraigned of the death of a man at the suit of the King within the year and day so as the suit of the party be saved And the Iustices counselled all men of Law so to do and that the same be executed as a Law without alteration upon which rule of the Iustices arose an inconvenience for after that order of the Iustices was known The offender would practise with the party to whom the appeal by the Law belonged to obtain from him a release for some sum of money and then when the year and day passed the heinousness of the murther was out of memory This mischief being espied was the occasion of the making of the Statute of 3 H. 7. But the said Statute doth not meet with our Case but our Case is at the common Law for this Statute extends onely unto persons attainted but a person convicted is not touched by it and therefore being out of the words of the Statute it shall be also out of the meaning of it for being a penal Law it shall be taken by equity as all Statutes which give attaint shall be Stricti juris and shall not be taken by equity It hath been objected that the Statute de Frangentibus prisonam 4 E. 1. hath been taken by equity the same is not so for it is not any penal Law but the same mitigates the rigor of the common Law for before that Statute the breaking of the prison was Felony in every case but now it is not Felony but where the party was committed to prison for Felony c. CXCVI. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Formedon of a Manor Dyer 291. 3 Len. 92. the Tenant pleaded Ioynt-tenancy by Fine with J. S. The Demandant did aver the Tenant sole Tenant as the Writ doth suppose and upon that issue was taken and found for the Demandant upon which a Writ of Error was brought and Error assigned in this That whereupon Ioynt-tenancy pleaded by Fine the Writ ought to abate without any averment by the Demandant against it the averment hath been received against the Law c. Southcote At the common Law If the Tenant had pleaded Ioynt-tenancy by Deed the Writ should abate without any averment but that was remedied by 34 E. 1. but Ioynt-tenancy by Fine did remain as it was at the common Law for he hath punishment enough in that by that plea if it be false he hath by way of conclusion given the moyety of the Land in demand to him with whom he hath pleaded Ioynt-tenancy and the Law doth not intend that he would so slightly depart with his land