devise Lands of which she was seised of an Estate of Inheritance in Fee simple according to the Custom to her Husband And also Surrender the same in the presence of the Steward and 6 other of the Tenants And it was further found That one J.S. was seised of the Copy-hold Lands wherein the Trespass was And that he had Issue 2 Daughters and died seised of the said Lands And that after his Decease his two Daughters entred into the said Lands and afterwards they both took Husbands And that afterwards one of the said Daughters made a Will in writing and by her said Will in the presence of the Steward and six of the Tenants she Devised her part of the said Copy-hold Lands to her Husband and his Heirs and at the next Court surrendred the said Copy-hold Lands in the presence of the Steward and six other of the Tenants to the uses in her Will expressed and shortly after she died and that after her death her Husband was admitted to the said part of her Lands who continued the possession thereof And the Husband of the other Daughter and his Wife entred upon him Vpon whom he re-entred And the Husband brought Trespass This Case was argued at the Bar by Rhodes And he said That the Custom was not good neither for the Devise nor for the Surrender First for the incertainty of the Estate what Estate she might Devise for that is not expressed in the Custom but generally that she might Devise her Copyhold Lands of Inheritance without expressing for what Estate And secondly the Custom is not good for that it is against reason that the Wife should surrender to the use of her Husband And that a Custom to devise is not good where it is incertain he vouched many Cases As 13 E. 3. tit Dum fuit infra aetatem 3. The Tenant said That the Lands lay in the County of Dorset where the Custom is That an Enfant might make a Grant or a Feoffment when he could number 12 d. and because it is incertain when he could do it It was holden to be a void Custom So 19 E. 2. tit Gard. 127. In a Ravishment of Ward It was alledged that the Custom was That when an Enfant could measure an Ell of Cloath or number 12 d. that he should be out of Ward And it was holden to be a void Custom for the incertainty Also he said That in the principal Case the Custom was void for that it was against reason that the Wife should surrender to her Husband for every Surrender is a Gift and a Woman cannot give unto her Husband for the Wife hath not any disposing Will but the Will of her Husband only And therefore the Case is in 21 E. 3. That if the Husband be seised of Lands in the right of his Wife and he maketh a Feoffment in Fee of the Lands and the Wife being upon the Lands doth disagree and saith She will not depart with the Land during her life yet the Feoffment is a good Feoffment and shall bind the Wife during the life of the Husband And see 3 E. 3. Br. tit Devise 43. That a Feme Covert cannot Devise to her Husband for that should be the Act of the Husband to convey the Lands to himself And whereas the Case in 29 E. 3. was Objected against him where the Case was That a Woman being seised of Land deviseable took a Husband and had Issue by him and the Wife Devised her Lands to her Husband for his life and died and a Writ of Waste was afterwards brought against him And it was there holden That the Writ did lie He said That that Case did make rather for him than against him for that Case proves that the Husband did not take the Land by vertue of the Devise in his own right but that he held the Lands having Issue by the Wife as Tenant by the Courtesie and so under another Title and therefore it appeareth that the Writ of Waste was there brought against him as Tenant by the Courtesie Also he said That the Devise was void by the Statute of 34 H. 8. Cap. 5. where it is Enacted That Wills and Testaments made of any Lands Tenements c. by Women Coverts shall not be good or effectual in the Law and he said That that Statute did extend to Copyhold Lands But as to that all the Iustices did agree That Copyhold Lands were not within the words of that Statute But Anderson said That the Equity of that Act did extend to Copyholds And further Anderson said That the Prescription or Custom in the principal Case was not good for it is layed to be That Quaelibet Foemina Viro Co-operta poterit and it ought to be potest and by the Custom have used to Devise to the Husband And a Prescription must be in a thing done and not in posse Also he said That the Custom if it were good is not well pursued For the Custom is that she may Devise and Surrender in the presence of the Steward and six Tenants and that must be intended to be done all at one time for the words of a Custom are to be performed if it may be but in the principal case the Devise is laid to be at one time and the Surrender at another time and so it is not in pursuance of the Custom But to that it was not answered But then it was said Admit that the Custom to devise and the Devise were not good yet the Action did not lie against the Defendant because that the Husband was admitted and his Entry into the Land was countenanced by a lawful Ceremony and also he was Tenant in Common with the other Husband by such Entry It was adjourned CXXIII Rosse's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trespass brought by Rosse for breaking of his Close and beating of his Servant and carrying away of his Goods Post 94. Vpon Not guilty pleaded the Iury found this special matter scil That Sir Thomas Bromley Chancellor of England was seised of the Land where c. and leased the same to the Plaintiff and one A. which A. assigned his moyety to Cavendish by whose Commandment the Defendant entred It was moved That that Tenancy in Common betwixt the Plaintiff and him in whose right the Defendant justified could not be given in Evidence and so it could not be found by Verdict but it ought to have been pleaded at the beginning But the whole Court were clear of another Opinion and that the same might be given in Evidence well enough It was further moved against the Verdict That the same did not extend to all the points in the Declaration but only to the breaking of the Close without enquiry of the battery c. And for that cause it was clearly holden by the Court That the Verdict was void And a Venire facias de novo was awarded CXXIV Absolon and Andertons Case Mich. 25 26 Eliz. Rot. 479. In the Kings
Plaintiff ad requisitionem dicti Davidis repararet And the Plaintiff declares That reparavit generally without saying 2 Cro. 404. That ad requisitionem Davidis reparavit And that is not the Reparation intended in the Consideration i. e. reparatio ad requisitionem c. but a Reparation of his own head and at his pleasure And for this Cause the Iudgment was stayed CXXXII Wrennam and Bullman's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 52. 1 Len. 282. WRennam brought an Action upon the Statute of 1 2 Phil. Mar. against Bullman for unlawful impounding of Distresses and was Nonsuit It was moved by Shuttleworth Serjeant If the Defendant should have Costs upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. And it was Adjudged That he should not And that appears clearly upon the words of the Statute c. for this Action is not conceived upon any matter which is comprised within the said Statute and also the Statute upon which this Action is grounded was made after the said Statute of 23 H. 8. which gives Costs and therefore the said Statute of 23 H. 8. and the remedy of it cannot extend to any action done by 1 2 Phil. Mary And Rhodes Iustice said It was so adjudged in 8 Eliz. CXXXIII Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 161. Dyer 291. IN a Formedon of a Mannor The Tenant pleaded Ioynt-Tenancy by Fine with J.S. The Demandant averred the Tenant sole Tenant as the Writ supposed and upon that it was found and tryed for the Demandant Vpon which a Writ of Error was brought and Error assigned in this Because where Ioynt-Tenancy is pleaded by Fine the Writ ought to have abated without any Averment by the Demandant against it and the Averment had been received against Law c. Shuttleworth At the Common-Law If the Tenant had pleaded Ioynt-Tenancy by Deed the Writ should have abated without any Averment but that was remedied by the Statute of 34 E. 1. But Ioynt-Tenancy by Fine doth remain as it was at the Common Law For he hath satis supplicii because by his 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 shall never intend that he would so sleightly depart with his Land for the abatement of a Writ As in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant confesseth himself to be a Villein of a stranger the Writ shall abate without any Averment Free and of Free estate for the Law intends that the Tenant will not inthral himself without cause Wray to the same purpose But the Demandant may confess and avoid the Fine as to say That he who levied the Fine was his Disseisor upon whom he hath before entred And if Tenant in Feesimple be impleaded and he saith That he is Tenant for life the remainder over to A. in Fee and prayeth in Aid of A. the Demandant shall not take Averment That the Tenant at the time of the Writ brought was seised in Fee. Note In this Formedon Ioynt-Tenancy was pleaded but as to parcel And it was holden by Wray and Southcote That the whole Writ should 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 an entire thing the Writ shall abate in all In this Writ the Demandant ought to have averred in his Writ an especial foreprise of the Land parcel of the Land in demand whereof the Ioynt-Tenancy by the Fine is pleaded For this dismembring of the Mannor and distraction of the Land of which the Ioynt-Tenancy is pleaded is paravail and under the gift whereof the Formedon is conceived and therefore in respect of the title of the Demandant it remains in right parcel of the Mannor and therefore ought to be demanded accordingly with a foreprise But if A. giveth unto B. a Mannor except 10 Acres in tail there if after upon any Discontinuance the issue in tail is to have a Formedon in such case there needs not any foreprise for the said 10 Acres for they were severed from the Mannor upon the gift But if Lands in demand be several as 20 Acres except 2 Acres this foreprise is not good See Temps E. 1. Fitz. Brief 866. Praecipe c. unam bovatam terrae forprise one Sellion and the Writ was abated for every demand ought to be certain but a Sellion is but a parcel of Land uncertain as to the quantity in some places an Acre in some more in some less Another Point was Because the Tenant hath admitted and accepted this Averment scil sole Tenant as the Writ supposeth And the Question was If the Court notwithstanding the Admittance of the Tenant ought without Exception of the party Ex Officio to abate the Writ And it was the Opinion of Wray Chief Iustice That it should For it is a positive Law As if a Woman bring an Appeal of Murder upon the death of her Brother and the Defendant doth admit it without a Challenge or Exception yet the Court ought to abate the Appeal 10 E. 4. 7. See the principal Case there Non ideo puniatur Dominus c. And if an Action be brought against an Hostler upon the Common Custom of the Realm and in the Writ he is not named Common Hostler yet the Court shall abate the Writ Ex Officio See 11 H. 4. and 38 H. 6. 42. CXXXIV Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seised of Lands in the right of his Wife for the Term of the life of the Wife made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of his said Wife for her life It was holden in that Case That the Wife was remitted And it is not like Amy Townsends Case Plow Com. 1 2 Phil. and Mar. 111. For in the said Case the Entry of the Wife was not lawful for she was Tenant in tail which Estate was discontinued by the Feoffment of her Husband And Periam Iustice cited a Case Sidenham's Case Bacon seised in the right of his Wife for the Term of the life of the Wife They both surrendred and took back the Lands to them and a third person And it was holden That the Wife was not presently remitted but after the death of her Husband she might disagree to the Estate CXXXV Harper and Berrisford's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Writ of Partition The Defendant demanded Iudgment of the Writ because the Writ is Quare-cum A. teneat c. pro indiviso c 4 mille acras whereas it should be Quatuor Mille acrarum And many Grammarians were cited all which agreed That it was good both ways viz. Mille Acras or Mille Acrarum And Rhodes Iustice said That Cowper in Thesauro suo Linguae Latinae saith Quod Mille fere jungitur Genitivo Ergo non semper Wherefore Anderson with the assent of the other Iustices Ruled
and his diet for himself his servants and horses Vpon which the Debt in demand grew but the said Young was not at any price in certain with the Defendant nor was there ever any agreement made betwixt them for the same It was said by Anderson Chief Iustice That upon that matter an Action of Debt did not lie And therefore afterwards the Iury gave a Verdict for the Defendant CCXI. Heidon and Ibgrave's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 148. A Writ of Right was brought by Heidon against Ibgrave and he demanded the third part of 40 Acres of Land in the County of Hertford and they were at Issue upon the meer Right Vpon which the Grand Assise appeared And first the 4 Knights were specially sworn to say upon their Oath Whether the Tenant hath better right to hold the Land than the Demandant to demand it And afterwards the rest of the Iurors were sworn generally as in other Actions And there was some doubt made Whether the Demandant or the Tenant should first begin to give Evidence And at the last it was Ruled by the Court That the Tenant should begin because he is in the affirmative And it was said by Periam Iustice That so it was late adjudged in the Case betwixt Noell and Watts And upon the Evidence the Case was That King Hen. the 8th by his Letters Patents gave to the Demandant the Mannor of New-Hall and all the Lands in the Tenure and Occupation of John Whitton before demised to Johnson and in the Parish of Watford And the truth was That the said 40 Acres whereof now the third part was in demand were in the Occupation of the said John Whitton but were never demised to Johnson nor in the Parish of Watford And by the clear Opinion of the Court the said 40 Acres did not pass for the circumstances of the Deed are not true scil the Demise to Johnson and the being in the Parish of Watford but both were false But if the said Land had had an especial name in the Letters Patents then it had been well enough notwithstanding the misprision in the rest And by Anderson If upon the particular it had appeared that the Demandant had paid his Mony for the said 40 Acres peradventure they had passed CCXII. The Dean of Gloucester's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Dean and Chapter of Gloucester brough a Writ of Partition against the Bishop of Gloucester upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Partition And it was moved That upon the words of the Statute that the Action did not lie in this Case for the Statute doth not extend but to Estates in Ioynt-Tenancy or in Common of Lands whereof such joynt-Ioynt-Tenants or Tenants in Common are seised in their own right And also it is further said That every such joynt-Ioynt-Tenant or Tenant in Common and their Heirs shall have Aid to deraign the warranty without speaking of the word Successors And by Periam and Windham Iustices The Writ doth not lie But Anderson seemed to be of a contrary Opinion CCXIII. Hare and Meller's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HUgh Hare of the Inner-Temple brought an Action upon the Case against Philip Meller and declared Ante 138. That the said Defendant had exhibited to the Queen a scandalous Bill against the Plaintiff charging the said Hugh to have recovered against the said Defendant 400 l. by Forgery Perjury and Forswearing and Cosenage And also that he had published the matter of the said Bill at Westm c. It was said by the Court That the exhibiting of the Bill to the Queen is not in it self any cause of Action for the Queen is the Head and Fountain of Iustice and therefore it is lawful for all her Subjects to resort to her to make their complaints But if a Subject after the Bill once exhibited will divulge the matter comprised in it to the disgrace and discredit of the person intended the same is a good cause of Action And so was the Case of Sir John Conway who upon such matter did recover And as to the words themselves It seemeth to the Court That they are not Actionable For it is not expresly shewed That the Plaintiff had used Perjury Forgery c. And it may be that the Attorny or Sollicitor in the Cause hath used such indirect means the Plaintiff not knowing it and in such case the Plaintiff hath recovered by Forgery c. and yet without reproach And by perjury he could not recover for he could not be sworn in his own Cause And Stanhops Case was remembred by the Court which was That Edward Stanhop of Grays-Inn brought an Action upon the Case against one who had Reported That the said Edward Stanhop had gained his Living by swearing and forswearing And by the Opinion of the Court The Action did not lie for those words do not set forth any actual forswearing in the person of the Plaintiff but it might be in an Action depending between the Plaintiff and a stranger that another stranger produced as a Witness had made a false Oath without any procurement or practice of the Plaintiff in which Case it might be that the Plaintiff had gained by such swearing CCXIV. Cheverton's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HEnry Cheverton brought a Quare Impedit and Counted That he was seised of the moyety of the Church of D. that is to say To present qualibet prima vice and that J.S. is seised of the other moyety that is to say To present qualibet secunda vice c. And Exception was taken to the Count Because it was not shewed how the special Interest did begin scil by Prescription Composition or otherwise for it is clearly against common Right and therefore that ought to be shewed See Dyer 13 Eliz. 229. CCXV Edmond's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Case against Edmonds the Case was That the Defendant being within age requested the Plaintiff to be bounden for him to another for the payment of 30 l. which he was to borrow for his own use to which the Plaintiff agreed and was bounden ut supra Afterwards the Plaintiff was sued for the said Debt and paid it And afterwards when the Defendant came of full age the Plaintiff put him in mind of the matter aforesaid and prayed him that he might not be damnified so to pay 30 l. it being the Defendant's Debt Whereupon the Defendant promised to pay the Debt again to the Plaintiff Vpon which promise the Action was brought And it was holden by the Court That although here was no present consideration upon which the Assumpsit could arise yet the Court was clear That upon the whole matter the Action did lie and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCXVI Farrington and Fleetwood.'s Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer BEtween Farrington and Fleetwood the Case was upon the Stat. of 31 H. 8. of Monasteries 2
Also the words Of the Mannor of Fremmington and Hundred are put amongst others which are Mannors in truth By which he conceived That the Devisor did not intend to pass but one Mannor and no other Herediatments by this Mannor of Fremmington There is a Rule in Law That in the Construction of a Will a thing implyed shall not control a thing expressed But here If by implication the Rent shall pass then the Mannor of Camfield is not passed which was the intent of the Testator to pass and that by express words See 16 Eliz. Dyer 330. Clatches Case No Implication of any Estate in remainder can serve when a special Guift and Limitation is made by the Devisor himself See also 16 Eliz. Dyer 333. Chapman's Case But in our Case here there are not sufficient words to warrant any Implication for neither in truth nor in common reputation was it taken for a Mannor 27 H. 6. 2. Green-Acre may pass by the name of a Mannor although it be but one Acre of Land because it is known by the name of a Mannor See acc 22 H. 6. 39. And see Where before the Statute of Uses A Man had recoverors to his use and he willeth by his Will That his Feoffees sell his Lands they might sell And he said That if a Man seised of a Mannor parcel in Demesne and parcel in Service and he granteth the Demesnes to one and his Heirs and afterwards deviseth his Mannor peradventure the Services shall pass but this Rent hath not any resemblance to a Mannor Gawdy This Rent shall pass by the name aforesaid Favourable Construction is always given in Wills according to the meaning of the Devisor and no part of his Will shall be holden void if by any means it may take effect Then it here appeareth that his intent was That upon these words something should pass to the Devisee concerning the Mannor of Fremmington for otherwise the words Of the Mannor of Fremmington are void and frivolous which shall not be in a Will if any reasonable Construction may be made For it is found expresly by the Iury That neither at the time of the Will made nor at the time of the death of the Testator the Devisor had any thing in the said Mannor of Fremmington but the said Rent of 130 l. per annum And it may well be taken That the Devisor being ignorant what thing a Mannor is thought that this Rent was a Mannor because that she had Rents and Services out of the said Mannor For in Construction of a Will the words shall serve the intent And therefore if a Man Deviseth That his Lands shall be sold for the payment of his Debts his Executors shall sell them for the intent of the Devisor names the sellers sufficiently And See Plowden 20 Eliz. 524. L. after the Statute of 27 H. 8. deviseth that his Executors shall be seised to the use of A. and his Assigns in Fee whereas then there was no Feoffees to use the same was holden a good devise of the Land to A. But the Iustices conceived That the Devisor was ignorant of the operation of the Statute in that case and therefore his ignorance was supplyed See Br. Devises 48. 29 H. 8. A. had Feoffees to his use and afterwards after the Statute of 27 H. 8. and 32 H. 8. he willed That his Feoffees should make an Estate to B. and his Heirs It was holden by Baldwin Shelley and Mountague Iustices That it was a good Devise And see 26 H. 6. Fitz. tit Feoffments Faits 12. A Carue of Land may pass by the name of a Mannor therefore a fortiori a Rent for Rents and Services have more affinity and more resemble a Mannor than a Carue of Land. And it cannot be intended that the meaning of the Testator was to grant the Mannor it self in which he had not any thing especially by his Will for Covin Collusion or indirect dealing cannot be presumed in a Will. Also The Marchioness for 4 years together before her death had the Rent and Services of the said Mannor and she well knew that she her self had not any thing in the said Mannor but the said Rent and Services and therefore it shall be intended that the same was her Mannor of Fremmington A. seised of a Capital Messuage and great Demesnes lying to it Leased the same for years rendring Rent and afterwards devised to another all her Farm in such a place And it was Ruled in that Case That by that Devise the Rent and the Reversion passed See the Case between Wrottesley and Adams Plow 19. 1 Eliz. by Anthony Brown and Dyer Periam Iustice conceived That this Rent might be divided well enough But by Anderson It is but a Rent-Seck Periam It is distrainable of Common right Anderson doubted of it But all the Iustices agreed That the Rent might be divided but there should not be two Tenures The Lord Mountjoy being advised that this Rent did not pass but descended to the Heir being the full third part of the Lands entred into the Residue and made a Lease of the Mannor of Camfield unto the Plaintiff upon which the Ejectione firmae is brought And afterwards the Plaintiff seeing the Opinion of the Court to be against him and for the Devise of the Rent for the reasons aforesaid Discontinued his Suit c. CCXIX. Williams and Drew's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Widow of Williams who was Speaker of the Parliament brought Dower against Williams and Drew upon the Grande Cape Williams made default And now came Drew and surmised to the Court That he is not Tenant of the Land But further he saith That the Husband of the Demandant Leased the said Lands to him for 50 years and that this Action is brought by Covin to make him lose his Term and prayed to be received And the Opinion of the whole Court was That although he was party to the Writ yet he should be received and that by the Statute of Gloucester for he is in equal mischief And the Court was also clear of Opinion That upon the default of Williams the Demandant should not have Iudgment for a moyety for that the Cause of the receipt trenched to the whole And by all the Iustices but Rhodes If Iudgment had been given upon the deault of both i. e. Williams and Drew yet the Term of Drew should stand but Drew should be put out of possession and put to his Action And Anderson conceived That the Resceit upon that Statute did not lie unless that Covin be alledged betwixt the Demandant and the Tenant to make him to lose his Term and that Covin is traversable Which all the other Iustices denyed for the Covin ought to be averred but ought not to be traversed And also they all but Anderson were clear of Opinion That in this Case of Receipt the party shall not plead upon his Receipt as upon the Statute of Westminster but he shall be received
Rent 11 H. 7. 13. 21 H. 6. 24. 14 H. 8. 35. So where the Successor accepts of a Rent upon a Lease made by the Predecessor 37 H. 6. 4. 8 H. 5. 10. 4 E. 4. 14. The same Law in Exchanges and Partitions If the Wife accepteth of Dower of the Land which her Husband hath taken in Exchange she shall be barred of that Land which her Husband gave in Exchange 6 E. 3. 50. 15 E. 3. tit Bar. 125. 12 H. 4. 12. c. And in all these Cases where there is an Agreement and therein an Agreement implyed scil An Agreement to the Lease and a Disagreement to have the Possession c. And so Agreement to the Land received in Exchange and Disagreement to the Land given in Exchange and all that by word and act in pais And so here in these Cases Estates are affirmed and entred and benefit of the possession waived and refused So it is also of a Right and Title of Action 21 H. 6. 25. The Lord entituled to have a Writ of Right upon Disclaimer accepts a Rent of the Tenant Now he is barred of his Action 13 Ass 3. The Disseisee accepts homage of the Disseisor it is a good bar in an Assise 21 Ass 6. Pendant a Cessavit the Tenant aliened the Lord accepted the Services of the Alienee his Action is gone 11 E. 3. tit Dower 63. A Woman entituled to Dower accepteth Homage of the Ter-Tenant the same is a Bar of her Dower And as it hath been said of Entries and Actions of which a Man may refuse the benefit by word and Acceptance in pais So is the Law also in Cases of Estates vested if the party doth not Enter Husband and Wife Tenants in special tail the Husband levyeth a Fine to his own use and afterwards Deviseth the Land to his Wife for life the Remainder over rendring Rent the Husband dieth The Wife Enters and pays the Rent now she hath waived her Remitter 18 Eliz. Dyer 351. 10 E. 4. 12. The Tenant enfeoffed the Lord and a stranger and made Livery to the stranger although the Freehold vested in them both yet if the Lord disagreeth to the Feoffment in futuro he cannot enter and occupy the Land and he may distrain for the services c. If a Disseisin be made to the use of the Husband and Wife and the Husband agreeth to it the Freehold vests in the Husband and Wife but the Wife is not a Disseisor and after the death of the Husband she may disagree unto the Estate by word 12 E. 4. 7. And also an Agreement shall make her a Dissessisor See to the same intent 7 E. 4. 7. and Litt. 129. Although that in such and the like Cases the Estate vests in some manner yet it shall never vest to the prejudice of the party without an express and actual agreement And that disagreement to an Estate in such manner vested may be in pais and by word seems by a Clause in the Statute of 27 H. 8. cap. 1. Where a Ioynture is made after Marriage there the Wife after the death of her Husband may at her pleasure refuse her Ioynture and have and demand and take her Dower her Writ of Dower or otherwise scil by word and Acceptance in pais And if in a Writ of Dower the Tenant will bar the Demandant by Ioynture made during the Coverture he ought to say Quod intrando agreeavit See Litt. in Dower ad Ostium Ecclesiae If the Wife entreth and agreeth the same is a good Bar in Dower Littl. 8. Now in the principal Case When the Wife agreeth to the Devise of Thoby and the same is executed by entry now the same is a full Disagreement to Hinton It was afterwards Objected That although it be clear That the Wife may waive her Ioynture in Hinton by word and act in pais without matter of Record Yet some conceived That this manner of Devise of Thoby is void by the Statute of 32 34 H. 8. The Statute enables to Devise two parts or so much as amounts to two parts in value at the time of the death of the Devisor for then the Will takes effect which cannot be here in this Case for at the time of his death the Ioynture of Hinton was in force and so continued until the disagreement afterwards Also the words of the Statute are Having a sole Estate in Fee-simple but here the Devisor had but a Reversion in Fee expectant upon an Estate tail c. As to the first Point it was answered That the Disagreement doth relate to the death of the Husband and is now as if no Ioynture had been made ab initio And here the Heir shall have Hinton by descent and he shall be Tenant to every Praecipe and if it be brought against him the same day that the Husband dieth the Writ shall be good by the Disagreement after and the Heir shall have his age c. And if the Father had been a Disseisor and had Conveyed the Land ut supra now by this argeement of the Wife the Heir shall be accounted in by descent and thereby the Entry of the Disseisee taken away And if the Heir in such case taketh a Wife and dieth by this disagreement after the Wife shall have Dower of Hinton and hath such a possession quod faciet sororem esse haeredem And if that the same day that the Husband dieth the Heir levyeth a Fine or acknowledge a Statute or maketh by Indenture enrolled a Bargain and Sale of it by the said agreement Hinton shall be subject to such Acts of the Heir All which Cases prove That the Devisor upon this matter at the time of his death had a sole Estate in Feesimple in the Mannor of Hinton and that the third part in value descended to the Heir and so the Devise of Thoby good It hath been Objected That here is not an immediate descent of which the Statute of 34 H. 8. speaks And here the Mannor of Hinton doth not descend immediatly for there was a mean time between the Death and the Disagreement and so the Will void for Thoby To that it was answered That this word immediatè sumitur dupliciter re tempore and shall be taken here immediatè re statu scil That a Reversion or a Remainder dependant upon a particular Estate in possession which is mean shall not be allowed for the third part descended For a Descent which takes away an Entry ought to be immediate for a mediate descent doth not take away an Entry Litt. 92. as the descent of a Reversion or Remainder And if this word Immediatè had not been in the Statute Then the Statute might have been construed That it should be sufficient to leave the third part to descend in Reversion or Remainder but this word Immediatè makes it clear And therefore the third part which descends ought to descend immediatè in re Statu Yet a Reversion upon a Lease for
no judgment can be given C. 14. Where as to part a Plea is pleaded which is tryable by Certificate or otherwise than by Jury if the other which is tryable by Jury be not continued the whole is not discontinued C. 268. Conuzance de Pleas. Not grantable if the Plaintiff be priviledged in the Courts at Westminister C. 149. Copulative Disjunctive Where a Copulative shall be taken as a Disjunctive e converse A. 74 244 251. Where a thing is to be done Copulative both the matters must be averred A. 251 252. Corporation Upon a grant to them of an Acre in a great Field how they must make election A. 30. Must acknowledge Deeds and levy Fines c. by Warrant of Attorny A. 184. Where the names of the Heads of what Corporations must be shewed in pleading A. 306 307. How they must make a Lease by Attorny where they are out of possession B. 97 98. Cannot be Feoffees to Uses B. 122. Leases by them must be made by their true name of Incorporation as to substance A. 159 to 163 215. B. 97 165. C. 220. Corpus cum Causa See Habeas Corpus Covenant To assure Lands the Covenantor is not bound to seal a Deed with Covenants A. 29. To repair upon warning Action lies by Grantee of the Reversion though the House was ruinous before his Title A. 62. That the Premisses should be exonerated De omnibus oneribus c. how broken A. 93. C. 44. That the Lessee shall take Fireboot super dicta premissa extends not to Lands excepted A. 117. To help and assist the Plaintiff in a Suit in the Defendants name and not to abate it the Defendant being a Feme Sole takes Husband yet is the Writ but abateable A. 168 169. Upon the words Dedi Concessi A. 179 278. B. 104. By Lessor to repair the Lessee in his default repairs if the Lessee may retain Rent for it A. 237. What Covenant makes a Condition and shall defeat an Estate A. 246. Upon the words absque impetitione denegatione Covenant lies if the party himself disturb A. 277. For quiet enjoyment from all claiming under the Covenantor the breach must say how he claimed A. 318. Performance of Covenants in the Disjunctive must be especially pleaded A. 311. Where it lies upon a Proviso A. 318. To make an Estate or repair a House how performance must be pleaded B. 38 39 53. To make assurance binds not to release with Warranty B. 130. One Covenants to assure such Lands as shall descend to him the same to be yearly worth 40 l. If all the Lands by descent are to be assured C. 27. That the Lessee shall enjoy without interruption of any If interruption by one who hath no Title be a breach C. 44. Covenant to leave the Houses in as good plight as he found them C. 44. If upon a Covenant to repair a Recovery be had the Lessor can sue no more C. 51. If one be interrupted by a Decree in Chancery that is no breach of a Covenant to enjoy without lawful Eviction C. 71. Who shall do the first act where the Covenant is reciprocal C. 219. B. 211 212. That he hath made no former Assurances but that the Land shall descend raises no Uses C. 7. Count. Where in a Quare Impedit the Writ may be general and the Count special A. 226 227. Where in a Writ of Entry Sur disseisin brought by Tenant in tail A. 231. How to Count where one of two Debtors or Trespassors are Utlawed C. 202. Countermand In what case the Bailor of Goods may Countermand the authority of the Bailee B. 31. Courts and Offices of the Court. The Common Bench cannot write to the Kings Bench for a Record A. 90. If upon pleading a Title be found or confest for the King the Court ex Officio must prosecute for the King A. 194 323. A Court to admit Copyholders may be held out of the Mannor A. 289. In what case the Kings Bench may hold Plea under 40 s. A. 316. What duty due by a Subject to the King gives the Subject priviledge in the Court of Exchequer B. 21. How and by what authority Nisi Prius are tryed out of the Exchequer B. 87. All the Courts except the Common Bench are variable as to the place and must be shewed where they sit B. 102 103. Courtesie of England In what case the Husband be where the Wives Estate is defeasible by condition A. 167 168. By custom of Mannor B. 109. If the Husband shall be Tenant by the Courtesie of the Seigniory of the Wife where he himself was Tenant C. 247. Court Christian Their Sentences there are good until revoked by other Sentence B. 169 to 172 176 177. Cui in vita What is a good Bar therein A. 53. Custom Of free Bench within a Mannor A. 1. That the Lord may seise for conviction of his Tenant of Felony A. 1. Where it shall be taken strictly A 1â—2 B. 109. Of Bristol that a Covenant shall bind by Parol is good A. 2. That a Copyholder may Lease for years ad pasturand non ad colend ' A. 16. What Customs are void being unreasonable A. 217. C. 81 82 226 227. What are good and reasonable A. 217 328. C. 227. That the Lord may take the profits during the Nonage of the Infant Tenant good A. 266. Customs of the Kings Courts are Laws B. 85 86. Custom alledged infra Regnum Angliae if good B. 114 115. A good Custom that Robbers at Sea shall share the Goods though one Ship did but stand by and look on B. 182. D. Damages INcreased by the Court super visum vulnerum A. 139. No costs upon discontinuance by original Stat. 32 H. 8. 15. A. 115. Intire assessed upon one promise to perform an Award of two matters whereof one void how adjudged A. 170 171. An Action upon the Stat. of 8 H. 6. of Forcible entry treble Costs and Damages A. 282. B. 52. If the Jury ought to assess any Damages in Account A. 302. In what Actions Costs by the Statute 32 H. 8. vide tit Stat. B. 9 52. C. 92. In account the Plaintiff hath Damages B. 118. The Plaintiff shall have Costs assessed but by one Jury though several Trials by several Juries B. 177. Grantee of a Reversion shall recover Damages in Covenant but for things done since the Grant C. 51. The first Jury which tries the first Issue may assess Damages for the whole Trespass C. 122. If the Plaintiff in Replevin be non-suited after Avowry for Rent the Court may assess Damages without a Writ of Enquiry C. 213. If joynt Damages be assessed for two Trespasses one of which lieth not the Plaintiff cannot have Judgment C. 213. Where the Court will abridge Damages C. 150. Dean and Chapter hujusmodi An Arch-Deacon Prebend what they are A. 13 205. What places have two Chapters and if Leases confirmed by one be good A. 234 235. The Chapter must be party to a
Mich. 29 El. C.B. p. 168. C. 219 Weshborn and Mordants Case Mich. 29 Eliz. B. R. p. 174. C. 225 Williams and Linkfords Case Trin. 29 Eliz. B.R. p. 177. C. 229 Welcot and Powells Case Pasch 30 El. B.R. p. 206. C. 263 Wigmore and Wells Case Pasch 30 El. B. R. p. 206. C. 264 Willoughbies Case Trin. 30 Eliz. B. R. p. 216. C. 285 Wood and Payns Case Trin. 31 El. B.R. p. 228. C. 306 Sir Walter Wallers Case Trin. 32 Eliz. Exchequer p. 241. C. 333. p. 259 C. 345 Woodward and Baggs Case Hill. 32 El. B. R. p. 257. C. 341 Witherington and Delabars Case Mich. 33 Eliz. B. R p. 268. C. 360 Y. YOung and Ashburnhams Case Hill. 29 Eliz. C. B. p. 161. C. 210 Yates Case Trin. 31 Eliz. B.R. p. 231 C. 312 THE THIRD PART OF THE REPORTS OF Several Excellent Cases Argued and Adjudged in the several COURTS of LAW at Westminster In the Time of the Late Queen ELIZ. From the First to the Five and Thirtieth Year of her Reign In the Time of Edw. the Sixth I. 6 Edw. 6. In the Common Pleas. A Man had a Warrren in Fee extending into three Towns Benlow's Rep. 12. Owen Rep. 10. 1 And. 26. 13 Co. 57. 1 Inst 148. a. 7 Co. 23. b. Goldb 44. and Leased the same by Deed to another rendring Rent And afterwards granted by Deed the Reversion of the whole Warren in one of the said Towns to another and the Lessee attorned It was holden by all the Iustices in the Common Pleas That neither the Grantor nor the Grantee should have any part of the Rent during the same Term Because no such Contract can be apportioned II. 6 Edw. 6. In the Common Pleas. A Man by Deed Indented 1 And. 27. Bargained and sold Land unto another in Fee and Covenanted by the same Deed to make to him a good and sufficient Estate in the said Land before Christmas next And afterwards before Christmas the Bargainor acknowledged the Deed and the same is enrolled It was the Opinion of all the Iustices of the Common Pleas That by that Act the Covenant aforesaid was not performed For the Bargainor in performance of the same ought to have levied a Fine made a Feoffment or done other such Acts. III. 6 Edw. 6. In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 32. IN Dower the Tenant made default at the Summons and now at the Grand Cape he came and said That he could not come because he was in great infirmity at the time of the Summons so as he could not appear It was the Opinion of the whole Court That that matter should not save his Default because it cannot be tryed as creit de Eue and Imprisonment may be IV. 6 Edw. 6. In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 32. DEbt against Executors who pleaded Riens enter Maynes which was found against them The Plaintiff sued forth a Writ of Execution Vpon which the Sheriff retorned Nulla bona Testatoris within the County It was the Opinion of the Court That the same was a good Retorn for it may stand with the Verdict for it may be that they have Assets in another County See 3 H. 6. 11. Where the Retorn is general Quod non habent Executores aliqua bona Testatoris that it was holden insufficient but here in this Case the Retorn is special scil in the same County In the Time of Queen Mary V. 1 and 2 Philip and Mary In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 31. TEnant in tail had Issue two Sons and enfeoffed his younger Son and died The younger Son died without Issue leaving his Wife priviment ensient with a Son the elder Brother entred It was holden in this Case That he was Remitted and although that afterwards the Son was born yet the same should not avoid the Remitter VI. Stapleton and Truelocks Case Mich. 1 and 2 Phil. and Mary More Rep. 11. WIlliam Stapleton Executor of John Scardenyll brought an Action of Debt against John Truelock Administrator of the Goods of William Truelock who died Intestate upon a Bill sealed The Defendant demanded Oyer of the Testament By which it appeared That the said Scardenyll had made the Plaintiff and the said William Truelock his Executors And in the said Will was this Clause I Will That my Friend William Truelock shall pay to my other Executor all such debts as he oweth me before he shall meddle with any thing of this my Will or take any Advantage of this my Will for the discharge of the same debts for that I have made him one of my Executors And upon this matter It was clearly Resolved that the said William Truelock could not Adminster nor be Executor before he had paid the debts And the Defendant said That the said William Truelock in his life had paid unto his Co-Executors all such debts which in vita sua debuit to the said Scardenyll And also that the said William Truelock in his life time had Administred the Goods of Scardenyll with his Co-Executors And in this Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and that for default of pleading For the Defendant ought to have shewed Acquittances of the payment of the debts to his Co-Executors and also ought to have shewed in Certainty what debts they were VII Hecks and Tirrell's Case 3 and 4 Phil. and Mary DEbt by Hecks and Harrison against Tirrell as Heir Who pleaded Nothing by Descent The Plaintiff Replyed 1 And. 28. Assets at such a place within the Cinque-Ports And so it was found by a Iury of the County adjoyning and Iudgment given of the moyety of his Lands aswell those by descent as by purchase And a Writ awarded to the Constable of Dover to extend the Lands within the Cinque-Ports But it was said That first the Plaintiff ought to have a Certiorari to send the Record into the Chancery and from thence by Mittimus to the Constable of Dover VIII The King and Due and Kirleys Case 4 and 5 Phil. and Mary THe King and Queen brought a Writ of Disceit against Due and Kirley and declared More Rep. 13 That one Colley was seised of certain Lands in Fee and held the same of the King and Queen as of their Mannor of Westbury the which Mannor is Ancient Demesne and so seised levies a Fine thereof to the said Due Sur Conusans de Droit come ceo c. Due rendred the Land to Colley for life the Remainder over to Kirley in Fee Colley died Kirley entred as in his Remainder Kirley pleaded That the Land whereof c. is Frank Fee c. Vpon which they are at Issue Which Issue depending and not tryed Due died It was moved in this Case That the Writ might abate But that was denyed by the Court. For this Action is but Trespass in its nature for to punish this Disceit and no Land is to be recovered but only the Fine Reversed IX Eliot and Nutcombs Case Mich. 4 and 5 Phil. and Mary
Bar for no person is named there Manwood If a Lease be made made to J.S. except Green-Close to J.D. who is a stranger the Exception is good and J.D. shall have it The Principal Case was Adjourned LXI The Lord Windsors Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. UPon an Evidence given to a Iury in the Kings Bench in an Ejectione Firmae the Case appeared to be thus That Sir Roger Lewknor Knight being seised in Fee of the Mannor of South Myms made an Indenture Anno 11. H. 8. by which Indenture he Leased the said Mannor to 20 persons to the use of Andrew Windsor afterwards Lord Windsor and Henry his Son and the Survivor of them as long as any of the said persons named in the said Indenture should live And further Covenanted by the same Indenture To stand seised of the said Mannor To the use of the said Andrew and Henry and the Survivor of them during the lives of any of the said Feoffees named in the same Indenture which Deed was made without Livery and Seisin and reserved upon it an yearly Rent and afterwards the Son died And in 22 H. 8. A Fine was levied by a stranger upon a Release to Andrew Lord Windsor And afterwards 34 of Henry 8 Andrew Lord Windsor made a Lease to one for years and died and made William and Edmond his Sons his Executors And afterwards William his eldest Son being Lord Windsor 2 3 Phil. Mary made a Lease of the same Land unto another to begin after the first Lease ended Which William died and the Lord Windsor that now is accepted the Rent and of late time agreed with one Vaughan who had married the Heir of Sir Roger Lewknor for the Reversion in Fee and afterwards the Lease made by Andrew Lord Windsor 34 H. 8. ended in the 4th year of the Reign of the Queen that now is Whereupon the second Lessee that is to say the Lessee of William Lord Windsor entred and being ousted he brought the Ejectione firmae And then and yet one of the 20 Feoffees of Sir Roger Lewknor is alive so as the Estate of Cestuy que Vie is not as yet determined And now the Question upon the first part of the Evidence is If this later Lease made by William Lord Windsor be a good Lease or not And who shall be said Occupant For when the Lord Andrew died then the Lessee as Catline said shall not be said in otherwise than according to his Lease when his occupation by Lease was lawful before And he who shall be said Occupant shall have a Freehold and if he should be Occupant he should be in by a new title Then we are to see If the Executors of the Lord which have the Rent and to whom the same is paid by the Lessee shall be said Occupant And he conceived That they should not although that they enter unless they claim the Freehold at the time of their entry for if they enter generally it shall be intended according to the Will as Executors and if he had granted his Estate to another there after his death the Grantee shall be said to be in by reason of his Grant and not as Occupant And so if he would devise his Estate the Devisee shall be in by reason of the Devise and not as Occupant Which Case of Devise Southcote denyed That he should not be in by reason of the Devise when his Estate determines with his death But if the Devisee entreth by force of the Devise he shall be in as an Occupant And also Southcote denyed that which had been said That the Lessee for years who holdeth the Lands after the death of Andrew Lord Windsor should not be an Occupant For as he said the Lessee being in possession after the death of the Lord Andrew should be said Occupant and no other for the Executors of the Lord could not be Occupant by the having of the Rent because they had not the possession of the Land for none shall be Occupant but he who is in possession Whiddon said That if the first Lease made by Andrew Lord Windsor was now in esse and that an Ejectione Firmae was brought upon that that the Lessee ought to aver That some of the Feoffees for whose lives c. were then living Southcote If a Praecipe quod reddat shall be brought against whom shall it be brought against him in the Reversion or against him in possession And if it shall be brought against the Tenant in possession then he ought to have the Freehold for it cannot be brought but against one who hath a Freehold at the least And then if the Lord William Windsor had nothing in the Land then how could he make this Lease to the Plaintiff that now is when the first Lessee continueth Occupant after the death of the Lord Andrew during the life of Cestuy que Vye And as to the Fine the Question did further arise If the Lord Andrew Windsor should have a Feesimple by that Fine For being levied as Catline said It cannot be to the first Vses because a Fine upon a Release cannot be intended to the use of any other but to him to whom it is levied unless an use be expressed in the Fine or by another Deed And upon a Fine levied upon a Release made unto Tenant life by a stranger the same is not a forfeiture of his Estate But if Tenant for life taketh a Fine Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c. the same is a forfeiture And although a Fine levied by those who have not any thing in the Lands be void Yet here it is not so and it ought to be pleaded specially and shewed that he had not anything in the Land at the time the Fine was levied as Anderson said And Catline said That this Fine was not without good advice for the Lord Brook and others who were learned in the Law were of Counsel with the Lord Windsor in the levying of this Fine so as the intent was to settle the Feesimple in himself by the Fine and not that the first Vses should stand after that And thereupon he put the Case of Putnam and Duncomb which hath much Resemblance to this Case which he argued when he was Serjeant and held the same Opinion as he holdeth now And therefore he said That although the Purchase was but of late time of Vaughan and his Wife yet the Fee was in the Lord Windsor before and this manner of purchase was to no other end but to discharge the Lands of Incumbrances as appeareth by the small sum which was paid the Land being of a great yearly value And as Vaughan confessed he took this sum of Mony because that his Council informed him that the Feesimple was in the Lord Windsor before and that otherwise he would not have sold it at such a price And he said That before that agreement the Lord Windsor told him that he had the Feesimple in himself
King and a Common Person was moved to the Court by Lovelace Serjeant Dyer Iustice I conceive That it is a good Purchase in Law as well in the Case of the King as in the Case of a Common Person And see to that purpose 39 E. 3. and in this Case If the King had granted the Land to John Holt without naming him Son the same had been a good Purchase But if the King had called him John the Son of Thomas without giving him a sirname there such a Purchase should not be good if he were a Bastard because he hath not Nomen Cognitum as where he hath a sirname and a Man cannot purchase by the Name of John only and then if he be called John the Son of Thomas when he is not his Son it cannot be good And such Case hath here lately been adjudged Where the Lord Powis gave certain Lands to Thomas Gray his Son by him begotten upon the Body of Jane Orwell and in truth the said Thomas was a Bastard of the said Lord Powis and the name of Jane was not Orwell but the Daughter of one Punt and the Mother of Jane who was first married to Punt betwixt whom Jane was begotten married with one Orwell and yet notwithstanding that wrong Name and that the said Thomas Gray was not the Son of the Lord Powis born of Jane Orwell but of one Jane Punt yet it was a good Purchase and Gift to Thomas Gray because it was his known Name Manwood As I take it the Letters Patents are Ex certa scientia ex mero motu and then the Kings Grant shall not be taken in such plight as the Grant of a Common Person void for incertainty because that the King takes notice of the Person of what degree he is and in the Kings Case where he takes knowledge by the words Ex certa scientia there all matter of uncertainty shall be avoided and made good but not matter which is not true And for uncertainty he said Where a thing may be taken two ways there without the words Ex certa scientia c. the best shall be taken for the King and strongest against the Patentee But by Dyer by the words Ex certa scientia c. that incertainty is saved and shall be taken strong for the Patentee and if it can any ways be taken for him then the Patent shall not be void and then when in the principal Case there is the word Son and the word Son may be taken two ways either for a base Son or a true Son there by the words Ex certa scientia the King taketh upon him to know in what manner he is Son and a base Son is a Son Quodam modo so as the Letters Patents shall not be false But where the King in his Letters Patents recites a thing which is false that shall not make the Patent good although the words be Ex certa scientia et mero motu LXX Mich. 15. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was agreed by the Court That if a Man in a Replevin pleadeth and they are at Issue and the Iury is charged and gone from the Bar and returns to give their verdict and the Plaintiff be non-suit their retorn irreplevisable shall not be awarded as in case if a verdict had been given But the party may have a Writ of second Deliverance as well as if he had been nonsuit before declaration or appearance LXXI Trin. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was The Husband levied a Fine of his Land and died and his Wife within the 5 years after the death of her Husband brought her Writ of Dower but did not pursue her Writ until 6 years were past and then she would have revived her Suit. And Meade Serjeant demanded the Opinion of the Iustices If the Wife should be barred of her Dower or not And by Manwood Iustice it was moved again If they at the Bar did agree That if a Fine be levied by the Husband and the Wife doth not make her claim within the 5 years if for that she shall be barred And he conceived That she should not be barred For he said That he who hath Title to the Land at the time of the Fine levied if he doth not sue within 5 years after his Title accrued should be barred But where the Title accrues after the Fine there he who hath Title shall not be barred by the 5 years but he may come 30 years after and make his Title and Claim But in the principal case he said That if the Fine had been levied after the death of the Husband there the Wife should be barred if she did not pursue her Right and Claim within 5 years And he agreed That if the 5 years be a Bar here that then by the Wives suffering of her Writ of Dower to be discontinued till after the 5 years were past that she should be barred because vigilantibus non dormientibus subveniunt Leges Harper said That the Discontinuance should be no Bar unto her For he said That if a gift be made to one in tail the Remainder over and Tenant in tail dieth without Issue and he in the Remainder brings a Formedon in the Remainder within 5 years and discontinueth it yet it is no Bar but that after the 5 years ended he may revive his Suit Which Manwood denyed And then Dyer came into the Court and the Case was moved to him And he said That the not prosecuting of the Action by the Wife should be a Bar unto her and that the Marriage which was before the Fine was the cause of Dower although she could not come to be endowed until after the death of her Husband And he said That the Wife could make no other to have her Dower but only by bringing of her Writ of Dower and therefore if she did surcease her time until the 5 years were past that her new claim by her new Writ would not revive the Ancient Claim and that therefore she should be barred For she could not enter into the Land to defeat the Fine And he said That as to the principal Case That it was adjudged Anno 4 H. 8. And it was also said by the Court That an Assignment of Dower made to the Wife in the Court of Wards was no sufficient claim of the Wife because she cannot have a Writ of Dower there and there by this surceasing of her demand of her Dower for the 5 years at the Common Law that she should be barred LXXII Trin. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A Man made a Lease for years and the Lessee Covenanted to make Reparations The Lessor granted the Reversion to another and the Lessee for years made his Wife his Executrix and died It was holden in this Case by the Court That the Grantee of the Reversion should not recover damages but from the time of the Grant and not for any time before But yet the
created by this Will but the Feesimple setled in them when they came at their lawful age and had Issue so as the residue of the Devise was void and Iudgment was given accordingly CLXVI Griffith and Agard's Case Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Disceit by Griffith against Agard and his Wife 1 Len. 290. For that a Fine was levied of a Messuage being Ancient Demesne by which it became Frank-Fee and the Fine was levied in the life of A. Griffith Grandfather of the Plaintiff Exception was taken to the Writ because it is brought by the Plaintiff as Cosen and Heir of A. G. his Grandfather And in the beginning of the Writ the words are Si Henricus Griffith fecerit te securum without saying Cousen and heir of A. G. fecerit te securum But the Exception was not allowed For afterwards in the Writ these words are Cujus haeres ipse est See the Register 238. that it is sufficient if there be in the body of the Writ these words Cujus haeres ipse est Another Exception was taken to the Declaration in that it is alledged that the Lands were De antiquo Dominico Dominae Reginae Angliae wereas it ought to have been De antiquo Dominico Dominae Coronae suae c. The Opinion of the Court was That it was good both ways See Book Entries 100. antiquo Dominco Coronae 58. de antiquo Dominico Domini Regis CLXVII Bashpool's Case Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 101. Stiles Rep. 148. THe Case was The Father was seised of Lands in Fee and bound himself in an Obligation and devised his Lands unto his Wife until his Son should come to the age of 21 years the Remainder to his Son in Fee and died and no other Land descended or came to the Son from the Father It was moved by Godfrey That the Heir in this case might elect to waive the Devise and to take the Land by Descent See 9 E. 4. 18. by Needham But it was the Opinion of Gawdy and Shute Iustices That the Son should be adjudged in by Descent and so bounden with the Debt CLXVIII Branthwait's Case Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. DEbt brought by J. D. against Branthwait upon an obligation the Condition of which was That whereas J. F. claimed to have a Lease for years of the Mannor of D. made and granted to him by one W. D. If the said Branthwait keep without damage the Plaintiff from all claim and Interest to be challenged by the said J. F. de tempore in tempus during the years c. and also deliver the said Lease to the Plantiff that then c. The Defendant pleaded That the said J. F. had not any such Lease and that after the making of the said Obligation untill the Action brought the Plaintiff was not damnified ratione dimissionis praedictae Exception was taken to the same because where the words of the Condition are Keep without damage the Plaintiff from all Claim and Interest And he hath pleaded That the Plaintiff was not damnified ratione dimissionis c. But the Exception was disallowed by the Court For if he were not damnified ratione dimissionis then he was not damnified by reason of any Claim or Interest Another Exception was taken Because he could not now say there was no such Lease For it is recited in the Obligation That J. F. claimed to have a Lease and therefore by this recital he is estopped c. And see where a Recital is an Estoppel 8 R. 2. Fitz. 2 Len. 11. tit Estoppel 283. 39 E. 3. 3. Fitz. Estoppel 112. 46 E. 3. 12. It was holden by the Court That it was a good Estoppel And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXIX Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. DEbt upon an Obligation The words of the Obligation were I am content to give to W. 10 l. at Michaelmas and 10 l. at our Lady day It was holden by the Court That it was a good Obligation And it did amount to as much as I promise to pay c. It was also holden by the Court That an Action of Covenant lay upon it as well as an Action of Debt at the Election of the Plantiff And it was holden That although the Action is for 40 l. and the Declaration is 20 l. and 20 l. at two several days yet it is good enough and the Declaration is well pursuant to it And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXX The Queen and Kettell's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Queen brought a Writ de Valore Maritagii against Kettell and Counted of a Tenure in Chief The Defendant pleaded That pendant the Writ the Queen had granted to one Edmund Kettel Custodiam Maritagium of the said Defendant with whom he had Compounded It was holden by the whole Court to be no Plea for the Letters Patents were void because the Queen was deceived in her Grant for it appeareth by the Count that the Defendant before the Grant of the Queen was of full age And by the Letters Patents the Queen intended that he was within age and by the same granted Custodiam c. CLXXI. Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seised of Land by his Will Devised 1 Len. 31. That his Executors should sell the Lands and died the Executors levied a Fine thereof to one F. taking Mony for it of F. The Question was If in title made by the Conusee to the said Lands by the Fine It be a good Plea against the same to say Quod partes Finis nihil habuerunt Anderson conceived That it was But by Windham and Periam upon Not guilty the Conusee may help himself by giving in Evidence the special matter in which Case the Conusee shall be adjudged in not by the Fine but by the Devise And Windham said That if A. Devise That his Executors shall sell a Reversion of certain Lands of â—hich he dieth seised and they sell the same without Deed the same is well enough for the Vendee is in by the Devise 1 Iust 113. a. and not by the Conveyance of the Executors Quod vide 17 H. 6. 23. And by Periam The Conusee may help himself in pleading As he who is in by the Feoffment or Grant of Cestuy que use by the Statute of 1 R. 3. CLXXII Lee and Loveday's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in tail leased for 60 years and afterwards levied a Fine to Lee and Loveday sur Conusans de Droit come ceo c. and their Heirs in Fee And afterwards the Lord of the Mannor of whom the Land was holden brought a Writ of Disceit and upon that a Scire facias against the Conusees supposing the Land to be Ancient Demesne The Defendants made default by which the Fine was annulled and now the Issue in tail entred upon the Lessee for years and he brought an Ejectione firme
And it was found that the Land was Frank-Fee And the sole Question was If by the Reversal of the Fine by the Writ of Disceit without suing a Scire facias against the Ter-Tenant should bind him Atkinson It shall not bind the Lessee for years For a Fine may bind in part and in part not as bind one of the Conusees and not the other As. 7 H. 4. 11. a Fine levied of Lands part Ancient Demesne and part at the Common-Law and by a Writ of Disceit the Fine was reversed in part scil as to the Land in Ancient Demesne and stood in force for the Residue See 8 H. 4. 136. And there by the Award of the Court issued a Scire facias against the Ter-Tenant And the Iustices would not admit of the Fine without Certificate that the Land is Ancient Demesne notwithstanding that the Defendant had confessed it But as to those which were parties to the Fine the Fine was become void between the parties and he who had the Land before might enter See 8 E. 4. 6. And it would be a great inconvenience if no Scire facias or other Process should be awarded against the Ter-Tenant For he should be dispossessed and dis-enherited without privity or notice of it Whereas upon a Scire facias he might plead matter of discharge in bar of the Writ of Disceit Release c. which see Fitzh Na. Br. 98. and so although that the Fine be reversed yet he may retain the Land. And he resembled the same to the Case of 2 H. 4. 16 17. In a Contra formam Collationis against an Abbot A Scire facias shall issue forth against the Feoffee and by the same reason here in this Case And for the principal matter he conceived That the Fine should be awarded between the parties but not against the Lessee Kingsmill conceived That a Scire facias brought against the parties only was good enough For they were parties to the Disceit and not the Ter-Tenants c. it was Adâ—â—rned CLXXIII Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ERror was brought upon a Iudgment in a Quid juris clamat It was assigned for Error That the Tenant appeared by Attorny which Act he ought not to do in his own proper person if it be not in case of necessity where in such case an Attorny may be received by the King 's Writ and plead matter in bar of the Attornment As if he claim Fee c. or other peremptory matter after which Plea pleaded he may make an Attorny 48 E. 3. 24. 7 H. 4. 69. 21 E. 3. 48. 1 H. 7. 27. Another Error was assigned Because it is not shewed in the Quid juris clamat what estate the Tenant hath Another matter was If the Grantee of the estate of Tenant in tail after possibility of Issue extinct should be driven to Attorn And conceived He should not Because the priviledge passeth with the Grant. See 43 E. 3. 1. Tenant in tail after possibility of Issue extinct Post 241. shall not be driven to Attorn 46 E. 3. 13. 27. therefore neither his Grantee Williams contrary As to the appearance of the Tenant by Attorny because the same is admitted by the Court and the Plaintiff the same is not Error Which see 1 H. 7. 27. by Brian and Conisby 32 H. 6. 22. acc And he conceived That the Grantee should be driven to Attorn For no other person can have the estate of the Tenant in tail after possibility of Issue extinct but the party himself therefore not the priviledge And although he himself be dispunishable of Waste yet his Grantee shall not have such priviledge As if Tenant in Dower or by the Curtesie grant over their estates the Heirs shall have an Action of Waste against the Grantees for Waste done by the Grantees But if the Heir granteth over the Reversion then Waste shall be brought against the Grantees See Fitzh Na. Br. 57. And if two Coparceners be and one taketh Husband and dieth the Husband being Tenant by the Courtesie A Writ of Partitione facienda lieth against him but if he granteth over his estate no Writ of Partition lyeth against the Grantee 27 H. 6. Statham Aid Tenant in tail after possibility c. shall not have Aid but his Grantee shall Clark conceived That the Grantee should not be driven to Attorn If the Tenant in tail grant all his estate the Grantee is dispunishable of Waste So if the Grantee grant it over his Grantee is also dispunishable It was Adjourned CLXXIV Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Hob. Rep. 66. IN Action of Trespass against J.D. for breaking of his Close c. The Defendant pleaded That the Trespass whereof c. was done by the Defendant and one J.S. against which J.S. the Plaintiff at another time had brought an Action of Trespass and Recovered c. and had Execution of the Damages c. Plowden said It was a good Bar for that all is but one Trespass and satisfaction by one of the Trespassors is satisfaction for the other And if the Plaintiff had Released to the other Trespassors the Defendant if he had it in his hand might well plead it Wray conceived it a good Bar For it is but one Trespass and one wrong although in respect of the several persons of the Trespassors there are several Corporeal Acts. Atkinson conceived That the Bar was not good and it is not like the Case of Release for that taketh away the whole Trespass whosoever doth it And this Action may be sued joyntly or severally against the Trespassors and when the joynt suit is Released the several suit is Released Clench If an Action of Trespass be brought against two and they plead several Pleas and afterwards one of them is found guilty by a several Iury That Iury shall assess all the Damages and if the other be afterwards found guilty he shall be subject to the said Damages although he was not party to the said Iury and by the same Reason that he shall be charged with the same Damages by the same Reason he shall have advantage of the satisfaction of them made by his Companion See Br. Trespass 2. CLXXV Hitchcock and Thurland's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Statute brought for taking of Lands to Farm by a Spiritual person 21 H. 8. It was holden That if any such Lease be made at this day to any Spiritual person such a Lease is not void But such a Lease extends to such Leases made before the Feast of St. Michael mentioned in the said Act and not aliened before the said Feast c. And so it was said It was lately adjudged in one Underwood's Case CLXXVI Cutter and Dixwell's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Action upon the Case brought by Cutter against Dixwell for that the said Defendant had exhibited a Bill to the Iustices of Peace against the Plaintiff containing That the Plaintiff is an Enemy
the now Plaintiff To which Endictment the now Plaintiff peaded Not guilty and upon that he was acquitted The Defendant pleaded That the now Plaintiff was endicted of the said death in the County of S. scil of the stroak and of the death of the dead in the same County To which the Plaintiff by Replication said That the said J.S. was struck in the said County of S. but died in the County of D. so as this Indictment found in the County of S. is void by the Common Law and by the Statute of 2 E. 6. the party ought to be Indicted in the County where the party died and not where the stroke was given And upon that Replication the Defendant demurred in Law. Broughton The Plaintiff ought to be barred 1. The Plaintiff was not lawfully accquitted for the proceedings are not by due process For upon the Writ of Appeal no Pledges are retorned Which see 11 H. 4. 160. Then if the Appeal was not duly sued the Plaintiff was not duly acquitted and then Conspiracy or Action upon the Case doth not lie For such suit doth not lie but where if the Plaintiff had been found guilty he should have Iudgment of life and member Which shall not be upon an insufficient Appeal 9 H. 5. 2. 2. Because it is not shewed in the Declaration If the Defendant did flie or not 3. The Declaration wants these words Falso Malitiose as they are in the Writ of Conspiracy And also it is not shewed If the Plaintiff in the Appeal be sufficient or not For if he be sufficient the Abettors shall not be enquired See Westm 2. And as to the Action it self he conceived That it doth not lie by Bill but by Originial Writ against those who are found Abettors See 2 E. 2. Fitz. Action upon the Statute 28. such suit by Writ But see 25 Eliz. It was holden Such suit doth not lie by Writ And see Book of Entries 43 44. Flemming to the contrary It needs not to be shewed That the Plaintiff found Pledges ad prosequendum For without that the Writ is good enough and although that the Writ be not well executed yet it is good For our Action is not grounded upon the Record of Appeal but at the Common Law and the Record is but Conveyance to our Action And also there needs not in the Declaration falso malitiose for they are implyed in the words Abettavit procuravit And he conceived That this Action is at the Common Law and not only upon the Statute of Westm 2. Which see Stamford 172. And see 3 E. 3. Fitz. Conspiracy 13. Conspiracy lieth upon an Endictment of Trespass as well as upon an Endictment of Felony for the Law hath provided remedy in every Case where a Man is damnified As 43 E. 3. 20. A Writ of Disceit was brought for that the Defendant by Fraud and Collusion had procured J.S. to brign a Formedon against the Plaintiff of such a Mannor by reason whereof the Plaintiff was put to great charges and holden maintainable And the Statute of West 2. is in the affirmative and therefore it doth not abridge the Common Law but the subject may take the advantage of the Common Law if he pleaseth For it may be that the Course according to the Common-Law will more avail him than that upon the Statute For upon the Statute Law If the Abettors have not any thing the party is without remedy but by the Common Law the party grieved shall have excution upon the body 13 E. 2. Conspiracy holden maintainable against one who procured one to sue an Appeal against the Plaintiff See Fitz. Conspiracy 25. Fitzh Na. Br. 98. If A. procures B. to sue an Action against me to vex and molest me an Action of Disceit lieth And as to the matter of the Endictment I conceive that it is not any bar For the Endictment is meerly void because it was found in the County where the stroke was and not in the County where the party strucken died where of right it ought to be and that by the Statute of 2 E. 6. Then if the Endictment be insufficient it is as no Endictment and then the Plea cannot excuse the Defendant Which see 20 E. 4. 6. If the Endictment be not sufficient the Appellee shall wage Battail and the Abettors shall be acquitted Vide inde 19 E. 3. Coron 444. 26 H. 8. 2. And by the Common Law the Plaintiff might at his pleasure bring an Appeal where the Plaintiff was strucken or where he died but in such case the tryal shall be by both Counties And 3 H. 7. 12. Appeal was brought in the County where the party was stricken And 44 H. 7. 18. the Appeal was brought in the County where the party died and there it is said That in an Appeal the Plaintiff may declare as if the thing were done in both Counties but the Endictment ought to be in one County only And 43 E. 3. 18. A Man strucken in one County and dieth in another County the Appeal shall be brought in the County where he died In an Action upon the Case brought in the County of Essex the Plaintiff Declared That the Defendant held certain Lands by reason of which he ought to repair a Wall in the County of Essex juxta le Thames and that the Plaintiff had Land in the County of Middlesex adjoyning to the said Wall and for want of repairing the said Wall his Land in the County of Middlesex was drowned and the Writ was allowed being brought in the County of Essex See 6 H 7. 10. Clench I conceive this Action doth not lie by the Common Law For no Writ of Conspiracy was at the Common Law before the Statute And vide F. N. B. 114. F. If the Plaintiff in an Appeal be Nonsuit Conspiracy lieth but contrary if he be acquitted for he shall have his remedy against the Abettors c. Plowden This Action lieth at the Common Law and an Endictment is no Plea in this Action and it is not grounded upon the Statute as a Conspiracy is and so it well lieth although the Abettors be not Enquired Gawdy Serjeant This is an Action by the Common Law For in all cases where one procures damages to another so as the party is put to charges an Action lieth a fortiori where the procurement extends to the danger of life And see F. N. B. 116. F. Men conspire to have a false Office found of my Lands which Office is found by such procurement Conspiracy lieth And the Statute of 2 E. 6. doth not alter the Law before for it is in the affirmative See the Statute Cap. 24. Gawdy Iustice Conceived That the Endictment did not excuse the Defendants in this Action but against those who are sworn to give Evidence for the King and not others For they may well procure an Appeal malitiously notwithstanding the Endictment Walmesley Serjeant conceived That the Action doth not lie at the Common Law For in
all which he lost c. Wray The Bishop shall joyn for Conformity of Law and for privity of Record and the Plea of the Bishop is not so strong as a Disclaymer For in case of a Disclaimer the Iudgment is That the Plaintiff shall take nothing by his Writ but in the case of the Bishop here the Iudgment is Quod querens recuperet praesentationem suam versus dictum Episcopum ad Ecclesiam praedictam See 35 H. 6. 4. Fitz. Error 35. And afterwards in the principal Case the Writ of Error was awarded good CCXXIX Williams and Linford's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. EDward Williams brought an Action upon the Case against Linford 2 Len. 111. for slanderous words concerning the Title of the Plaintiff's Lands viz. Williams is nothing worth and do you think that the Mannor of D. is his It is but a Compact betwixt his Brother Thomas and him And declared further That at the time of the speaking of these words there was a Communication with one J.S. to give the said J.S. the said Mannor of D. for his Mannor of R. 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 did not lie because the slanderous words were not spoken to him who should be purchasor of the Lands but unto a stranger For in the Case betwixt Smith and Johnson Johnson was in speech with one to sell his Land to him and Smith said to him who should be the purchasor of them Will you buy Johnson's Land Why it is troubled with more Charges and Incumbrances then it is worth Wray There is not any difference be the words spoken to the parties or unto a stranger for in both Cases the Title of the Plaintiff is slandered so as he cannot make sale of it It was adjudged for the Plaintiff CCXXX Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Poor Woman brought an Action of Trespass for breaking of her Close and declared of a Continuance by 6 years And upon Nihil dicit had Iudgment to recover Vpon which a Writ of Enquiry of Damages issued forth and now came the Woman and shewed to the Court That the Iury had found too little Damages scil but 40 s. whereas the Land was worth 5 l. per annum and that the Trespass had been continued for 6 years and prayed that the said Writ might not be received and that the Court would award another Writ to have a better Enquiry of the Damages But the whole Court denyed it For so there might be infinite Enquiries But some time at the request of the Defendant when excessive Damages are found or any misdemeanour is alledged in the Plaintiff in procuring or using such a Writ of Enquiry of Damages We use to relieve the Defendant with a new Writ but never the Plaintiff because it is his own Act. And by Rhodes The late Countess of Darby brough 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 And because too small Damages were found she would have suppressed the said Writ and procured another but she could not have it And at the last she was driven to bring in the said Writ Which she did accordingly CCXXXI Lawson and Hare's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 74. IN a Replevin by Lawson against Hare of the Temple who Avowed because he himself was seised of a Hundred And that he himself and all those whose Estate he hath in the said Hundred have used to hold a Leet within the said Hundred at such a place every year And that at every time such Leet should be holden The Inhabitants within the said Precinct have used to pay to the Lord of the Leet 16 d. for the Leet-Fee and that they have used to distrain for the same And shewed That at a Leet there holden 5 July 26 Eliz. c. The Plaintiff replyed absque hoc that they used to distrain And it was found for the Defendant And it was moved in arrest of Iudgment Because the Defendant in making his Title to the Leet by Prescription Conveys the Hundred to him by a Que Estate without shewing a Deed of it See 11 H. 4. 242. Quod fuit concessum per Anderson Windham Periam and Rhodes contrary But if the Hundred it self had been in Question then the Exception had been material but here the Defendant intitles himself to a thing by reason of the Hundred and then it is sufficient for him to say That he is seised of the Hundred be it by right or by wrong Admit That by this not shewing the Avowry be vitious and defective It is to be considered if it be not helped by the Statute of Jeofail's 1 Cro. 217.245 18 Eliz. And therefore it is to be considered If an Avowry be within the meaning of the said Statute Anderson Although that the Avowant be quasi an Actor to have a Retorn of the Cattel if the Distress be adjudged lawful yet in truth he is Defendant and not Plaintiff And if the Defendant will justifie the taking and not avow he is meerly Defendant And although that he avow to have a Retorn yet he cannot be said Plaintiff no more than the Tenant who voucheth over another to recover in value may be said Plaintiff And therefore an Avowry cannot be said a Count or Declaration but a Answer to the Count or Declaration Windham and Periam conceived That an Avowry is within the Statute For it comprehends title And an Answer to an Avowry is said a Bar to an Avowry and an Avowry is in the place of a Declaration Admitting That an Avowry is within the Statute If the not shewing of the Deed be such a defect which may be helped by the Statute Anderson conceived That it was But the Plaintiff might have demurred upon the Avowry for not shewing of the Deed and have had iudgment But when he hath traversed the Prescription as to the point of the distress and the same is found against him Now it shall be intended that the Avowant hath a Deed although he hath not shewed it Windham The Title of the Avowant to the Hundred is the Foundation and ground of the Suit for if the Avowant hath not a Deed to make him a sufficient title to the Hundred he cannot have the Leet and if no Leet then no Leet-Fee and then the Avowant hath no cause to distrain Another Exception was taken to the Avowry because the Avowant hath not shewed any Seisin of the Leet-Fee And by Periam Such a seisin ought to be shewed in some person certain For although it needs not always to lay a Seisin in shewing by whose hands the seisin was had for the Inhabitants are charged and no person certain yet the seisin ought to be
Pawnage of the Park of H. grants all his Goods and Chattels moveables and immoveables within the said Park It was holden by Weston and Dyer Iustices That the Lease of the Pawnage passeth by these words And it was said by Dyer If a Man hath a Lease for years of a House and grants all his Goods and Chattels being in the same House that as well the Lease of the House as the Goods within it pass by such a Grant. XLVII Pasch 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was said by Weston and Bendloes That a Retraxit cannot be before a Declaration which Leonard and Filmer Prothonotaries granted And Dyer said That it being before a Declaration it is but a Nonsuit and Wheatley and Filmer affirmed the same and therefore it was adjudged That such a Retraxit in the Court of Hustings before the Sheriff is no Plea in Bar. XLVIII Pasch 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Debt brought against Christmas who shewed forth a Protection Quia Profecturus with the Lord Hunsdon to Barwick Dyer doubted If the Protection did lie But said It should be rather Moraturus then Profecturus For a Protection Quia Profecturus to Calleis was never good but super victitation Calicii Harper contrary For Barwick is out of the Realm And he said That he was once of Counsel Where a Bill was exhibited in Parliament to make Hexham part of England and he said That in the time of the Queen that now is One Carre struck a Man who thereof died at Barwick and in an Appeal thereof brought here by the Wife Carre was dismissed XLIX Cranmers Case Hill. 14 Eliz. Rott 938. In the Common Pleas. Dyer 309 310. 2 Len. 5. 1 Len. 196. 1 And. 19. More Rep. 100. Office of Executors 118. 119. TThomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury having a Reversion in Fee of certain Lands upon a Lease for years granted the Reversion to the use of the Grantor himself for his life and after his decease to the use of the Executors and Assignees of the Grantor for 20 years next after the death of the Grantor and after to the use of Thomas his Son in tail and afterwards to the use of the Grantor in Fee The Grantor is attainted of Treason and the Queen gave the said Term of 20 years to the Wife of the Grantor who took to Husband Ed. White-Church who let the Land to A. Thomas the Son entred and leased the same Land to one Kirk who upon an Ouster brought Ejectione Firmae This Case was Argued by the Iustices Manwood the puisne Iustice conceived That the Plaintiff ought to be barred and that the Lessee of White-Church who claimed by the grant of the Queen the said Term of 20 years ought to hold the Land against the Son of the Grantor For the remainder limited to the Son is not yet begun in possession And he insisted much in his Argument upon this point That Vses limited upon any Conveyance are governed and directed according to the Rules of the Common Law As if a Feoffment in Fee be made unto the use of another for life the remainder to the use of the Lessee for life and the Heirs of his body c. now the party hath an estate tail executed in possession and that is according to the Rule of the Common Law. And he cited the Case of 40 E. 3. 20. Where Land was given by Fine to A.B. and C. and to the Heirs of the body of C. and for default of such Issue the remainder to the right Heirs of A. C. died without Issue B. dyed and afterwards A. died his Heir brought a Scire facias out of the said Fine And by Iudgment of the Court the Scire facias did not lie for the Fee was vested in the Father of the Demandant although that ex vi verbi the remainder was limited not to the Father but to his Heirs But where Vses are limited in other manner than according to the Rules of the Common Law there they shall not be ruled and governed by the Rules of the Common Law As if Lands be given to the use of one for life and to the use of such Lessees to whom the Tenant for life shall demise the same for years or life rendring Rent the remainder over to a stranger in tail and afterwards the Tenant for life makes a Lease for years or life and dieth such a Lease shall bind him in the remainder although that the Lessor had not but for life and be now dead for the Vse limited here to the Lessees which would be was limited contrary to the Rules of the Common Law. For by the Common Law such Leases made by Tenant for life are determined by his death And in this Case This Lease for 20 years after the death of the Grantor was limited according to the Rules of the Common Law and therefore it shall take effect accordingly as if it had passed in possession and not in use as if the Conveyance had been of the Land it self and that Land had been granted to the Grantor for 20 years after his death that Interest had been vested in him to sell forfeit or otherwise to dispose at his pleasure and shall not accrue to the Executors as a purchase 19 E. 2. Fitz. Covenant 25. Land was Leased to one for life and after his decease to his Executors and Assigns for 10 years the Lessee assigned the Term And by Herle it is a good Assignment For it is in the Election of the Lessee to Devise that Interest or to assign it in his life-time And see 39 E. 3. 25. A Lease was made to one for life and a year over 17 E. 3. 29. Lessee for life so as after his death the Land remain to his Executors for 8 years Lessee for life died He who had the Freehold of the Land was impleaded who rendred the Land and the Executors of the Lessee for life prayed to be received scil where as Executors do hold the Term which proves that they had the Term as Executors to the use of the Testator and so Assets therefore the same was before in the Lessee for life But by Dyer in his Argument That Case doth not prove it and certainâ—y it is not Assets For although the Executor have the same Term by purchase yet they have it as Executors for that is a good name of purchase which Harper concessit And Manwood argued further and he Cited 19 E. 3. Fitz. Covenant 24. Land was let for life and if the Lessee died within 12 years that his Executors should hold the same until the end of the 12 years The Lessee for life died and the Executors entred and the Executors of the Lessee for life brought Actions of Covenant which proved that the Executors had the Term as a Chatel vested in the Testator and not in their own Rights as Purchasors by the name of Executors See 22 Ass 37. Land demised to A. ad totam vitam suam
See the Case 14 Eliz. in Dyer L. Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Tottenham and Bedingfields Case Owen Rep. 35 83. IN an Accompt by Tottenham against Bedingfield who pleaded That he never was his Bailiff to render accompt the Case was That the Plaintiff was possessed of a Parsonage for Term of years and the Defendant not having any Interest nor claiming any Title in them took the Tythes being set forth and severed from the 9 parts and carried them away and sold them Vpon which the Plaintiff brought an Action of Accompt And by Manwood Iustice the Action doth not lie for here is not any privity for wrongs are always done without privity And yet I do agree That if one doth receive my Rents I may implead him in a Writ of Accompt and then by the bringing of my Action there is privity and although he hath received my Rent yet he hath not done any wrong to me for that it is not my Mony until it be paid unto me or unto another for my use and by my Commandment and therefore notwithstanding such his Receipt I may resort to the Tenant of the Land who ought to pay unto me the said Rent and compel him to pay it to me again and so in such case where no wrong is done unto me Hob. 32â— I may make a privity by my consent to have a Writ of Accompt But if one disseiseth me of my Land and taketh the profits thereof upon that no Action of Accompt lieth for it is meerly a wrong And in the principal case so soon as the Tythes were severed by the Parishioners there they were presently in the Plaintiff and therefore the Defendant by the taking of them was a wrong doer and no Action of Accompt for the same lieth against him And upon the like reason was the Case of Monox of London lately adjudged which was That one devised Land to another 1 Len. 266. and died and the Devisee entred and held the Land devised for the space of 20 years and afterwards for a certain cause the Devise was adjudged void and for that he to whom the Land descended brought an Action of Accompt against the Devisee And it was adjudged That the Action did not lie Harper contrary For here the Plaintiff may charge the Defendant as his Proctor and it shall be no Plea for the Defendant to say That he was not his Proctor no more than in an Accompt against one who holdeth as Gardian in Socage it is no plea for him to say that he is not Prochein Amy to the Plaintiff Dyer The Action doth not lie If an Accompt be brought against one as Receiver he ought to be charged with the Receipt of the Mony and an Accompt doth not lie where the party pretends to be Owner as against an Abater or Disseisor but if one claimeth as Bailiff he shall be charged and so it is of Gardian in Socage Latch 8. And it was agreed That if a Disseisor assign another to receive the Rents that the Disseisee cannot have an Accompt against such a Receivor LI. 15 Eliz. In the Court of Wards NOte That this Case was ruled in the Court of Wards That where Tenant of the King of Lands holden by Knights Service in chief made a Feoffment in Fee of the same Lands to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his younger Son in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffor and died his eldest Son within age That the Queen should have the Wardship of his body and of the third part of the Land and when the eldest Son comes of full age that the younger Son should sue Livery and pay Primer Seisin according to the rate and value of the whole Land viz. of the third part as in possession and of the two parts as a Reversioner For the remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffee is in truth a Reversion for the Fee simple was never out of him because there is not any consideration as to that nor any Vse expressed And because Livery shall not be sued by parcels the younger Son shall not be suffered to sue Livery of the third part presently and respite the residue as to the two parts in Reversion until the Reversion fall but he shall sue Livery presently as well of the two parts in reversion as of the third part in possession and if the eldest Son had been of full age at the time of the death of his Father the younger Son should pay Primer Seisin as to the third part the whole value of it for one year as in possession and as to the two parts the moiety of the value of a year as of a Reversion LII Oliver Breers Case 15 Eliz. In the Court of Wards OLiver Breer who was Tenant in Chief by Knights Service made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of A. his eldest Son and Heir for life and after to the use of the first begotten Son of the said A. in tail and afterwards to the use of the second Son of the said A. c. and for default of such issue to the use of the right Heirs of the Feoffor Oliver died the said A. his Son being of full age It was holden by the Council of the Court of Wards That he should pay for his first Primer Seisin a third part as in possession and two parts as a reversion See the Case before LIII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte 1 Roll. 626 This Case was moved to the Iustices in the Court of the Kings Bench A Man had Issue two Daughters by divers Women and being seised of Lands in Fee he made his Will and by the same Devised That his Wife should have the moyety of his Lands for years and that his eldest Daughter at the day of her Marriage should enter into the other moyety his eldest Daughter married and died without Issue And the Question was Whether her Vncle should have that moyety or the fourth part of the whole Land. Catline conceived and said That when the Devise which was made to the eldest Daughter that she might enter after certain years is not the Inheritance in her presently and the other words void So he said here That it is not a purchase in the eldest Daughter but both the Daughters should enter in Common as one Heir to their Father until the Marriage and then the Inheritance which was once settled in them should not be removed Southcote Iustice said There are no words of Limitation of any Estate that the Daughter should have after the Marriage and therefore the Devise was void and if he had limited that the Daughter after Marriage should have it for life the Fee-simple is vested in her before and then she cannot have it for life And he said That if a Lease be made to the eldest Daughter for years by the Father and afterwards
are to have advantage of it yet the Lord shall not avow for not repairing of it without alledging that the Bridge was in decay And so when the Tenure is to Cover his Hall he shall not Avow without alledging that his Hall needed Reparations And so in the principal Case here he ought to alledge that there was a present necessity for making of the By-Law for it may be that there was not any Sheep within the Mannor when the By-Law was made and then there was no cause that it should be made And in the like manner as it hath been said of the Common Law That certainty ought to be shewed so shall it be by the Statute Laws As if Tenant for life makes default if one prayeth to be received for the default of the Tenant for life he ought to shew that he hath the Reversion and that he bringeth his Action by reason thereof And as it hath been said of the Common Law and Statute Law so it shall be said of Custom As in 44 E. 3 where the Parishioners prescribe to make By-Laws and that they made such an Ordinance That for every Acre of Land or for every Beast every one should pay for the Reparations of the Church c. there it may be said in Avowry that the Church wanted Reparation And so where a Tax and Levy is to make a Wall against the See there if the party will justifie the levying of the Tax or Levy he must say That there was need of it otherwise the same cannot be levied But as to the ability of a person he shall be enabled by Intendment As if an Obligation be made by a Man or a Woman in an Action brought upon the Bond he shall not be compelled to say That the Man was of full age or that the Woman was a single Woman for that shall be intended until the contrary be shewed But by Statute Law if a Man pleads a Grant it shall be otherwise As upon the Statute of 1 R. 3. If he plead a Feoffment or a Grant of Cestuy que Use he must plead That he was of full age out of prison of sound memory and within the 4 Seas And so where a Pardon was made in the time of King Ed. the 14th to all but to those who were with Queen Margaret there if he will take advantage of the Pardon he must plead That he was not with the said Queen And if a Man plead a Feoffment of J.S. at the Common Law it shall be good and if he were within age it shall be shewed on the other side But if a Man pleadeth a Feoffment by Custom and the other saith that the Feoffor was within age and the Plaintiff replyeth That an Enfant by the Custom may make a Feoffment the same is not good but a Departure for he ought to have shewed that at the beginning in his Declaration And in 37 H. 6. Where a Man pleaded a Devise and it was shewed that the Devisor was within age there the Plaintiff need not say that the Custom is That an Enfant may devise for that is a Departure Another matter of the Custom which they have alledged is That they may make By-Laws for the better Ordering and they have not taken averment that this Ordinance was either better or worse and if it be not better then they have no cause to make the By-Law If a Feoffment be made causa Matrimonii praeloquuti it shall not be intended that the Feoffment was for any other cause than Marriage And if a Woman brings a Writ of Dower and the Defendant pleads a Lease for life made by the Husband it shall not be intended that that Lease was in allowance of her Dower according to the Statute if it be not expresly shewed And so If Cestuy que Use in tail makes a Lease for life it shall not be intended that Cestuy que Vie is alive unless a special Averment be taken That he is yet alive And so here it doth not appear that this is the better Order nor that the Lands are several or lie in Common so as by no means or Circumstance it can appear if it be the better or not Another cause wherefore the pleading is not sufficient is Because he saith Vpon a pain of Forfeiture to the Lord for the time being and he hath not alledged in fact that the Lord Cromwell who was Lord of the Mannor in Anno 6 E. 6. was Lord in the 13th year of the Reign of the Queen that now is and without shewing that shall not be intended As in 7 H. 7. A Man pleads a Feoffment and that J.S. was seised and did enfeoffe him that is not good but he ought to plead that he being so seised made the Feoffment for it shall not be intended that his seisin continued until the time of the Feoffment without shewing of it And so where a Man pleads That J.S. was seised of a Reversion granted it he ought to plead And that he being so seised granted it And so where an Attornment is pleaded for if he was not seised at the time of the Attornment the Attornment was not good And so where a Man will plead a Surrender he shall shew that he who Surrendreth and he to whom a Surrender is made were seised Quaere If the one or the other were not seised one of the Term and the other of the Reversion whether the Surrender be not good And 31 H. 6. If a Man will plead a Lease by Feoffees to use he shall say And that so seised they made the Lease And see 6 7 10 11 H. 7. Where Cestuy que Use makes a Feoffment averment shall be taken that at the time of the Lease that the Feoffees were seised to the use of the Lessor And because that here it is not shewed nor alledged that the Lord Cromwell is now Lord of the Mannor it shall not be so intended Also for divers other causes I conceive that the Avowry is insufficient For he hath shewed that a By-Law was made but doth not shew when it was made nor for what time it was to continue And it is not shewed Whether the same were made for the better ordering of the Lands which the Lord held joyntly or in common with others or which he held in his own Right alone And as to the Prescription I conceive that the same is not good because it is against reason and not ex rationabili causa For if one Man keeps the Law and another Man breaks the Law yet according as they have alledged this Custom to be he may be distrained who hath not offended and his Cattel taken for the Offence done by the Cattel of another Man and it is against reason that any one should be punished for the default or offence of another But the Custom of Borough English is good and so is the Custom of Gavelkind because that every Son is as good a Gentleman as the eldest and therefore those
Customs stand with Reason And so in 5 H. 7. Where a Man prescribes That for the Pasture which the Beasts of the Tenant have taken in his Lands in the day-time that he have the Foldage of them upon his said Lands in the Night to manure his Lands is a good prescription because the party hath for it Quid pro Quo. And so where a Man prescribes to have a Farthing of every one who passeth over his Land the same is called Toll traverse and is good And so in 7 H. 4. Where a Man prescribes in Common by reason of Vicinage it is good for though it cannot be of Common Right yet because each hath Quid pro Quo it is good And so is the Custom for Fishermen to dry their Nets upon the Banks of the Lands of other Men lying upon the Sea Coasts because it is for the Common wealth and every Man hath an advantage by it but if a Man should prescribe to Fowle there upon the Lands of another that were not good Meade contrary That case is as it hath been put and divers Cases of the Common Law Custom and Statute Laws have been shewed And by common Intendment it is intended that need doth require the making of the By-Law for otherwise they would not have made it and there needs not any averment that there was need of it for that shall be taken by intendment As 19 E. 4. A Man counts of the Grant of the next Avoydance and the Count is good without shewing that that was the next Avoydance but yet it would have been better if it had been expressed And 21 H. 7. In Trespass the first day of May the Defendant pleads the Licence of the Plaintiff without shewing that it was for the same Trespass and yet it shall be intended when he pleads a Licence for the same day that it was for the same Trespass And as to the Case put upon the Statute of 1 R. 3. it hath been ruled otherwise for it shall be shewed on the other side that he was within age as it appeareth by 10 13 H. 7. Also he said that the Court here shall intend that there was a necessity sufficient without expressing of it and if there was not then it ought to be alledged on the other side As 15 H. 7. An Annuity is granted until he was advanced to a Benefice the Plaintiff shall not need to shew it but that shall come on the Defendants part And the Statute which is That no Cattel of the Plough shall be distrained where the party hath other Cattel of which a Distress may be taken there the party needs not to alledge that he had other Cattel or other Goods And as to that which hath been said That it was the better Order that needs not for the Defendant himself was one of the makers of the Order and when By-Laws are made they shall not extend but to the Tenants within the Mannor where they are made and to such only as have Lands there and not to the Lands of others which are out of the Mannor and the Defendant in this case shall not be received to say but that this is a good Custom and Order because he is a party to it and was the maker of it and that there was then a necessity for the making of it for the better ordering of the Lands and that especially when as the Defendant himself was a party to it And as to that which is said That Seisin is alledged in the Lord Cromwell in 6 E. 6. and it is not alledged that the Seisin did continue in him until 13th of this Queen It shall be intended that he continued seised until the contrary be shewed As in 11 H. 7. A Man prescribed to have Common by reason of the House c. The Avowant doth not say that he was seised of the House at the time c. of the disseisin of the Common because he once alledged Seisin of the House and that Seisin shall be intended to continue unto the time of the disseisin And so 10 H. 7. A Prior Domus Ecclesiae de C. brought Waste and supposed that it was to the disenheresin of the House and did not say praedict Domus and yet it was good and shall be referred to the said Priory And so here when he saith that he was Lord and that the By-Law was made as before and a penalty imposed and a Distress taken by the Bailiff of the Lord Cromwell for not observing the By-Law and payment of the sum assessed all being put together makes a sufficient certainty and that the Lord Cromwell continued his Seisin of the Mannor and Land And as to that which hath been said That the By-Law made and the Custom alledged to distrain in the Lands of any Man for the Offence of another is not reasonable and against the Law To that he said That the Tenants here had authority to make By-Laws and by their consents have bounden themselves to the observing and performance of them and therefore shall not now be received to say That the By-Law made by themselves was against the Law. And he said That the Customs in some places are Where there are Waste Lands that they may make By-Laws That if any Tenant or person dig Turfs in the same Waste that the Lord may distrain for such offence within any place of the Mannor and the Cattel of any person Quaere of it The Principal Case was Adjourned LXIV Mountford and Catesbys Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Action upon the Case was brought by Mountford against Catesby Dyer 328. Vaugh. Rep. 120. And the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant covenanted assumed and promised in Consideration of a certain sum of Mony to him paid and in Consideration of the payment of a Rent of certain Lands demised to the Lessee That he should peaceably and quietly enjoy the same without Interruption of any person and he was ousted by a stranger And the matter aforesaid was found by special Verdict And it was argued by Lovelace Serjeant and he prayed Iudgment for the Plaintiff And he said That there is a difference when it is said that a Man shall hold and enjoy peaceably and quietly As in Case where one warrants Land there if he be ousted by a stranger who hath not any Title to the Land he shall have an Action of Trespass against him But a Man by word or Covenant may bind himself to that which he is not bound to do by the Law. As if the Covenant and Promise be That he shall leave the Houses in as good plight as he found them there although the Law doth not bind the party to re-edifie the Houses in case they be overthrown by tempest of Wind or that they be destroyed by Enemies yet by his special Covenant he shall be bound to re-edifie them Meade contrary And that this promise shall not be taken strictly against the Lessor Hob. Rep.
Wife the Executrix should be charged for the not Reparations as well in the time of her Husband as in her own time And if she do make the Reparation depending the Suit yet thereby the Suit shall not abate but it shall be a good cause to qualifie the damages according to that which may be supposed that the party is damnified for the not repairing from the time of the purchase of the Reversion unto the time of the bringing of the Action And it was said by Manwood That by the Recovery of the damages that the Lessee should be excused for ever after for making of Reparations so as if he suffer the Houses for want of Reparations to decay that no Action shall thereupon after be brought for the same but that the Covenant is extinct LXXIII Easter Term. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LOvelace moved the Court that in the Kings Bench this case was argued upon a Demurrer there A Feoffment was made by one Coxley who took back an Estate for life the remainder to him who should be his Heir at the time of his death and to the Heirs males of his body begotten And afterwards the Tenant for life after the Statute of 32 H. 8. suffered a Recovery to be had against him that that Recovery was good as it was at the Common Law Because the Statute doth not speak but that it shall not be a bar to him who hath the Reversion at the time of the Recovery but this remainder was in Abeyance until the death of the Tenant for life and that in the same Court it was adjudged accordingly in an Ejectione firmae and because the same was a discontinuance the Plaintiff had here brought his Formedon in the Remainder and therefore Lovelace prayed That they might proceed without delays because the Plaintiffs Title appeareth without Essoigns and feigned delays Which Dyer Iustice conceived to be a reasonable request and that it should be well so to do because as he said This Court is debased and lessened and the Kings Bench doth encrease with such Actions which should be sued here for the speed which is there And he said That the delays here were a discredit to the Court so as all Actions almost which do concern the Realty are determined in the Kings Bench in Writs of Ejectione firmae where the Iudgment is Quod recuperet terminum and by that they are put into possession and by such means no Action is in effect brought here but such Actions as cannot be brought there as Formedons Writs of Dower c. to the Slander of the Court and to the Detriment and Loss of the Serjeants at the Bar. And Lovelace shewed That divers mean Feoffments were made c. LXXIV Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte This Case was in Court An Heir Female was in Ward of a common person who tendred to her a marriage viz. his younger Son and she agreed to the Tender and the Guardian died The Heir married the younger Son according to the Tender The Executors of the Guardian brought a Writ de Valore Maritagii supposing the Tender by the Lord to be void by his death But the Court was of a contrary Opinion because the Tender of their Testator was executed LXXV Riches Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. ELizabeth Rich brought a Writ of Dower against J.S. who pleaded and Iudgment given for the Defendant and afterwards the Iudgment was reversed And she brought a new Writ of Dower and the Tenant pleaded That he always was ready and yet is c. Against which the Demandant pleaded the first Record to estop the Tenant To which the Tenant pleaded Nul tiel Record It was the Opinion of the Court That here the Demandant cannot conclude the Tenant by that Replication to plead Nul tiel Record For the Iudgment is reversed and so no Record and it cannot be certified a Record But if the Tenant had taken Issue upon the plea of the Tenant absque hoc that he was ready the same might well have been given in Evidence against the Tenant Note That the Case was That the Demandant after the death of her Husband entred into the Land in Demand and continued the possession of it 5 years and afterwards the Heir entred upon which she brought Dower It was agreed in that Case That the Tenant needed not to plead Tout temps prist after his re-entry for the time the Demandant had occupied the same is a sufficient recompence for the Damages LXXVI Vavasors Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NIcholas Ellis seised in Fee of the Mannor of Woodhall Leased the same to William Vavasor and E. 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 the Land and did Waste in a Park parcel of the Mannor It was moved to the Court If the Writ of Waste should suppose that the Wife held ex dimissione Nicholai Ellis or ex dimissione of her Husband It was the Opinion of the Court That upon this matter the Writ should be general viz. that she held de haereditate J.S. haeredis c. without saying any more either ex dimissione hujus vel illius For she is not in by the Lessor nor by the Feoffees but by the Statute of Vses and therefore the Writ shall be ex haereditate It was also the Opinion of the Iustices That the Wife here is not remitted but that she should be in according to the Term of the Feoffment Note in this Case The Waste was assigned in destroying the Deer in the Park And Meade Serjeant conceived That Waste could not be assigned in the Deer unless the Defendant had destroyed all the Deer And of that Opinion also was Dyer Manwood said If the Lessee of a Dove-house destroyed all the old Pigeons but one or two couple the same is Waste And if a Keeper destroy so many of the Deer so as the ground is become not Parkable the same is Waste although he doth not destroy them all See 8 R. 2. Fitz. Waste 97. If there be sufficient left in a Park Pond c. it is enough LXXVII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Action upon the Case was brought against Executors They were at Issue Vpon nothing in their hands It was given in Evidence on the Plaintiffs part That a stranger was bound to the Testator in 100 l. for performance of covenants which were broken For which the Executors brought Debt upon the Obligation depending which Suit both parties submitted themselves to the Arbitrament of A. and B. who awarded That the Obligor should pay to the Executors 70 l. in full satisfaction c. and that the Executors should release c. which was done accordingly And it was agreed by the Court That by the Release it
Land therefore it is in the Land or within the Land i. e. the Mannor For the King may distrain for the Fine as well in the same Land as in the Land of him who ought to pay it Dyer doubted of it and said That the Bishop could not distrain in the Land for this Fine but should have it by allowance in the Exchequer upon the Estretes and if the party would not pay it the Lessee should have a Subpoena against him out of the Exchequer And some were of Opinion That the Lessee could not have this Fine 2 Len. 179. 4 Len. 234. for that they were not Hereditaments within the Mannor but rather in the Exchequer or Court where the Record is LXXXII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A Man seised of a Pasture in which are two great Groves and a Wood known by the name of a Wood And also in the same Pasture there are certain Hedge-Rowes and Trees there growing Sparsim Leased the same by Indenture for years And by the same Indenture bargained and sold to the Lessee all Woods and Vnderwoods in and upon the Premisses And further That it shall and may be lawful to the Lessee to cut down and carry away all the same at all times during the Term. Harper The Hedge-Rowes do not pass by these words for they are not known by the name of Woods 14 H. 8. 2. contrary by Manwood For by such words Hedge-Rowes pass Mounson contrary For the words of the Grant may be supplyed by other Words Dyer The Hedge-Rowes shall pass for the Grant is general All Woods It was moved further If by those words the Lessee might cut them a second time or but once Harper Manwood and Mounson He may cut them but once Dyer contrary And so it should be if the words had been Growing upon the Premisses And this word Growing although it sounds in the present Tense yet it shall be also taken in the future Tense if not that the word tunc had been there for that is a word of Restraint The Case was argued in the Exchequer Chamber where I was present which was The Prior of St. John's Leased a Commandry Provided That if the said Prior or any of his Brethren there being Commanders will dwell thereupon then the said Lease to be void It was doubted If that Proviso did extend to the Successors for the word Being is in the present Tense And yet by the Opinion of Fitzherbert it shall be taken in the future Tense and so extend to the Successors Otherwise if the words had been Now being LXXXIII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Made B. his Executor and died Vid. le stat 43 Eliz. cap. 8. Office of Executors 261. B. to the intent to defraud the Creditors refused to take upon him the Executorship but caused a stranger to take upon him Letters of Administration which stranger fraudulently gave the Goods of the Testator to B. Dyer If the gift be fraudulent then by the Statute of 13 Eliz. the gift is void and then B. by the Occupation of the Goods shall be charged as Executor of his own wrong Manwood I conceive there is a difference If one makes an Executor and another takes the Goods but doth no Act which concerns the Office of an Executor as paying of Debts he is not Executor of his own wrong but a Trespassor to him who is Executor in right but if he doth any Act which belongs to the Office of an Executor then he is Executor of his own wrong Dyer That Case hath been adjudged against you and although the Books of 9 E. 4. 22 H. 6. were vouched Yet Iudgment was given against the Opinion of Manwood It was the Case of one Stoke LXXXIV Jackson and Darcyes Case Mich. 16 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Writ de Partitione facienda between Jackson and Darcy the Case was Tenant in tail the remainder to the King levied a Fine had Issue and died In that case It was adjudged That the Issue was barred and yet the remainder which was in the King was not discontinued For by that Fine an Estate in Feesimple determinable upon the Estate tail did pass unto the Conusee LXXXV Strowds Case Hill. 17 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin the Case was That Lands holden of a Subject came to the possession of the King by the Statute of 1 E. 6. of Chauntries and the King granted the Lands over In that case It was holden That the Grantee shall hold the Lands of the King according to the Patent and not of the Ancient Lord But the Patentee shall pay the Rent by which the said Land was before holden as a Rent seck distrainable of Common Right to the Lord only and his Heirs scil to him of whom the said Lands were before holden LXXXVI Tresham and Robins Case Mich. 17 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. TResham brought an Action of Debt upon a Recognizance against Robins The Condition of which Recognizance was To stand to the Arbitrament of A. and B. who made Award That Robins should have the Land Yielding and paying 10 l. per annum And that Tresham in further assurance should levy a Fine to Robins of the same Land and upon that Robins should grant and render to Tresham which is done accordingly the Rent is behind Tresham brought Debt upon the Recognizance The Defendant pleaded the special matter with this per close Unde petit Judicium if the Plaintiff should have Execution against him And by the Opinion of the whole Court the Conclusion of the Plea is not good For here is not any Execution of the same Debt but an Original Action of Debt brought in which case he ought to have concluded Iudgment Si actio It was further moved If these words Yielding and paying make a Condition And it was agreed That the words do amount to as much as So as he pay the Rent And if a Man makes a Feoffment in Fee Reddendo salvendo 10 l. for years the same is a Condition But in the principal Case It is not a Condition For it is not knit to the Land by the Owner it self but by a stranger i. e. Arbitrator but it is a good Clause to make the same an Article of the Arbitrament which the parties are bound to perform upon pain of forfeiture of the Recognizance Which Wray concessit And that this Rent should not cease by Eviction of the Land. LXXXVII The Earl of Westmerlands Case Hill. 18. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Earl of Westmerland seised of a Mannor whereof the Demesnes were usually let for three Lives by Copy 2 Len. 152. 2 Brownl 208. according to the Custom of the Mannor granted a Rent-charge to Sir William Cordell pro consilio impendendo for the term of his Life and afterwards conveyed the Mannor to Sir William Clifton in tail The Rent is behind Sir William Cordell dieth Sir William Clifton dieth
they had not any Lands in the said Town but the said Mannor And the Ejectione firmae was brought of that Mannor in Kent and from thence the Visne came and all the special matter aforesaid was found by Verdict And Exception was taken to the Verdict because they have found generally That the Master and Scholars had not any thing in the said Town of Laberhurst but the said Mannor Whereas they ought to have said That they had not any thing in the said Town in the County of Kent For they could not take notice what Lands the Master and Scholars had in that part of the Town which was in the County of Sussex And of that Opinion the whole Court seemed to be But Quaere of it for it was adjourned XCVI Hinde and Lyons Case Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Post 70. Dyer 124. 2 Len. 11. IN Debt by Hinde against one as Son and Heir of Sir John Lyon who pleaded Nothing by descent but the third part of the Mannor of D. the Plaintiff replyed Assets and shewed for Assets That the Defendant had the whole Mannor of D. by descent Vpon which they were at Issue And it was given in Evidence to the Iury That the said Mannor was holden by Knights-Service And that the said Sir John the Ancestor of c. by his Will in writing Devised the whole Mannor 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 Son of 24 years his Wife should have the third part of the said Mannor for her life and his Son should have the residue And if that his said Son do die before he come to his said age of 24 years without Heir of his body that the Land should remain to J.S. the remainder over The Devisor died The Son came to the age of 24 years The Question was If the Son had an Estate in tail for then for two parts he was not in by descent And it seemed to Dyer and Manwood That here was not any Estate in tail for no tail shall rise if not that the Son die before his said age and therefore the tail shall never take effect and the Fee-simple doth descend and remain in the Son unless that he dieth before the age of 24 years and then the Estate vests with the remainder over but now having attained to the said age he hath the Fee and that by descent of the entier Mannor and then his Plea is false That but the third part descended 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 his Ancestor as his other Lands And a Capias also lieth against him But Manwood Iustice conceived That if a general Iudgment be given against the Heir by default in such cause a Capias doth not lie although it lieth in case of a false Plea. 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 President where such an Action was maintainable against the Executors of the Heir XCVII Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A. seised of Lands in Fee 2 Len. 154. Hob. 285. Dyer 329. by his Will in writing granted a Rent-Charge of 5 l. per annum out of the same to his younger Son towards his education and bringing up in Learning The Question was If in pleading the Devisee ought to aver That he was brought up in Learning And it was holden by Dyer Manwood and Mounson Iustices That there needs no such Averment for the Devise is not Conditional and therefore although he be not brought up in Learning yet he shall have the Rent And the words of the Devise are Towards his bringing up And the Devisor well knew that 5 l. per annum would not and could not reach to maintain a Scholar in Learning Diet Apparel and Books And this Rent although it be not sufficient to such intent yet the Son shall have it And by Dyer Three years past such Case was in this Court scil Two were bounden to stand to the Award of certain persons Who awarded That the one of them should pay unto the other 20 s. per annum during the Term of 6 years towards the education and bringing up of such an Enfant and within two years of the said Term the Enfant died so as now there needed not any supply towards his Education Yet it was holden That the said yearly sum ought to be paid for the whole Term after For the words Towards his Education are but to shew the intent and consideration of the payment of that sum and are not the words of a Condition XCVIII Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit The Plaintiff declared That the Defendant was seised in Fee of the Mannor of Orchard alias Lydcots-Farm to which the Advowson is appendant and presented such a one c. And afterwards leased to the Plaintiff the said Mannor per nomen of the Mannor of Orchard alias Lydcots-Farm with the appurtenances for 21 years and the Church became void c. And the truth of the Case was That there is the Mannor of Orchard and within the said Mannor the said Farm called Lydcots Farm parcel of the said Mannor and the Lease was of the said Farm and not of the said Mannor and so the Advowson remained to the Lessor as appendant to the Mannor In this Case It was moved What thing the Defendant should traverse Dyer He shall say That the Advowson is appendant to the Mannor of Orchard absque hoc that it is appendant to the Farm of Lydcots But it seemed to Manwood That the Defendant shall say That the Advowson is appendant to the Mannor of Orchard and that the Farm of Lydcots is parcel of the said Mannor and that he Leased to the Plaintiff the said Farm with the appurtenances absque hoc that the Mannor of Orchard and the said Farm are all one For if he traverse the Appendancy to the Farm of Lydcots then he confesseth That the Mannor and Farm are all one c. But Dyer doubted of it XCIX Kirlee and Lees Case Mich. 19 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant in Consideration that the Plaintiff would marry the Daughter of the Defendant did promise to find to the Plaintiff and his said Wife convenient apparel meat and drink for themselves and two servants and Pasture also for two Geldings by the space of 3 years when the Plaintiff would require it And further shewed That Licet the Plaintiff had married the Defendants Daughter and that he had required the Defendant to find ut supra c. the Defendant refused c. The Defendant
Plaintiff had acquitted and discharged him of the Reparations Vpon which the Plaintiff demurred in Law. Manwood The same is an Acquittal and Discharge of the Reparations as well for the time past as for the time to come by force of the said Covenant and amounts to as much as if he had Released the Covenant And it was moved If the Covenant being broken for want of Reparations If now that Acquital and Discharge or Release of the Covenant should take away the Action upon the Obligation which was once forfeited before And it was the Opinion of Manwood That it should not For if one be bound in an Obligation for the performance of Covenants and before the breach of any of them the Obligee releaseth the Covenants and afterwards one of the Covenants is broken the Obligation is not forfeited for there is not now any Covenant which may be broken and therefore the Obligation is discharged But if the Release had been after the Covenant broken otherwise all which Dyer and Mounson Concesserunt CVI. Mich. 20. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HVsband and Wife seised in the right of his Wife of certain Customary Lands in Fee he and his Wife by Licence of the Lord make a Lease for years by Indenture rendring Rent have Issue two Daughters The Husband dieth The Wife takes another Husband and they have issue a Son and a Daughter The Husband and Wife die The Son is admitted to the Reversion and dieth without Issue It was holden by Manwood That this Reversion shall descend to all the Daughters notwithstanding the half-blood For the Estate for years which is made by Indenture by Licence of the Lord is a Demise and Lease according to the Order of the Common Law and according to the nature of the Devise the possession shall be adjudged which possession cannot be said possession of the Copyholder For his possession is Customary and the other is meer contrary therefore the possession of the one shall not be said the possession of the other and therefore there is no possessio fratris in this Case But if he had been Guardian by the Custom or this Lease had been made by surrender There the Sister of the half-blood should not inherit And Meade said That the Case of the Guardian had been so adjudged Mounson to the same intent And if the Copyhold descend to the Son he is not Copyholder before admittance 1 Len. 174 175. but he may take the profits and punish Trepass c. CVII Hinde and Lyons Case Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 11. Dyer 124. Ante 64. DEbt by Hinde against one as Son and Heir of Sir John Lyon who pleaded Nothing by descent but the third part of the Mannor of D. The Plaintiff replyed Assets And shewed for Assets That the Defendant had the entire Mannor of B. by descent Vpon which they were at Issue And it was given in Evidence to the Iury That the Mannor was holden by Knights-Service and that the said Sir John the Ancestor of the Defendant by his Will in writing devised the whole Mannor to his Wife until the Defendant his Son and Heir should come to the age of 24 years And that at the age of the Son of 24 years his Wife should hold the third part of the said Mannor for the Term of her life and his Son should have the residue And if his Son do die before he come to the age of 24 years without Heir of his body that the Land should remain over to J.S. the Remainder over to another The Devisor died the Son came to the age of 24 years Dyer and Mounson Iustices conceived That here was not any Estate tail and then for two parts he is not in by descent For no Estate tail shall rise unless that the Son dieth before his said age and therefore the Tayl never took effect and the Feesimple descends and remains in the Son if not that he dieth before the age of 24 years and then the whole vests with the Remainder over but now having attained the said age he hath a Fee and that by descent of the whole Mannor and then his Plea is false that but the third part descended 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 of his other Lands And a Capias lieth also against him But Manwood Iustice conceived That if a general Iudgment be given against the Heir by default in such case a Capias doth not lie although in case of a false Plea it lieth But Dyer held the 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 President where such an Action was maintainable against the Executor of the Heir CVIII Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Seised of Lands in Fee Devised them to his Wife for life and after her decease she to give the same to whom she will Latch 9,39 had issue two Daughters and died The Wife granted the Reversion to a stranger and committed Waste And the two Daughters brought an Action of Waste It was holden by the Iustices That by that Devise the Wife had but an Estate for life but she had gained authority to give the reversion by his Will to whom she pleased And such a Grantee should be in by A. and his Will For A. had given expresly to his Wife for life and therefore by Implication she should not have any further Estate But if an express Estate had not been appointed to the Wife by the other words an Estate in Feesimple had passed CIX Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Lessor Covenanted with his Lessee That the Lessee should enjoy the Lands demised without any lawful Eviction And afterwards upon a Suit depending in Chancery by a stranger against the Lessor for the Land demised The Chancellor made a Decree against the Lessor and that the stranger should have the Land. It was moved If that Decree were a lawfull Eviction by which the Covenant was broken It was holden by the Lord Dyer That the same was not any Eviction For although that in Conscience it be aequum that the said stranger have the possession yet the same is not by reason of any right paramount the title of the Lessor which was in the party for whom it was decreed CX The Marquess of Northamptons Case Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. PArre Marquess of Northampton took to Wife the Lady Bouchier the Heir of the Earl of Essex 1 Roll. 430. who levied a Fine of the Land of the said Lady Sur Conusans de droit c. with a Grant and render to them for life the Remainder to the right Heirs of the body of the Lady And afterwards by Act of
he conceived That this Clause ex uberiori gratia did extend to pass more than passed before For he conceived That the Queen intended more liberally viz. the Reversion For this is not any matter of Prerogative but the same is a matter of Interest which might also in the Kings Case pass out of the King by general words See 3 H. 7. 6 7 Br. Patents 48. A Grant of the King ex insinuatione doth not hinder the force of the words ex mero motu And it was the Opinion of the whole Court That the Reversion which was in the King did not pass by that Grant For the whole scope of the Patent was as he conceived to grant only that which the King had then ratione attincturae Anderson conceived the Patent insufficient because the Petition was not full and certain Also he said That ex speciali gratia c. would not help this Case For the Estate tail is not recited but only that he was seised de Statu haereditario c. so the Queen was deceived c. Periam contrary The Queen was advised of the Mischief and granted such Estate with which he parted by the Fine And as to the other Point Walmesley conceived That the Fine with proclamations should bind the tail And as to the Objection which hath been made That the Conusor at the time of the Fine levied was not seised by force of the entail The same had been a good matter to have alledged to avoid a Common Recovery in the Tenant to the Praecipe but not to this purpose For if there be Tenant in tail and he levieth a Fine although he was not seised at the time of the Fine levied by force of the entail yet such a Fine shall bind the issue So if Tenant in tail discontinueth and disseiseth the Discontinuee and so levies a Fine And he conceived That the issue in tail is bound by the Statute of 4 H. 7. even of the Gift of the King. See 19 H. 8. 6 7. Where it is holden That the Issue in tail is bound by the Statute of 4 H. 7. And where it hath been Objected That it doth not extend but to such Fines which make Discontinuance at the Common Law The same is not so For if Tenant in tail of a Rent or Common levieth a Fine with proclamations it is clear that the issues shall be barred by it And he much relyed upon 29 H. 8. Dyer 32. Tenant in tail of the Gift of the King levieth a Fine or suffereth a Common Recovery although it be not a Discontinuance because that the Reversion is in the King yet it is a bar unto the Issue But Note That that was before the Statute of 34 H. 8. See Wisemans Case 27 Eliz. Cook 2 Part. And see the Lord Staffords Case 7 Jac. Cook 8 Part 78. CXV Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Man seised of Lands called Hayes 3 Cro. 674. 2 Cro. 21 22 which extended into two Towns A and B. Devised Hayes-Land in A. to his Wife for life and after to his Son and if the Son die without issue then Hayes-Land shall remain to his 3 Daughters c. The Son died without issue It was the Opinion of Anderson and Periam Iustices That all Hayes-Land should not pass by the said Devise but only that which was in A. CXVI Henry and Brode's Case Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action of Trespass the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant simul cum J. S. and another Clausum suum fregit 1 Len. 41. And Exception was taken to it because here it appeareth upon the Plaintiffs own shewing That the Trespass whereof c. was made by the Defendant and another and therefore the Writ brought against Brode only was not good But if it had been simul cum aliis ignotis personis It had been good enough But here the Plaintiff hath confessed another person trespassor with the Defendant See 2 H. 7. 15. 8 H. 5 5. 14 H. 4. 22. Yet afterwards in the principal Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXVII Barker and Taylers Case Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 3 Co. Sir George Browns Case THe Case was A Woman Tenant in tail within the Statute of 11 H. 7. accepted a Fine Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c. and by the same Fine rendred the Land to the Conusor for 1000 years It was moved If this Conveyance and Disposition was within the penalty of the Statute For the Statute speaks of Discontinuances c. And it was the clear Opinion of the Court That the same is within the Statute for by such practice the meaning of the Statute might be defeated And if such Render for a 100 years should be good by the same reason for 1000 years which is as great a mischief and as dangerous to those in Reversion as Discontinuances And by Rhodes Iustice It hath been adjudged That if a Woman who hath title of Dower if before she be endowed she will enter and levy a Fine the same is within the said Statute and yet she is not Tenant in Dower See 5 Mar. Dyer 148. Penicocks Case And 36 Eliz. Cook 5 Part. Sir George Brown's Case CXVIII Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 221. Ante 9. A By his last Will willed That his Lands should descend to his Son but willed That his Wife should take the profits thereof untill the full age of his said Son of 21 years to maintain and bring him up and died The Wife took Husband and died during the nonage of the Son It was the opinion of Wray and Southcote Iustice That the second Husband should not have the profits until c. For nothing is devised to the Wife but a Confidence and she is as a Guardian or Bailiff to aid the Enfant which by her death is determined and cannot accrue to the Husband But if the Husband had devised the profits of the Land to the Wife until the age of the Enfant for to bring up and educate Ut supra Wray said The same amounted to a devise of the Land and so a Chattel in the Wife which should accrue to the Husband CXIX Stamps Case Mich. 24 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was John Stampe being possessed of a Term for years granted the same to Thomas Stampe his Brother 12 May 20 Eliz. And afterwards 8 Octob. 21 Eliz. he himself being in possession of it Mortgaged the same to one P. who suffered him to continue his possession Thomas Stampe granted his Estate to John Stampe who mortgaged the same to one G. who suffered the said John Stampe to continue in possession until 10 December 22 Eliz. G. entred John Stampe came to the said P. and requested him that he would grant all his Estate to B. and C. to whom the said John Stampe was endebted for security of their Monies To whom the said P. said That if he would find
Bench. WIlliam Absolon Master of the Savoy and the Chaplains there brought Debt against Anderton The Case was That the said Master and Chaplains leased Lands to the Defendant for certain years and afterwards he accepted of them an Indenture of Bargain and Sale to him and his Heirs by express words of Bargain and Sale without other words And one of the Masters of the Chancery within the 6 months came unto them into their Chapter-house and before him they acknowledged the said Indenture to be their Deed and prayed that it be enrolled which was done accordingly It was moved If that acknowledgment and Enrollment were good or not or if the Master and the Chaplains ought to have appointed one by their Warrant to be their Attorny to acknowledge the said Deed And it was also moved 1 Len. 184. If there needed any Enrollment at all of it because Anderton had then an Interest in the Land for years in which case it is to be considered If the words Barganizavi Vendidi shall be of such effect as the words Dedi Concessi And it was said by the Court That a Warrant of Attorny to acknowledge a Deed were a strange thing And it was agreed That the Indenture being once Inrolled it was not material by what means it was Inrolled but was good being done CXXV Savell and Badcocks Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. SAvell brought an Action of Trespass against Badcock and declared That Edw. Savell was seised of the Mannor of D. and leased the same for years to Henry Savell who died having made the Plaintiff his Executor who entred and was possessed until the first day of January at which time the Trespass was done The Defendant pleaded Not guilty And it was given in Evidence on the Plaintiffs part That the said Ed. Savell was seised and leased to the said Henry Savell for years who so possessed reciting the said Lease Demised the said Mannor to Sir William Cordell Master of the Rolls to have to him immediately after the decease of the said Henry for so many years of the said Term which at the time of his death should be unexpired if Dorothy the Wife of the said Henry should so long live Henry died Sir William Cordell entred Dorothy died within the Term the Plaintiff the Executor of Henry entred and was possessed until the first day of Januarii 23 Eliz. at which day the Trespass was done On the Defendants part it was given in Evidence That after the Grant to Sir William Cordell the said Henry and Edward joyned in a fine Sur Conusans de droit c. to a stranger who granted and rendred the Land to the said Henry and his Heirs who devised the same to the said Dorothy his Wife for life the remainder to Cordell Savell in tail the remainder over and died Dorothy entred and died Cordell Savell 22 Eliz. conveyed the Mannor by Fine to one Williamson who entred and afterwards and before the Trespass aforesaid viz. 14 January 23 Eliz. leased to the Defendant for years by force of which the Defendant entred And upon this Evidence there was a Demurrer in Law. And it was argued by Shuttleworth who was made Serjeant the last Term. And he said That the Demise made by Henry Savell is not in the inconveniency of the maxim that Henry by the said Grant should reserve a lesser Estate to himself than he had before For here by this Grant no present interest passeth by Sir William Cordell but the effect of the Grant rests upon a Contingency scil if he himself dieth within the Term c. until which time the whole interest of the Term doth remain in the said Henry Savell subject to the Contingency aforesaid and amounts to so much as if the said Henry had granted the same to Sir William Cordell if he himself should die within the Term in which Case it is a limitation when the said Grant shall take effect As if I grant unto you my Lease for so many years as J.S. shall name the same is a good Grant to take effect upon the naming of J.S. Then the Case being so When Henry Savell the Lessee and Edward Savell the Lessor joyn in a Fine ut supra now the possibility of the remnant of the Term which upon the death of Henry Savell and Dorothy his Wife within the Term might accrue to the Executors of the said Henry Savell is not extinct by the Fine but doth remain Quodam modo in Henry Savell to vest in his Executors if it should happen And here is not any conclusion by the Fine in this Case for Henry at the time of the Fine had not in him any Interest which is now claimed and so cannot be bound by the Fine For the Interest in respect of which the Plaintiff hath cause of Action begineth after the death of Henry who levied the Fine and first accrueth to his Executors and so shall not be touched by the Fine and therefore if such a Lessee for years granteth his Term to J.S. Proviso That if J.S. dieth within the Term that he himself shall have it again and afterwards the Grantor joyns with his Lessor in a Fine and afterwards within the Term J.S. dieth now the Grantor notwithstanding the Fine shall have the residue of the Term Then when the Conusee by the Fine regrants the Land to Henry in Fee that possibility to have after the death of the Donor cannot be drowned in the Fee simple for the reason aforesaid And then when Henry deviseth the same to his Wife that possibility doth pass to Dorothy because it was never in the Devisor and then when Dorothy dieth within the Term the Residue of the said Term shall accrue to the Plaintiff as Executor of Henry Cook contrary And he held The Grant to Sir William Cordell is utterly void And he agreed That Grants although in themselves they be uncertain yet if they may be reduced to certain they are good but here is no expectance of any certainty in the life of Henry for the Term limited to Sir William Cordell is not to begin till the death of Henry and is to end upon the death of Dorothy so as here is not any certain beginning nor certain end and here this Grant cannot be reduced to any Certainty during the life of the Grantor and so for that cause is void See Plow Com. 6 Eliz. Say and Fullers Case 273. by Weston Iustice If A. makes a Lease for so many years as J.S. shall name if J.S. in the life of A. name a certain number of years then the Lease is good but if the Lease had been for so many years as my Executors shall name that can never be made good in my life And upon that reason it is That an Attornment ought to be made in the life of the Grantor or else no Reversion shall pass So 33 E. 3. Entry 79. A Bishop aliens and after his death the Dean Chapter
That the Defendant should answer over CXXXVI Hering and Badlock's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 80. IN a Replevin the Defendant avowed for Damage-feasant and shewed That the Lady Jermingham was seised of such a Mannor whereof the place where c. and leased the same to the Defendant for years The Plaintiff said That long time before King Henry 8th was seised of the said Mannor and that the place where c. is parcel of the said Mannor Demised and Demiseable by Copy c. and that the said King by such a one his Steward demised and granted the said parcel to the Ancestor of the Plaintiff whose Heir he is by Copy in Fee c. And upon that there was a Demurrer because by this Bar to the Avowry the Lease set forth in the Avowry is not answered for the Plaintiff in Bar to the Avowry ought to have concluded and so was he seised by the Custom until the Avowant praetextu of the said Term for years entred c. And so it was adjudged CXXXVII Rosse's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Ante 83. IN Trespass brought by Rosse for breaking of his Close and beating of his Servant and carrying away of his Goods Vpon Not guilty pleaded the Iury found this special matter scil That Sir Thomas Bromley Chancellor of England was seised of the Land where c. and leased the same to the Plaintiff and one A. which A. assigned his moyety to Cavendish by whose Commandment the Defendant entred It was moved That that Tenancy in Common betwixt the Plaintiff and him in whose right the Defendant justifies could not be given in Evidence and so it could not be found by Verdict but it ought to have been pleaded at the beginning But the whole Court were clear of another Opinion and that the same might be given in Evidence well enough It was further moved against the Verdict That the same did not extend to all the points in the Declaration but only to the breaking of the Close without enquiry of the battery c. And for that cause it was clearly holden by the Court That the Verdict was void And a Venire facias de novo was awarded CXXXVIII Gurney and Saers Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Ejectione firmae was brought by Gurney against Saer who pleaded That Verney was seised and leased the same to Baker for 21 years 8 Eliz. Baker 14 Eliz. assigned his Interest to Rolls who 15 Eliz. leased the same to Topp for 10 years and afterwards Rolls granted the residue of his Term to A. Verney 16 Eliz. leased the same Land to Stephen Gurney for 21 years to begin after the determination surrender or forfeiture of the first Lease rendring Rent with Clause of Re-entry And afterwards Verney granted over the Reversion in Fee to Hampden To which Grant A. and Topp attorned Topp leased to B. at Will A. and Topp surrendred B. held himself in by force of the Tenancy at Will And the said Surrender was made privily and secretly without the notice of the said Stephen Gurney The Rent reserved upon the Lease made to Stephen Gurney is demanded as now begun by the said Surrender Hampden entred as for the Condition broken for the non-payment of the said Rent And the Lease made to the said Stephen Gurney was pleaded Quod praedictus Johannes Verney per Indenturam suam sigillo ipsius Stephani Gurney sigillat demisit c. And that was holden a material Exception For here upon the matter doth not appear any Lease made by Verney For here upon the pleading it appeareth That Verney had accepted a Deed of Gurney purporting a Demise by Verney to Gurney which Gurney had sealed but there did not appear any such Deed sealed by Verney and therefore no Lease ut supra And although a Condition may be pleaded by Indenture sealed with the seal of the other party yet a Conveyance cannot be pleaded by Deed as it is here unless sealed with the seal of the party Agent scil the Feoffor Grantor Lessor And for that cause Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Another Exception was taken because that after the Grant of the Reversion by Verney to Hampden the surrender of A. and Topp is pleaded whereas A. ought not to surrender for his Estate was not a Reversion for years but a Lease in Reversion and a Lease for years to begin at a day to come which could not be surrendred See 4 H. 7. 10. But if A. had granted his Interest by way of Reversion where Attornment had been as one Releaseth to him the Reversion for years it is good contrary to him who hath a Lease in Reversion But as to that it was said by the Court That this surrender by A. was good enough for in as much as the Interest which A. had at the time of the surrender was in Rolls a Reversion after his Grant to Topp and there it remained and continued in its nature as to that point notwithstanding that by the Grant it passed in another manner than as a Reversion Another Exception was taken because that in the pleading of the Surrender it is not alledged That at the time of the Surrender Hampden was seised of the Reversion 7 E. 3. 3. He who claims by Cestuy que use ought to alledge the Seisin and Continuance of Seisin to the said use at the time of the Feoffment or Grant notwithstanding that Seisin was alledged before And 10 H. 7. 28. Hewbade's Avowry he there pleaded That A. was seised of a Mannor and thereof levied a Fine to B. that C. the Tenant upon whom the Avowry was made attorned c. And Exception taken because it is not shewed in the Avowry That B. the Conusee was seised of the Mannor at the time of the Attornment And it was holden a good Exception On the other side it was said and affirmed by the Court That in all Cases where an Inheritance is once alledged in a Man the Law shall presume the Continuance of it there until the contrary be shewed See 1 Eliz. the Case between Wrotesley and Adams Plow Com. 193. And 15 Eliz. between Smith and Stapleton Plow 431. Which Wray and Gawdy Iustices granted Ayliff Iustice to the contrary Another point was moved If upon this secret Surrender notice ought to have been given to Gurney who had an Interest for years to begin upon the said Surrender For some conceived That Gurney without notice given him of the said Surrender should not be prejudiced by the Condition aforesaid And of that Opinion clearly was Wray Chief Iustice Note In this Case That Saer the Defendant presently after the Iudgment entred cast in a Writ of Error into the Court and assigned an Error in fact scil That Gurney the Plaintiff in the first Action within age appeared by Attorny whereas he ought by Gardein or Prochein Amy. And it was the Opinion of the Iustices upon the first Motion
That that matter could not be assigned for Error for it is not within the Record and we cannot reverse our own Iudgment but only for matter of Process See for that Fitzh Na. Br. 21. f. CXXXIX Partridge and Pooles Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. TRespass of Battery was brought by Partridge against Poole 2 Len. 79. 1 Cro. 842. and supposed the Battery at D. in the County of Middlesex The Defendant justified by reason of an Assault at S. in the County of Gloucester absque hoc that he beat the Plaintiff at D. in the County of Middlesex Vpon which traverse the Plaintiff did demur in Law. It was argued by Popham the Queens Attorny General That the traverse of the County is good And he put the Case of 21 H. 6. 8 9. In Trespass of Battery at D. in the County of York the Defendant justified by an Assault at London in such a place in such a Parish c. absque hoc that he was guilty de aliqua transgressione in Comitatu Eborum Vpon which issued a Venire facias into Yorkshire and as the Book is This traverse as to the County was taken with great deliberation See also 22 E. 4. 39. And this traverse de jure ought to be allowed For the Iury in Middlesex are not bound to find the Assault in the County of Gloucester See 2 Mar. Br. Jurours 50. In Actions upon transitory matters although they be layed in Forreign Counties yet the Iurors if they will may thereof give their Verdict but they are not bound to do it Egerton Sollicitor General to the contrary And he put a difference where the justification is local and where transitory As in False Imprisonment the Defendant justifies as Sheriff the taking of the Plaintiff by force of a Capias directed to him at D. within his County of G. Where the Plaintiff declareth of an Imprisonment in another County there the traverse of the County is good for the Defendant cannot take the Plaintiff by force of the said Process in any other County than where he is Sheriff and so the Iustification is local 11 H. 4. 157. But in our Case the matter of the Iustification is meerly transitory And at last after many Motions It was adjudged for the Plaintiff Gawdy Iustice being of a contrary Opinion And by Wray Chief Iustice clearly The Iurors upon pain of Attaint are to take notice of such a transitory thing done in another County See 2 Mar. Br. Attaint 104. 9 H. 6. 63. CXL Gerrard's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 168. 4 Len. 7. GErrard Master of the Rolls presented Chatterton Bishop of Chester to the Church of Bangor to which Church also one Chambers presented his Clerk by which several Presentments the same Church became Litigious The Archbishop of York being Ordinary of the place awarded Jure Patronatus c. depending which the Archbishop admitted the said Bishop upon which the said Chambers Libelled in the Spiritual Court against the said Bishop For that the said Archbishop praedicto Episcopo plus aequo fidens admisit dictum Episcopum pendente the Jure Patronatus in which Case by the Law of the Church the Admittance is void For pendente Lite nihil movetur And now came the said Bishop and upon this matter prayed a Prohibition and he had it because that the right of the Patronage came in debate After which came the said Chambers and prayed a Consultation because he medled not with the right of Patronage but only with the wrongful admittance To whom it was said by the Court That the awarding of the Jure Patronatus is not a thing of necessity but at the Will of the Ordinary and for his better Instruction But if he will at his peril take notice of the right of the Patronage he may receive which of them he will without a Jure Patronatus awarded And it may be in this Case That after the Jure Patronatus awarded and before any Verdict given upon it the Archbishop was satisfied of the right of the now Plaintiff in the Prohibition to the Patronage and thereupon admitted the Clerk And by the clear Opinion of the Court the Consultation was denyed CXLI Rampston and Bowmer's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That whereas the Plaintiff occupied a Brew-House And whereas one Gilbert Bowmer was the Beer-Clark of it and had the government and disposition of the Beer brewed there by reason whereof he became indebted to the Plaintiff in such a sum For which the Plaintiff procured the said Gilbert to be Arrested and put into the Prison of the Marshalsey And whereas the said Gilbert in dicta prisona existente the Defendant tunc ibidem in Consideration that the said Plaintiff would let the said Gilbert out of Prison Promised That if the said Gilbert should not accompt with the Plaintiff and pay him all the Arrearages which upon such Accompt should be found before such a day That then the Defendant would pay it Vpon which the said Gilbert was dismissed ad largum And further declared That no Accompt had been made by Gilbert or any other satisfaction And upon Non Assumsipt the Iury found That the said Gilbert so endebted to the Plaintiff was arrested at the Suit of the Plaintiff and that after the Defendant came unto the Baily of the Marshal who arrested the said Gilbert and took upon him to the said Baily That the said Gilbert should be at the next Court holden for the said Marshalsey by force and reason of which promise the Baily suffered the said Gilbert to go at large to his House c. and that after and before such Court the Defendant promised the Plaintiff modo forma as the Plaintiff had surmised in his Declaration And upon that Verdict the Plaintiff could not have Iudgment For here the Consideration layed in the Declaration is not found by the Verdict For Gilbert was discharged of the Imprisonment before the promise of the Defendant to the Plaintiff And the Declaration is That in Consideration quod dictus Gilbertus ad largum dimitteretur c. And Iudgment was given Quod Querens Nihil Capiat per Billam CXLII Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. ONe recovered certain Copyhold Lands in the Court of the Lord of the Mannor by plaint in the nature of a Writ of Right It was moved in the Common Pleas If a Precept might be made and awarded out of that Court for to execute the said Recovery and to put him in possession who recovered with the Posse Manerii as in such Cases at the Common Law with the Posse Comitatus But it was clearly Resolved It could not be done For force in such cases is not justifiable but by Command out of the Kings Courts CXLIII Iplett and Williams's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. I Plett brought an Action upon the Case against
to all Quietness seeking all means to disquiet his Neighbors and hath used himself as a Lawless person and having Process to serve upon one in the Parish viz. the Parson did keep the Process and would not serve it but on the Sabbath day in the time of Divine Service not having regard to her Majesties Laws or the Quiet of his Neighbours Vpon which Bill the Iustices to whom it was exhibited awarded Process against the Plaintiff to find Sureties for his good behaviour It was the Opinion of the Iustices That upon this matter an Action would not lie CLXXVII Mason's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. MAson Leased certain Lands to one R. for years and afterwards leased the same Lands to one Tinter for years Tinter Covenanted with the Defendant That if the said R. should sue the said Mason by reason of the later Lease that then he would discharge or keep harmless without damage the said Mason and also would pay to him all the Charges which he should sustain by reason of any suit to be brought against the said R. in respect of the said former Lease And Mason by the same Indenture Covenanted with Tinter That the said Land demised should continue to the said Tinter discharged of former Charges Bargains and Incumbrances And now upon the second Covenant Tinter brought an Action of Covenant and shewed That the said R. had sued him in an Action of Ejectione Firme upon the said first Lease and had recovered against him c. And Mason pleaded in Bar the said second Covenant intending that by that later Covenant the Plaintiff had notice of the said former Lease made unto R. so as the first Lease shall be excepted out of the Covenants of former Grants for otherwise there should be circuity of Action But the Opinion of the whole Court was to the contrary For the Covenant of Mason shall go to the discharge of the Land but the Covenant of Tinter only to the possession CLXXVIII Knight and Beeches Case Pasch 27 Eliz. Rott 1127. In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 173. Coke 5. Rep. 55. 1 Len. 12. 2 Len. 134. WIlliam Knight brought Ejectione Firme against William Beech. The Case was That the Prior of St. Johns of Jerusalem 29. H. 8. with the assent of his Covent leased by Indenture divers Houses in Clarken-well in the County of Middlesex for fifty years to one Cordel rendring Rent 5 l. 10 s. and 11 d. at four Feasts of the year usual in the City of London viz. for such a Messuage called The High-House 14 s. for another House 3 s. 11 d. for another House xx s. c. Et si contingat dictum annualem redditum 5 l. 10 s. 11 d. a retro fore in parte vel in toto ultra aut post aliquem terminum solutionis in quo solvi deberet per spatium trium mensium c. quod tunc ad omnia tempora deinceps ad libitum c. liceret dicto Priori Successoribus suis omni tali personae personis quam vel quas dictus Prior Successores sui nominarent appunctuarent sine scripto in omnia dicta tenementa totaliter re-entrare c. And afterwards 32 H. 8. the said Hospital of St. Johns was dissolved and the possessions of it granted to the said King and afterwards the said King 36 H. 8. gave the said House upon which the said Rent of 20 s. was reserved to one Audley c. in Fee And afterwards the now Queen being seised of the residue a Commission issued out of the Exchequer bearing Date 8 Maii 23 Eliz. Ad inquirendum Utrum the Defendant to whom the Interest of the said term did appertain perimple visset performasset omnes Provisiones fact reservat in super praedict Indenturam necne Office was found before the Grant and after 25 August following the said Queen by her Letters Patents gave the said House called The High-House to Fortescue the Lessor of the Plaintiff and afterwards Tres Mich. the Commission was retorned by which it was found all as aforesaid Et quod Termini Festi Solutionis in London are Michaelmas Christmas Annunciation and Mid-summer and that at the Feast of Michaelmas such Rent was behind for the space of three Months c. It was argued in this Case by Gawdy Serjeant on the part of the Plaintiff That here are several Rents for the entire Sum by the viz. is distributed into several Portions which make several Rents and to that purpose he cited Winter's Case 14 Eliz. Dyer 308. A Lease for years is made of the Mannors of A.B. and C. rendring for the Mannor of A. xx s. and for the Mannor of B. x s. and for the Mannor of D. x s. with a Condition for the Non-payment of the said Rents or any of them or any part or parcel of them within one Month c. then a Re-entry Here are several Rents And he conceived That a Condition in the Case of the King might be apportioned For a Rent-charge and a Condition are in the King in better Condition than in a Subject for the thing may distrain for a Rent-charge in all the Lands of him who is seised of the Land out of which such a Rent is issuing and if a Rent-seck be due to the King he may distrain for the same and the King shall never demand his Rent which he hath reserved with Clause of Re-entry and it appeareth in the Register That if before the Statute of Westm 3. the King purchaseth parcel of the Land holden of him the Rent shall be apportioned which was not in the Case of a Common person and there are in the Exchequer divers Presidents to that effect scil If A. be bounden in a Recognizance to B. and afterwards enfeoffeth the King of part of his Land and C. of the other part If B. be afterwards attainted of Treason so as the said Recognizance accrueth to the King that now notwithstanding that he hath part of the Land lyable to the Recognizance he shall have Execution of the residue And see F. N. B. 266. If after the Recognizance acknowledged the Conusor enfeoffeth of certain parcels of his Lands several persons and of the Residue enfeoffeth the King that Land which is assured to the King is discharged of the Execution but the residue shall be charged So that the possession of the King doth alter the Nature of the Rent Condition and Execution Fenner Serjant Contrary And he said That this Grant before Office retorned was not good for without Office the King cannot enter multo minus his Patentee and that the King by the Grant hath interrupted the Relation of the Office As if a Man by Indenture bargaineth and selleth his Lands and afterwards makes Livery to the Bargainee and afterwards the Deed is enrolled Now the party shall not be said to be in by the Bargain and Sale but by the Livery for the Livery hath interrupted the
force of the first assurance by way of Bargain and the Relation is utterly gone So in our Case The Grant of the Queen mean between the Award of the Commission and the Retorn of it hath destroyed the force and effect of the Commission so as no appearance shall be had of it And he agreed That here are several Rents but the Condition is entire and admit that a Condition may be apportioned in some Cases yet in some Cases it cannot And the Statute of 32 H. 8. gives the Condition and the Reversion to which it is annexed to the King in such sort as it was in the Prior But the Condition in the Prior was not capable of Apportionment and therefore no more it shall be in the Case of the King. As where a Recognizance is acknowledged whicâ— cometh to the King by the Attainder of the Conusee Now if the King will sue Execution upon it he shall not have the whole Land of the Conusor in Execution but only the moyety by Elegit c. This Case afterward Trin. 28 Eliz. for Difficulty was adjourned into the Exchequer-Chamber and there argued before all the Iustices and Barons of the Exchequer And Shuttleworth Serjant argued for the Plaintiff And first he said Here are several Rents and so several Conditions especially when all the things demised are of such a Nature that they may yield a Distress but if any of the things demised cannot yield Distress then it shall be one entire Rent and shall issue out of the Residue c. Which see 17 Ass 10. An Assise was brought of 20 s. Rent and the said Rent was reserved upon a Lease for life made of 100 Acres of Lands and 15 Acres of Wood scil for the Land 10 s. and for the Woods 10 s. And by the Assise it was found the Disseisin in the Wood but not in the Land. Wherefore it was awarded That the Plaintiff should recover seisin of the 10 s. and for the residue that he should take nothing And although these words reddendo inde Trench unto all the things demised entirely yet this word viz. is a distributive and makes an Apportionment And the viz. is not contrary to the premisses scil to the reddendo inde As if I enfeoffe A. and B. of an Acre of Land Habendum the one moyety thereof to A. in Fee and the other moyety to B. in Fee this is good for it well stands with the premisses But if I enfeoffe A. and B. of two Acres of Lands Habendum the one Acre to A. and the other to B. the same Habendum is void because contrary to the premisses for each of them is excluded out of one Acre which was given to him in the premisses And in our Case If the Rent set forth in the Viz. had been greater or less than that which is reserved upon the Reddendo then the Viz. should be void for the contrariety and the Reddendo stand Walmesley contrary And that here is one entire Rent Which see to be so by the close of the Condition Si Redditus praedict ' aut aliqua inde parcella c. And the Lessor may distrain in any part of the Land demised for the whole Rent notwithstanding the Viz. And it was moved by Shuttleworth That admit the Rent and Condition be entire Yet now when the King grants the Reversion of one of the things demised in Fee to a stranger the Condition remains and not determined by the destruction of the Reversion as in the case of a Subject For the King hath divers Prerogatives by which he is exempted and protected from such Mischiefs and Inconveniences which happen to Subjects by their own Acts and their Laches and Folly which shall not be imputed to the King And the reason of Extinguishment of a Condition in such case in the case of a Common person is his own Folly that he will distrahere his Reversion And Folly shall never be imputed to the King And as the Case is here the King is not bound to take notice of a Condition made by a Common â—erson For it is not matter of Record and by this Grant of the King the Rent doth not pass for the Grant is only of the Reversion without any mention of the Rent And the King hath divers Prerogatives in a Condition As in the creating of a Condition 35 H. 6. 38. The Abbot of Sion's Case Ad effectum is a good Condition in the Case of the King by Prison And where the King grants Lands in Fee to one upon Condition That the Grantee shall not alien the same is a good condition So for a Rent-Seck the King may distrain And the King may reserve a Rent and a Condition to a stranger and if he doth reserve a Rent and a Condition to himself he may grant the same over to a Subject 2 H. 7. 8. And the Condition in the case of a Common person may be apportioned As if Lessee of two Acres upon Condition alien one of them in Fee and the Lessor entreth for the forfeiture or recovereth part in an Action of Waste c. but of a surrender it is otherwise Walmesley contrary The Condition is gone For a Condition in the hands of the King is of the same Nature as in the case of a common person impatient of any Division Partition or Apportionment As if the King hath a Rent out of 3 Acres of Land and afterwards purchaseth one of them the Rent is utterly gone and shall not be apportioned as well as in the Case of a common person So of a Common And as this Case is If the Condition doth remain then upon the breach of it the King shall enter into the whole for the words of the Condition are Wholly to re-enter and so he should defeat his own grant And he cited a Case adjudged at the Assizes at York The King gave Land in Fee-Farm rendring Rent with Clause of re-entry The King granteth the Rent over to a stranger And after the Rent is behind The King cannot re-enter nor the Grantee It was also moved If the Iurors of Middlesex might enquire of the usual Feast days in London Shuttleworth That they might do so See 5 H. 5. 23. Where a Commission issued out to enquire in the County of Surrey of Escheats words c. who found that A. held of the King in Chief and took to Wife one E. Cosen of A. within the Degrees they then knowing of it and had Issue betwixt them and afterwards they were Divorced in the County of Kent c. And Exception was taken to that Office Because the Enquest of Surry had found a Divorce in the County of Kent Another matter was Because the Iurors have found the breach of the Condition And before the Iurors had put their Hands and Seals to the Inquisition the Queen granted part of the things demised in his hands to Fortescue After which Grant the Inquisition was sealed and Retorned into the Exchequer If
now the Grant to Fortescue be good or not Vide inde Dyer 2 Eliz. 17. Vpon a Writ of Mandamus The Escheator charged the Enquest who were agreed of their Verdict and delivered the same in Paper to the Escheator And before the engrossing sealing and delivery of it came a Supersedeas And it was Resolved by all the Iustices That before the engrossing indenting and sealing it was no Verdict See this Case Reported in Cook 5. Part 54. CLXXIX Nelson's Case Pasch 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass brought by Nelson chief Preignothory of the Court of Common Pleas the Case was That the Abbot of D. was seised of a Common out of the Lands of the Abby of S. as appendant unto certain Lands of the said Abby of D. And afterwards the said Houses were dissolved and the possessions of them given to the King by Act of Parliament to have and hold in as large and ample manner and form as the late Abbots c. After which the King so being seised granted the said possessions of the said Abby of D. to A. and the possessions of the said Abby of S. to B. It was argued That the Common notwithstanding the unity of possession did continue For unity of possession is so qualified and restrained by the Statute by the words aforesaid and also by the words in the state and condition as they now be And the Abbot of D. was seised in the right of his House of the said Common Therefore so also shall be the King and his Patentees and so a special seisin is given to the King. Rhodes Windham and Anderson Iustices to the contrary And the said words in the said Statute are to be construed according to the Law and no further And by the Law the said Common cannot stand against the Vnity of possession CLXXX Leonard's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 192. 2 Roll. 787. LEonard Custos Brevium brought an Action of Trespass for breaking of his Close The Defendant pleaded That William Heydon was seised and enfeoffed him And upon Ne enfeffa pas they were at Issue And it was found by Special Verdict That the said William Heydon was seised and leased to the Defendant for years and afterwards made a Charter of Feoffment to him by these words Dedi Concessi with a Warrant of Attorny in it and delivered the same to the said Lessee who delivered the same to him who was made Attorny in the said Deed who made Livery accordingly It was moved by the Plaintiff's Counsel That here is not any Feoffment found but only a Confirmation For as soon as the Charter was delivered to the Lessee for years the Law gave it its operation to that effect to vest the Fee in the Lessee by way of Confirmation See Litt. 532. But the Opinion of the whole Court was clear to the contrary for here the Lessee hath liberty how and by what Conveyance he shall be adjudged seised of the Land either by Feoffment or by Confirmation And it appeareth here That when the Lessee delivered the Charter to the Attorny And also when the Lessee accepted Livery from the Attorny he declared his meaning to be That he would take by the Livery And the Lord Anderson said That if Tenant in tail be disseised and makes a Charter-Feoffment with a Warranty of Attorny and delivers the same to the Disseisor who delivers the same to the Attorny who makes Livery accordingly the same is a good Feoffment and so a Discontinuance And after many Motions the Court awarded That the Plaintiff should be barred CLXXXI Palmer and Waddington's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. RIchard Palmer brought an Action upon the Case against Anthony Waddington And Declared That Henry Waddington Brother of the Defendant was endebted to the said Plaintiff in 20 l. Et jacens in extremis mortem indies expectans vocavit ad se dict Anthonium quem executorem Testamenti ultimae voluntatis Constituisset eum rogans ut dictas 20 Libras praefato Richardo infra spacium duorum Mensium mortem suam proxime sequend numeraret solveret Et dictus Anthonius in Consideratione inde super se assumpsit c. And all the matter aforesaid was found by Verdict upon Non Assumpsit pleaded And it was the Opinion of the whole Court That the Declaration was insufficient because there is not any good Consideration set forth in it for it is not said That in Consideration that the said Henry made the Defendant his Executor c. CLXXXII Stransham and Collington's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Plaintiff sued in the Spiritual Court for Tythes against the Defendant within the Parish of C. The Defendant said 1 Cro. 128. That the Tythes are within the Parish of A. and the Parson of A. came in pro interesse suo and thereupon they proceeded to sentence and that was given against Stransham who now sued a Prohibition And the Question was If within such a Parish or such a Parish be tryable by the Law of the Land or by the Law of the Church Wray Chief Iustice said It hath been taken That it is tryable by our Law. Fenner The Pope hath not distinguished Parishes but hath Ordained That Tythes shall be paid within the Parish CLXXXIII Higham's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 226. More Rep. 221. 1 Cro. 15. IT was found by Special Verdict That Thomas Higham was seised of 100 Acres of Lands called Jacks usually occupied with a House And that he Leased the said House and 40 Acres of the said 100 Acres to J.S. for life and made his Will by which he devised the said House and all his Lands called Jacks then in the Occupation of J.S. to his Wife for life and that after the decease of his Wife the Remainder thereof and of all his other Lands appertaining to Jacks to Richard his second Son c. It was said by Meade That the Wife should not have by Implication the Residue of Jacks for that she hath an express estate in the House and 40 Acres of the Land and her Husband having expressed his Will as to that his Will shall not be construed by Implication to pass other Lands to the Wife And it was said by him That it had been adjudged in the Case between Tracy and Glover That if Lands be devised to one and to his Heirs and if he dieth without Heir of his body 1 Roll. 839. that then the Land shall remain over that in such case the Donee hath but an Estate in tail to him and the Heirs males of his body And it was then also said by Anderson Chief Iustice That in the time of Sir Anthony Brown it was holden That if a Man be seised of two Acres of Land and devised one of them to his Wife for life and that J.S. shall have the other Acre after the death of his Wife that the Wife
for the variance is in a thing which is matter of surplusage and so much the rather because the said A. had not another House in D. c. CLXXXVI Lucas and Picroft's Case Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was That an Assise of Novel Disseisin was brought in the County of Northampton of two Acres of Lands 2 Len. 41. and as to one Acre the Tenant pleaded a plea tryable in a Forreign County Vpon which the Assise was adjourned into the Common Pleas and from thence into the forreign County Where by Nisi prius It was found for the Plaintiff and now in the Common Pleas Snag Serjeant prayed Iudgment for the Plaintiff and cited the Book 16 H. 7. 12. Where an Assise is adjourned into the Common Pleas for difficulty of the Verdict they there may give Iudgment But all the Court held the contrary For here is another Acre of which the Title is yet to be tryed before the Iustices of Assise before the tryal of which no Iudgment shall be given for the Acre of which the Title is found And the Assise is properly depending before the Iustices of Assise before whom the Plaintiff may discontinue his Assise And it is not like to the Cases of 6 E. 4. and 8 Ass 15. Where in an Assise a Release was pleaded dated in a forreign County which was denyed Wherefore the Assise was adjourned into the Common Pleas and there found by Enquest not the Deed of the Plaintiff's Now if the Plaintiff will release his Damages he shall have Iudgment of the Freehold presently But in our Case parcel of the Land put in View remains not tryed which the Plaintiff cannot release as he may his Damages 2 Len. 199. and therefore the Court remanded the Verdict to the Iustices of Assise CLXXXVII Hare and Mellers Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Post 163. HUgh Hare of the Inner-Temple brought an Action upon the Case against Phillip Mellers and declared That the Defendant had exhibited unto the Queen a slanderous Bill against the Plaintiff charging the said Hugh to have recovered against the Defendant 400 l. by Forgery Perjury and Cosening And also that he had published the matter of the said Bill at Westm c. In this Case it was said by the Court That the exhibiting of the Bill to the Queen is not in it self any Cause of Action For the Queen is the Head and Fountain of Iustice and therefore it is lawful for all her Subjects to resort unto her ad faciendam Querimoniam But if a subject after the Bill once exhibited will divulge the matter therein comprehended to the disgrace and discredit of the person intended the same is good cause of Action And that was the Case of Sir John Conway who upon such matter recovered And as to the words themselves It was the Opinion of the Court That they are not actionable For it is not expresly shewed That the Plaintiff hath used perjury forgery c. And it may be that the Attorny or Sollicitor in the Cause hath used such indirect means not known to the Plaintiff And in such case it is true That the Plaintiff hath recovered by forgery c. and yet without reproach And by perjury he cannot recover for he cannot be sworn in his own Cause It was adjudged against the Plaintiff CLXXXVIII Moore and the Bishop of Norwich's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit by Moor against the Bishop of Norwich c. It was found for the Plaintiff and thereupon issued forth a Writ to the Bishop which was not retorned Vpon which an Alias issued forth Vpon which the Bishop retorned That after Iudgment given in the Quare Impedit the same Incumbent against whom the Action was brought was Presented Instituted and Inducted into the same Church and so the Church is full c. And if that was a good retorn It was oftentimes debated Windham cited the Case L. 5 E. 4. 115 116. A Quare Impedit against Parson Patron and Ordinary and pendant the Writ the Parson resigned and the Ordinary gave notice of it to the Patron and afterwards by Lapse the Ordinary presented the same Incumbent who resigned And afterwards the Plaintiff in the Quare Impedit had Iudgment to recovers And it was holden Because the same Incumbent is now in by a new title scil by Lapse and the same person against whom the recovery was had and that appeared to the Court he should be removed See 9 Eliz. Dyer 260. and 21 Eliz. Dyer 364. And it was said by the Lord Anderson What person soever is presented and admitted after the Action brought unless it be that the title of the Patron be paramount the title of the Plaintiff upon such Recovery he shall be removed And so in the principal case It was adjudged That the Retorn of the Bishop was not good Wherefore he was fined 10 l. and a Sicut alias awarded upon pain of 100 l. CLXXXIX Parret and Doctor Matthews Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Praemunire was brought and prosecuted by the Queens Attorny General and Parret 1 Len. 292. against Doctor Matthews Dean of Christ-Church in Oxford and others for that they procured the said Parret to be sued in the City of Oxford before the Commissary there in an Action of Trespass by Libel according to the Ecclesiastical Law In which Suit Parret pleaded his Freehold and so to the Iurisdiction of the Court and yet they proceeded there and Parret was Condemned and Imprisoned And afterward the said Suit depending the Queens Attorny withdrew his Suit for the Queen It was now moved to the Court If notwithstanding that the party Informer might proceed in his suit there See 7 E. 4. 2. the King shall have Praemunire and the party grieved his Action See Br. Praemunire 13. for by Brook None can have Praemunire but the King. Cook There is a President in the Book of Entries 427. In a Praemunire the words are Ad respondendum tam Domino Regi quam R F. and that upon the Statute of 16 R. 2. And see ibid. 429. tam Domino Regi de Contemptu praedict quam dicto A.B. de Damnis But it was holden by the whole Court That if the Queens Attorny will not ulterius prosequi the party grieved cannot maintain that Suit For the principal matter in the Praemunire is the Conviction and the putting of the party out of the Kings protection and the damages are but accessary and then the Principal being Released the damages are gone And it was also holden That the Presidents in the Book of Entries are not to be regarded For there is not any Iudgment upon any of the pleadings there CXC Archeboll and Borrell's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ARcheboll brought an Action upon the Case against Borrell and declared That the Defendant had procured one L. to bring an Appeal of the death of J.S. against
no case where the party useth but the means of the Law by the Kings Writ without any Corruption or Covin of the party he shall be amerced only pro falso clamore and no Action lieth against him because he hath not used but the means of the Law. Which see 2 R. 3. 9. by all the Iustices But yet in an Appeal because it toucheth the life of a Man the Defendant shall have his damages against the Plaintiff but not in any other Action which is a vexation by suit if no Corporation or Covin be in the party who prosecutes such suit See such matter justifiable in Conspiracy 35 H. 6. 13 14. Afterwards the principal Case was adjourned CXCI. Parker and Howard's Case Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 102. 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 exercise the said Office and take the profits of it wholly to his own use during his life without let or interruption done by him That then c. The Defendant pleaded That the Custom 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 And further shewed 1 Len. 103. That the Lord Clynton Lord Admiral granted the said Office to 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 put him out and interrupted him before which time the Defendant suffered the Plaintiff to enjoy the said Office and to take the profits of it Vpon which the Plaintiff demurred in Law. Cook argued for the Plaintiff That the Defendant's Plea was not good for he hath not entituled the Lord Admiral to grant the Office For he saith That the Custom of the Realm of England is which he hath pleaded in such manner as no Issue can be taken upon it for it is pleaded Quod usitatum est quod Admirals pro tempore existens Non potest Concedere Officium praedict nisi pro termino vitae suae and that cannot be for it cannot be tryed for the Venire facias cannot be Of the Realm of England Also if it be Through the whole Realm of England then the same is the Common Law and not Consuetudo Which see Br. Custom 39. And see 4 5 Mar. Dyer 152 153. An express case of this Office And there he prescribes in Consuetudine in Anglia c. And also that such Grant is good but during the life of the Admiral who granted it Also he doth not answer to any time of the Grant of the Admiral Howard For if he were lawfully put out by Wade yet the Defendant against his own Obligation cannot put us out or interrupt us As L. 5 E. 4. 115. In a Quare Impedit against an Abbot and the Incumbent who make default upon the distress upon which a Writ to the Bishop was awarded for the Plaintiff Vpon which the Bishop retorned That the Incumbent resigned of which the Bishop gave notice And afterwards Lapse encurred and the Bishop collated the said former Incumbent and then that Writ came to him Now although the Incumbent be in by a new title yet he is bound by the Iudgment So here although the Defendant had another title and the former title of the Plaintiff be determined yet against his own Deed and Obligation he shall not put out the Plaintiff And the Court was clear That the Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff But afterwards the Cause was Compounded by the Order of the Lord Chancellor CXCII Mannings Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was agreed by the Iustices in this Case That where an Enfant Executor sold the Goods of his Testator at less undervalue than they were worth And afterwards brought an Action of Detinue against the Vendee upon it in retardatione executionis Testamenti That this sale of the Enfant Executor was good and should bind him notwithstanding his Nonage CXCIII Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A Man made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his eldest Son in tail and afterwards to the use of his right Heirs not having at the time of the Feoffment any Son Afterwards he suffered a Common Recovery had Issue a Son who died in the life of his Father having Issue a Son and afterwards he himself dieth It was holden in this Case That the Son and Heir of the Son should not avoid this Recovery by the Statute of 32 H. 8. For there was not any remainder in him at the time of the Recovery had but the remainder then was in abeyance for then the Son was not born And the words of the said Statute are That such Recovery shall be void against such person to whom the Reversion or Remainder shall then appertain i. e. at the time of the Recovery And it was said That if Lands be given to E. for life the Remainder to B. in tail the Remainder to C. in fee B. dieth his Wife with Child with a Son A Recovery is had against E. with the assent of C. and afterwards the Son is born he shall not be helped by this Statute for that the Remainder was not in esse at the time of the Recovery But it was holden in the principal Case That the Heir might avoid this Recovery by the Common Law For the Recompence could not extend to such a Remainder which was not in esse CXCIV The Countess of Sussex and Wroth's Case Hill. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT was moved in this Case by Gawdy Serjeant If the Disseisee Licence J.S. to put his Cattle into the Land whereof he was disseised If it were a good Licence And If by the Execution of the said Licence the Freehold should be revested in the Disseisee so as if the Disseisor distrain the Cattel of J.S. for Damage-feasant and in a Replevin avow the Plaintiff may plead That the Freehold was in the Disseisee who so Licensed him Periam Iustice The Licence is void For at the time of the grant of it the Disseisee had but a Right before he had recontinued the Land by re-entry Windham If the Disseisee make a Lease for years of the Land whereof he is Disseised it is a void Lease Anderson If the Disseisee command one to enter into the Land and he doth accordingly the same is good The Case was adjourned CXCV. Payn 's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Exchequer 2 Len. 205. A Writ of Error was brought by Payn Treasurer of the Records in the Kings-Bench in the Exchequer-Chamber upon a Iudgment given in the Court of the Exchequer for the Queen upon an Assignment of a
the 18th day Cook The Iudgment for the Queen upon an Information of Intrusion is Quod defendens de Intrusione transgressione Contemptu praedict convincatur c. And afterwards a Commission shall issue forth for to enquire of the Mean profits and there the Defendant may shew this matter in taking of the damages And if the Intrusion be at any time in the Information it is sufficient enough to have Iudgment upon it and in our Case the Continuance is laid 18 May. Egerton Sollicitor The Record warrants the Iudgment given upon it For possession laid in the Queen is sufficient to this Information And here Payn doth not answer the Queens title but traverseth the Intrusion And therefore he being found Intrudor by Verdict Iudgment ought to be given upon it For the Iury have found the Intrusion generally and specially 17 May. And that cannot be assigned for Error for it is part of the Verdict of which Error doth not lie but Attaint For if any Error was it was in the Iury and not in the Court. Which Manwood Concessit Tanfield As to the Case of Continuance of an Intrusion it is clear That every continuance ought to have a beginning for a thing which hath no beginning cannot be continued and here is not any beginning for the beginning which is laid in the Information is pretended to be 17 May and that cannot be causa qua supra Popham If an Information be brought of an Intrusion where in truth there is not any Record to prove it and the Iury find the Intrusion shall you have a Writ of Error upon it And every continuance of Intrusion is an Intrusion This Matter had been good Evidence to the Iury. Sed non habet locum hic c. CXCVI. Sir John Southwell's Case Hill. 28 Eliz. In the Exchequer SIr John Southwel of the County of Lanc. 7 July 2 Len. 132. 19 Eliz. made a Conveyance of all his Land 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 Vpon which Statute the said Southwel was now Indicted And afterwards a Commission issued out of the Exchequer to the Sheriff of Lancast to enquire of the Lands of the saith Southwel And although against the said Conveyance it was given in Evidence That after that Conveyance the said Sir John Southwel had granted Trees out of the said Lands and had taken Fines and Incomes for Leases c. Yet the Iurors charged to enquire would not find That the said Sir John had any Lands c. And by special Commandment of the Queen it was referred out of the Exchequer to all the Iustices of England If the Lands of the said Sir John Southwel contained ut supra were subject to the said Statute and the penalties thereof And upon great deliberation had It was by them all Resolved and Agreed That notwithstanding that Conveyance the said Lands were lyable to the said Statute And as to the Iurors which against their Evidence given unto them for the Qeeen gav their Verdict ut supra process was awarded against them out of the said Court for to appear before the Lord Treasurer and the Barons of the Exchequer And for their said Contempt they were committed to the Fleet and each of them fined 20 l. CXCVII Hill. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Writ of Entry Sur Disseisin The Tenant said That the House in demand is within the City of London and that the said City is antiqua Civitas And that King Hen. 3. Concessit civibus Civitatis praedict quod non implacitentur de Terris Tenementis suis c. extra muros Civitatis praedict And further said That he himself is Civis London c. and demanded Iudgment of the Writ Note in the pleading before the Tenant said illis rectum teneatur intra Civitatem praedictam secundum Consuetudinem Civitatis praedict And to this Plea Exception was taken because that the Tenant doth not shew before whom by their Custom they ought to be impleaded It was the Opinion of the whole Court That the Tenant ought to have shewed That the Citizens for their Lands ought to be impleaded in the Hustings c. And the general words in the plea scil Sed illis rectum teneatur intra Civitatem praedictam secundum Consuetudinem Civitatis praedict did not supply the defect aforesaid After It was awarded by the Court That the Tenant answer further c. CXCVIII. The Lord Anderson's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Lord Anderson Chief Iustice of the Common Pleas 1 Roll. 189. brought an Action of Trespass by Bill for breaking of his House in the City of Wor. against one A. Citizen of the said City Now came the Mayor and Communalty of the said City and shewed their Charter granted to them by King E. 6. and demanded Conusans of Pleas. And by the Award of the whole Court the Conusans shall not be granted because that the Priviledge of this Court whereof the Plaintiff is a principal Member is more antient than the Patent upon which the Conusans is demanded For the Iustices Clarks and Attornies of this Court ought to be here attending to do their Offices and Services as belongs unto them and shall not be impleaded or compelled to implead others elsewhere than in this Court. And this Priviledge was given to this Court upon the Original Erection of it And such was the Opinion of the whole Court. And as for the Conusans it was denyed CXCIX Cocket and Robston's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. ARthur Cocket Thomas Andrews and A. his Wife 2 Len. 118. Post 192. 230. 1 Len. 219. 1 Len. 302. brought an Action of Accompt against Robston and Declared That one Mountford by the hands of Jo. Wase had delivered 100l to the Defendant pro relevamine of the said Arthur and Anne The Defendant pleaded Ne unque Receiver pur accompt render Vpon which they were at Issue And Iudgment was given That the Defendant should accompt Who before Auditors assigned alledged That he had expended the said 100l in the Education of the said Arthur and Anne by the space of 8 years after the delivery of the said 100l Vpon which they were at Issue And upon Evidence it was shewed on the Plaintiffs part That heretofore the said Arthur brought a Writ of Accompt against the said Robston as Guardian in Socage for the Land of the said Arthur discended And upon the
of the said Lands A. brought an Action of Covenant The Defendant pleaded That before the day of payment the Plaintiff put the said B. out of his Farm It was moved by Godfrey That the same is no plea For this is a Collateral sum and not for Rent issuing out of the Land Also the Defendant is a stranger to the Contract for the Farm. But the Opinion of the whole Court was clear to the contrary For the Defendant hath Covenanted That the Lessee shall pay for the said Farm and Occupation 40 l. so as 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 of it is taken away by the Act of the Plaintiff himself and therefore the plea is good and the Action will not lie CCVII. The Archbishop of York and Morton's Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Archbishop of York recovered in an Assise of Novel Disseisio against one Morton before the Iustices of Assise 1 Len. 55. upon which Iudgment Morton brought a Writ of Error retornable before the Iustices of the Common Pleas And after many Motions at the Bar it was adjudged That a Writ of Error upon such Iudgment doth not lie in the said Court. Which see 8 Eliz. Dyer 250. See also N. B. 22. e. That upon Erroneous Iudgment given in the King Bench in Ireland Error shall be in the Kings Bench in England 15 E. 3. Error 72. And Fenner who was of Counsel with the Archbishop demanded of the Court How and in what manner the Record shall be sent back to the Iustices of Assise so as the said Archbishop might have Execution To which the Court answered That the surest way is to have a Certiorari out of the Chancery into the Common Pleas directed to the Iudges there and then out of the Chancery by a Mittimus to the Iustices of Assise But Fenner made a doubt to take such Course for such remanding Then Anderson Chief Iustice said Sue Execution out of the said Record for in as much as the Record came before us by Writ of Error it shall also be removed and sent back by Writ And so it was done CCVIII The Queen and Hurleston's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 194. THe Queen brought a Scire facias against Hurleston to Repeal a Patent made to him of the Constableship of Chester and Iudgment was given for the Queen And now Hurleston brought a Writ of Error against the Queen in the Kings Bench. And it was moved by Gawdy Serjeant That the Writ did not lie for the manner for that he ought first to have sued to the Queen by Petition See 22 E. 3. 3. 23 E. 3. Fitz. Error 9. If the King recover by an Erronious Iudgment a Writ of Error cannot be granted upon such a Recovery sine gratia Regis speciali And he said That in Chester they have Courts of Common Pleas Kings Bench Exchequer and Chancery And that if Iudgment Erronious be given in the Chancery at Westminster It cannot be reversed but by Parliament and so it is of an Erronious Iudgment given in the Chancery at Chester Also he said They have a Custom in London That within one month they may reverse their own Iudgment See 23 Eliz. Dyer 376. Erronious Iudgment given in the 5 Ports cannot be reversed in the King Bench but it is reversable in the Court of the Guardian of the 5 Ports Clench Here both the parties claim by the Queen therefore there needeth no Petition for valeat quantum valere poterit it is no prejudice to the Queen Cook There needs no Petition here for the Attorny General hath subscribed our Writ of Error Egerton Sollicitor General It was the Case of Eliz. Mordant who was to reverse a Fine levied during her Nonage and the proceedings were stayed because she had not sued to the Qeen by Petition See the Case of 24 E. 3. 35. the Case of William de Ingularby who sued to reverse a Iudgment given against him in a Writ of Conspiracy in the Eyre of Derby and there it was said by Thorp Iustice That he must first sue to the King by Petition Wray An Outlawry may be reversed by bringing a Writ of Error without suing Petition to the King. CCIX. Beckwith's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 5 Co. 19. ROger Beckwich by Indenture Tripartite between him of the first part William Vavasour Frances Slingsby and Elizabeth Sister of Roger of the second part George Harvey and Frances Wife of the said George the said Frances being another of the Sisters of the said Roger of the third part Covenant with the aforesaid William Vavasour and Frances Vavasour his Daughter and with the aforesaid George and Frances cum quolibet qualibet eorum That the said Roger at the sealing and delivery of the said Indenture was lawfully and solely seised of the Rectory of Aldingfleet in the County of York discharged of all Incumbrances Francis Vavasour took to Wife Frances Slingsby And Note That by the same Indenture Roger Beckwith Conveyed the said Rectory to the said Francis Vavasour Francis Slingsby and Frances his Wife brought an Action of Covenant against the said Roger Beckwith and assigned the Breach in this That the said Roger was not seised of the said Rectory And Note That the Plaintiff declared of an Indenture bearing date at the Castle of York And upon the breach of the Covenant they were at Issue which was found for the Plaintiff and damages assessed and Iudgment given for the Plaintiff And Note That the Venire facias was de Vicineto Castri de York And upon that Iudgment a Writ of Error was brought in the Exchequer upon the new Statute and Error was assigned because all the Covenanters ought to have joyned in the Action of Covenant notwithstanding those words cum quolibet cum qualibet which words do not make the Covenant to be several And for that cause the Iudgment was Reversed Another Error was assigned because the Issue is not well and duly tryed For the Issue is upon the seisin of the Rectory of Aldingfleet in which case the Venire facias ought to have been de Vicineto de Aldingfleet And of that Opinion was Manwood and Anderson Iustices CCX Young and Ashburnsham's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action of Debt brought by the Administrators of Young against Ashburnham The Defendant pleaded Nihil debet And the Enquest was taken by default And upon the Evidence given for the Plaintiff the Case appeared to be this That the said Young was an Innholder in a great Town in the County of Sussex where the Sessions used to be holden And that the Defendant was a Gentleman of Quality in the Country there And he in going to the Sessions used to lodge in the house of the said Young and there took his lodging
hic in Curia prolat is but form And afterwards the Iudgment was reversed for default of the said matter Magno sigillo Angliae sigillat And by Anderson Iustice Patents are good without Inrollment and that was adjudged in Hungate's Case CCXLI. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber DEbt brought upon an Obligation Post 266. The Defendant pleaded payment apud Lockington in the Parish of Killmerston And the Venire facias was awarded de Lockington And that was assigned for Error in the Exchequer Chamber upon a Iudgment given in the Kings Bench That the Venire ought to be de Killmerston See 6 H. 7. 3. 11 H. 7. 23 24. 9 E. 4. 3. Trespass for Entry in the Mannor of D. in S. the Visne shall come de Vicineto de S. and not from the Mannor Contrary if it be for the entry into the Mannor of D. only for there it shall be de Vicineto Manerii Cook said There was a Case very late adjudged in the Kings Bench A Lease was pleaded to be made at Ramridge End in Luton and that he himself was of Opinion That the Venire ought to have been of Ramridge End and not of Luton But the Court Over-Ruled the same against him It was said in the principal Case That Lockington shall be intended a Town as this Case is For a Parish may contain many Towns. And afterwards the Iudgment was affirmed CCXLII. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass for breaking his Close The Defendant pleaded That heretofore he himself brought an Ejectione Firmae against the now Plaintiff of the same Land in which the Trespass is supposed to be done and had Iudgment to recover c. and demanded Iudgment if against c. It was moved That the Bar was not good 1 Len. 313. because that the Defendant had not averred his title And the Recovery in one Action of Trespass is no Bar in another c. Quod Curia concessit But as to the matter the Court was clear That the Bar was good And by Periam Who ever pleaded it it was well pleaded For as by Recovery in an Assise the Freehold is bound so by Recovery in an Ejectione firmae the possession is bound And by Anderson A Recovery in one Ejectione Firmae is a Bar in another Especially as Periam said if the party relyeth upon the Estoppel And afterwards Iudgment was given That the Plaintiff should be barred CCXLIII Peter's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. WIlliam Peters being Plaintiff in an Action of Debt in the Common Pleas came to London this Term to prosecute his Action And afterwards he was committed to the Marshalsey by the Lord Hunsdon Chamberlain of the Queens houshold and one of her Privy Council And now an Habeas Corpus issued out to the Keeper of the Marshalsey to have the body of the said Peters in Court And at the day the Keeper retorned the said Writ That the said Peters was committed to the said Prison by the said Lord and shewed the Warrant for it there to remain and to Answer before the Lords of her Majesties Council to such matters c. Causa vero detentionis mihi omnino incognita est The Court examined the said Peters upon his Oath If he came to London to prosecute his said Cause Who answered That he did And the Court also examined the said Keeper If he had acquainted the said Lord with the said Writ Who said That he had so done but he shewed him not any Cause Wherefore by the Award of the Court Peters was discharged of his Imprisonment CCXLIV Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleass SErjeant Fenner demanded the Opinion of the Court in this Case A. Devised Lands to his Wife for life 1 Co. 155. and afterwards to B. his Son and his Heirs when he should come to the age of 24 years and if his Wife died before his said Son should attain his said age of 24 years that then J.S. should have the said Land until the said age of the said Son A. died J.S. died the Wife died the Son being within the age of 24 years If the Executors of J.S. should have the Land after the death of J.S. until the said age of the Son was the Question Anderson and Periam conceived That he should not For this Interest limited to J.S. by the Will was but a possibility which was never vested in him and therefore could not by any means come to his Executor Rhodes and Windham doubted of it Fenner put the Case in 12 E. 2. Fitz. Condition 9. Where Land is mortgaged to J.S. upon payment of Mony to J.S. such a day or his Heirs and before the said day J.S. by his Will deviseth That if the Mortgagor pay the Mony that then A. B. should have them That this Devise of this possibility is good Quod omnes Justiciarii negaverunt And Windham put the Case between Weldon and Elkington Plow Com. 20 Eliz. 519. Where Lessee for years devised his Term to his Wife for so many years of the said Term as she should live And if she died within the Term that then his Son Francis should have the Residue of the Term not encurred Francis died Intestate the Wife died within the Term The Administrator of Francis had the residue of the Term and yet nothing was in Francis the Intestate but a Possibility A Lease was made to one Hayward his Wife and one of his Children Habendum to Hayward for 99 years if he should so long live and if he die within the said Term that then his said Wife should have the said Term for so many years which should be to come at the time of the death of her Husband And if she died also before the said Term That then the Child party to the Devise should have it for so many years of the said Term as should not be expired at the time of the death of the Wife And the Case of Cicill was vouched 8 Eliz. Dyer 253. A Lease was made to William Cicill pro termino 41 annorum si tam diu vixerit Et si obierit infra praedictum terminum extunc Uxor praedicti William Cicill habebit tenebit omnia singula praemissa pro residuo termini praed incompleto si tam diu vixerit Et si the said Eliz. obierit infra praedict terminum tunc William Cicill filius c. And it was holden by Catlyn and Dyer That these remainders were void For the Term is determinable upon the death of William Cicill the Father and the Residue of the said Term cannot remain And by Anderson The remainders of the Term limited ut supra are void For every remainder ought to be certain but here is no certainty for it may be that the first possessor of the Term may live longer or die sooner so as he in the remainder doth not know what thing he shall have And so also conceived Rhodes Iustice And he put the Case between
that the same is a good bar for ever CCLXXXI Ognell's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin against Ognel who avowed for Rent Clayton Rep. 91. the Plaintiff was Nonsuit the Question was Whether the Court might assess Damages without a Writ of Enquiry of Damages It was the Opinion That they might for they are not in respect of any local matter but they accrue to the Avowant for the delay in the non-payment of the Rent Contrary where Iudgment is given for the Plaintiff there the Court shall not assess the Damages for he ought to recover for the taking of his Cattel of which the Iudges cannot take notice and the Damages may be greater or less according to the value of the Cattel and the Circumstances of the taking and delaying of them CCLXXXII Hitchcock and Harvy's Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. HItchcock brought an Action of Trespass for breaking of his Close and spoyling of his Grass against Harvey and the Case was That A. was seised of the Land in which c. and granted to the Plaintiff proficuum of such a Mead called Tentry Mead post falcationem inde scil the Ear-grass And it was found by Verdict That Ear-grass is such Grass which is upon the Land after the mowing until the Feast of the Annunciation after It was moved If such a Grantee might have Trespass Quare Clausum fregit And it was the Opinion of the Court 1 Cro. 421. That he could not but for spoiling the Grass he might Clench Iustice If a Man be Outlawed in an Action personal The Queen hath the profits of the Land and lets the same to another He shall have an Action of Trespass Quare Clausum fregit Which Shute granted And afterwards because the Iury had given Damages entire as well for the breaking of the Close as for the spoyling of the Grass the Plaintiff could not recover the Damages CCLXXXIII Chard and Tuck's Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 41. 1 Cro. 15 16 114 170.130 Shep. Touch. 94. Bro. Tit. Judgment 83. IN an Ejectione firmae by Chard against Tuck It was found by special Verdict That A. was seised of a Messuage and of a Curtilage and of a Garden to the same belonging in Fee and that the Curtilage was on the back side of the said House and the Garden next beyond the said Curtilage the Garden being divided from the Curtilage by a Wall and a Door through the Wall into the Garden from the said Curtilage and no Way to either of them but through the House And it was further found That the said A. by his Will devised the said Messuage to B. The Question was If by that Devise the Curtilage and Garden did pass Vide inde Br. 23 H. 8. Feoffments 53. Where a Feoffment is made of such a Messuage cum pertinentiis they shall pass Curtilage is a member at the least an Appendix of a Messuage And by the clear Opinion of the whole Court in the Case at Bar It was Resolved That by this Devise the Curtilage and Garden did pass And it was said by Wray Chief Iustice It matters not Whether the Curtilage and Garden be before the House or behind it for in both Cases they shall pass CCLXXXIV Baxter's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer AN Information in the Exchequer was exhibited against Baxter of Cambridge upon the Statute of 7 E. 6. Cap. 5. of Wines and the selling of them against the purview of the said Statute To which the Defendant pleaded That King Rich. the second in the 5th year of his Reign Granted unto the Chancellor and his Deputy and the Scholers of the Vniversity of Cambridge Custodiam assisae panis vini Cervisiae correctionem punitionem eorundum 4 Inst 229. And that the Queen that now is confirmed the said Grant in the third year of her Reign by her Letters Patents which were after confirmed by Act of Parliament 13 Eliz. And so pleaded to the Iurisdiction of the Court. Vpon which It was demurred in Law. Harris argued for the Queen and said That the Defendant could not plead that matter to the Iurisdiction of the Court at that time for it is now too late for that he hath oftentimes imparled and that generally In which case the Court having general and ordinary Iurisdiction and Authority to hold plea of such matters shall have Conusans of them notwithstanding the matter which hath been shewed and set forth On the other side It hath been said Quod Assisa venit de assidendo that is to have the Assise as well in respect of the price as of the measure Which although it be admitted yet the same shall not help them For they of Cambridge have not Assisam ipsam but only Custodiam assisae i.e. that the Assise set down by the Queen and her Councel be well kept And that no other price or measure be used in the uttering of Wines Popham The Queens Attorny to the same intent The Statute of 51 H. 1. Ordains That when Wheat is at such a price in the Market then every penny Loaf is to weigh so much and so when Barley is at such a price then so much Beer shall be sold for a penny And that was the general Assize limited by the said Statute In these Cases the Vniversity cannot appoint another Assize than that which is set down by the said Statute but to take care that the said Statute be well executed in such Assise See the Statute of 31 E. 1. of Wines scil That Wines shall be sold according to the Assize of the King i. e. 12 d. the Gallon And in that matter the Vniversity hath Custodiam only i.e. the survey of the Assize and the execution of it and authority to punish the Offences against the said Statutes as well in the price as in the measure according to the said Statutes and not otherwise c. And as to the Statute of 7 E. 6. Cap. 5. By which it is provided That the said Statute shall not be prejudicial to any of the Inhabitants of Oxford or Cambridge or unto the Chancellor or Scholers there to impair their Liberties c. The same ought to be intended that the Liberties and Franchises which the Vniversities had before by the Grant ut supra c. i. e. to punish such Offences against the Assise according to the old Statutes For the said Statute of 7 E. 6. Cap. 5. being in the Affirmative doth not take away the punishment appointed by any other Statute but doth continue the same And a further penalty is appointed propter ulteriorem poenam And as to that which hath been said That by the said Grant of Rich. the 2d 3 Cro. 52 62 they have granted to them Cognitionem omnium Actionum personalium inter partem partem That will not help the Vniversity in this Case For the Informer by the Statute hath Liberty to
to the Bar because he hath not shewed that at that time of the cutting it was not Fawning time Poph. 158. 2 Cro. 637 679. for at the Fawning time his prescription doth not extend to it and that was holden to be a material Exception but because that the Plaintiff had replyed and upon his Replication the Defendant had demurred the Court would not resort to the Bar but gave Iudgment upon the Replication and therefore Nihil Capiat per breve CCXC. Brocas's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. BRocas Lord of a Mannor Covenanted with his Copyholder to assure to him and his Heirs the Freehold and Inheritance of his Copyhold And the said Copyholder in Consideration of the same performed Covenanted to pay such a sum It was the Opinion of the whole Court That the said Copyholder is not tyed to pay the said sum before the assurance made 1 Roll. 415. and the Covenant performed But if the words had been In Consideration of the said Covenant to be performed then he is bounden to pay the mony presently and to have his remedy over by Covenant CCXCI. Ireland and Higgius's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared Owen Rep. 93. That he was possessed of a Greyhound ut de bonis suis propriis and that such a day he lost it and that it came to the hands of the Defendant by Trover and that the Defendant afterwards in Consideration thereof promised the Plaintiff to deliver the said Greyhound to the Plaintiff and shewed his request Ley The Action doth not lie For of those things which are ferae naturae the Plaintiff hath not any property but ratione fundi as of Deer c. And in Trespass for them he cannot say suos but only Quare claufum fregit lepores cepit without saying suos And to that purpose were cited 3 H. 6. 56. 18 E. 4. 14. 10 H. 7. 19. 22 H. 6. 12. 14 Eliz. Dyer 106. Sir John Spencer's Case And it was holden That the Action did not lie And if not for a Hawk much less for a Hound CCXCII Ognell and Trussell's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Star-Chamber A Bill was Exhibited in the Star-Chamber by Ognell of London against one Trussell of Warwickshire setting forth such matter That whereas the said Trussell had for good Consideration sold and assured unto the said Ognell a Mannor Now to gratifie a great person who earnestly desired the said Mannor he for effecting thereof practised by fraudulent means to avoid the said assurance and practised by other persons to be Indicted of a Robbery supposed to be committed before the said Assurance and compounded with the Lord of the Fee that if he be attainted so that by such Attainder the said Mannor should escheat to the said Lord That he upon request should reassure to the said Trussell the said Mannor in Fee after Pardon obtained which was promised to him by the said great Parsonage Vpon which Indictment Trussell was Arraigned and Convicted upon Evidence which he himself procured to be falsly given against him And all that was to extort the Land which was lawfully sold before And upon the Bill Trussell demurred in Law because he is a person attainted of Felony and so dead in Law and therefore shall not be put to answer Hatton Lord Chancellor It is not reason that he be put to Answer for Nemo tenetur seipsum prodere And thereupon the Bill was referred to Anderson and Periam Iustices to Consider If the Defendant should be put to answer or not Who certified unto the Court That although the Defendant be attainted ut supra and so quodam modo dead in Law to all intents yet in Criminal Causes he shall answer Wherefore it was ordered That he answer accordingly CCXCIII Cardinal and Arnold's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CArdinal brought an Action upon the Case against Arnold and declared That the Dean and Chapter Ecclesiae Cathedralis Cantuar. per nomen Decani Capituli Ecclesiae Cathedral Metropolitan Christian Cantuar. Leased unto Seckford for years the Mannor of Hadley by force of which he was possessed And so possessed granted to the Plaintiff the Office of Stewardship of the said Mannor and the Defendant disturbed him The Defendant pleaded a Lease absque hoc that the said Seckford granted And it was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That that Lease being made in the manner aforesaid was void For the Declaration is That the Dean and Chapter Ecclesiae Cathedralis Cantuar where the Lease is made by the name ut supra Here are two several Names therefore two several Corporations therefore Decanus Capituli Ecclesiae Cathedralis Cantuariensis did not Lease But Decanus Capituli Ecclesiae Cathedralis Metrapolitan Christi did Lease CCXCIV. Anderson and Hayward's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Copyholder of Inheritance of a Mannor in the hands of the King is ousted It was holden in such case That he hath not gained any Estate so as he may make a Lease for years upon which his Lessee may maintain an Ejectione firmae but he hath but a possession against all strangers And also in that Case It was holden That if a Copyholder dieth his Heir within age he is not bound to come at any Court during his Non-age to pray Admittance Or to tender his Fine Also that if the death of his Ancessor be not presented nor proclamation made he is not at any Mischief although he be of full age CCXCV. Brightman's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber UPon a Writ of Error brought upon a Iudgment given in the King Bench The matter was A. Leased for 20 years to B. two Acres of Land rendring Rent with Condition of Re-entry who Leased one of the said Acres to C. for 10 years And afterwards granted the Reversion of the said Term in the said Acre to A. It was holden by the Iustices That the same was no present suspension of the said Condition because there was not any possession CCXCVI. Fitzhugh's Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Dower against Fitzhugh who pleaded in bar a Fine with proclamations and 5 years passed after the death of the Husband of whose seisin she demanded Dower To which the Demandant said That within the 5 years after the death of her Husband she brought a Writ of Dower against the now Tenant and delivered the same to the Sheriff c. but did not shew that the Writ was Returned upon which the Tenant did demur in Law. It was holden by Periam Iustice That the Fine is not avoided by such manner of Claim For the words of the Statute are So that they pursue their Claim or Title by way of Action or lawful Entry within the 5 years but here the Demandant hath not pursued c. therefore she shall not be Retained by the said Statute
so as of necessity we must lay the promise accordingly And it is a clear case That the Plaintiff in an Action upon the Case shall declare upon a Promise the first day of May And if it be found that it was made at another day yet the Plaintiff shall recover CCCX Hamper's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 211. 1 Cro. 147. HAmper was Endicted upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. of Perjury And in the body of the Endictment the Record was that he falso deceptive deposuit Whereas the Statute speaks Wilfully And although in the perclose of the Endictment the Conclusion is Et sic commisit voluntarium perjurium Yet the Opinion of the Court was That the same did not help the matter and for that cause the party was discharged For contra formam Statuti will not help the matter and yet it was moved and urged that contra formam Statuti did supply such defect And in this case It was holden by the Court That if a Witness deposeth falsly but the Iury do not give credit to his Oath but give their Verdict against his Oath although the party grieved cannot sue him for the Perjury yet at the Suit of the King he shall be punished CCCXI. Collet and Robston's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Ante 149.192 2 Len. 118. ARthur Collet and Thomas Andrews recovered against Robston in a Writ of Accompt Hill. 29 Eliz. And now Robston brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error That whereas the said Writ of Accompt was brought against the Defendant as Receivor of monies to render Accompt quando ad hoc requisitus fuerit the said Writ ought to have been more special But the Writ in its generalty was holden good enough without any special matter And so it was adjudged in the Case of one Gomersell scil Quod reddat ei rationabilem Computum suum de tempore quo fuit Receptor Denariorum ipsius A. Another Error was assigned For that the Iury had assessed damages which ought not to be done in an Action of Accompt Which see 2 Ric. 2. Fitz. Accompt 45. and 2 H. 7. 13. But see the Book of Entries 22. In a Writ of Accompt against one as Receivor for to render Accompt damages were given by the Iury for the Plaintiff And in the Case of an Accompt against one as Bailiff damages shall be given For if my Bailiff by the imployment of my monies whereof he was Receivor might have procured profit and gain unto me but he neglects the same he shall be chargeable to me to answer the same And here in our Case damages shall be given ratione implacitationis And afterwards notwithstanding the Exceptions the Iudgment was affirmed CCCXII Yates's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. YAtes and another brought a Writ of Error upon a Iudgment given in a Writ of Partition and assigned for Error 2 Len. 118. That the Partition was not sufficient For it is there set forth That the Plaintiffs insimul pro indiviso tenent cum defendente c. and doth not say what Estate See F.N.B. 61 62. Insimul et pro indiviso tenent de haereditate which was of A. matris of the Plaintiff and Defendant And yet see F. N. B. 62. A Writ of Partition betwixt strangers without naming de haereditate in the Writ 1 Cro. 759 760. And see also that Partitions of Lands in London without shewing of what Estate See Register 67. 6 Eliz. in Partitione facienda by Courtney against Polyweel no Estate shewed in the Writ 26 Eliz. Between the Lord Cheney and Bell. So between Finch and Tirrell And so between Fry and Drake 14 Eliz. And 4 5 Phil. Mary It was holden That it is not necessary in such Writ to shew the Estate But Tenants in Common ought to shew the same in their Declaration CCCXIII. Hill. 31 Eliz. In the King Bench. AN Action upon the Case was brought for these words scil Thou hast forged my hand It was holden by Gawdy and Wray Iustices That such words are not actionable because too general without shewing to what writing And by Wray these words scil Thou art a forger are not actionable because it is not to what thing he was a forger Godfery Between Warner and Cropwell scil She went about to kill me An Action lieth for them for if they were true she should be bounden to the good behaviour And by Gawdy for these words scil Thou hast forged a Writing They are not Actionable because they are incertain words Which Wray concessit But if the Declaration had been more certain as innuendo such a deed then it had been good enough Fuller A Case was betwixt Brook and Doughty scil He hath Counterfeited my Lord of Leicester's hand unto a Letter against the Bishop of London for the which he was committed to the Marshalsey for it And it was holden Not Actionable And afterwards in the principal Case Iudgment was Nihil Capiat per Billam CCCXIV Delabroche and Barney's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. DElabroche was sued in the Admiral Court upon an Obligation supposed to be made and delivered in France and now he prayed a Prohibition It was holden by the whole Court That such a Bond might be sued here but being begun in the Court of Admiralty we cannot prohibit them for that perhaps the Witnesses of the Plaintiff are beyond Sea which may be examined there but not here CCCXV. Moulton's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THis Case was moved to the Court by Cook That one Robert Moulton Tenant in tail having Issue two Sons Robert and John died seised And that Robert his Son and Heir levied a Fine thereof and afterwards levied another Fine and died without Issue And John brought two several Writs of Error to reverse both Fines And the Tenant to the Writ of Error brought upon the first Fine pleaded the second Fine in bar of it And in her of a Writ of Error brought upon the second Fine he pleaded the first Fine The Court advised him to Reply That the Fine pleaded in bar was erronious See 7 H. 4. 107. Where a Man is to annul an Outlawry his person shall not be disabled by any other Outlawry CCCXVI. Babington and Babington's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Debt brought The Defendant pleaded an Attachment made in London after imparlance It was adjudged That it was not any plea. And Wray said That the same should be observed for a Rule in other Cases After that plea was disallowed The Defendant pleaded Variance betwixt the Obligation and the Declaration For the Obligation was Randal Bab. And the Declaration was ad respondend Randulpho B. alias Randal B. Cook said That Randulphus is Latine for Randal Owen Serjeant shewed divers Presidents where Randulphus was taken for Randal But the Court did not agree upon it Wray advised the Plaintiff for his more speed to
bring a new Writ But Gawdy said That the Writ brought was good enough CCCXVII Pike and Hassen's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Action upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. touching buying of Titles And the Bargain was laid in Norfolk but the Land c. was in Suffolk And the Issue was tryed in Norfolk and the value of the Land also And as to the 5 Acres they found the Defendant guilty and found also the value of them And for the Residue a Special Verdict was given and for the 5 Acres the Plaintiff had Iudgment presently And by the special Verdict it was found That the Defendant had occupied the Residue of the Land for two years before c. as Tenant at sufferance and afterwards sold the Inheritance Wray Chief Iustice Tenant at sufferance is in truth a Tort feasor by which his taking of the profits is not such as is intended by the Statute But yet he afterwards looking into the words of the Verdict which were That the Defendant tenuit the Lands for two years ex permissione of another thereupon it ought to be intended That he was Tenant at will. CCCXVIII Sparry and Warfield's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN False Imprisonment against the Defendant and others they pleaded The Charter of Bridewell and that the Plaintiff was mali nominis famae and that certain Goods were stollen from J.S. and upon search the Plaintiff was found suspitiously c. And that thereupon they put him into Bridewell It was the Opinion of the Iustices That the Plea was not good CCCXIX. Bragg's Case Pasch 32 Eliz. Rot. 318. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass by Strait against Bragg Quare Clausum fregit containing one Acre in C. in the County of H. and for the taking of a Horse The Defendant pleaded That long time before the Trespass The Dean and Chapter of Pauls were seised of the Mannor of C. in the said County in Fee in the right of their Church whereof the place where is parcel c. And so seised King E. 4th by his Letters Patents dated Anno 1 of his Reign granted to them all the Fines pro Licentia Concordandi of all their Homagers and Tenants resiants or not resiants within their Fee And shewed That for all that time they have used to have such Fines of their Tenants And shewed further That 29 Eliz. A Fine was levied in the Common Pleas between the Plaintiff and one A. of 11 Acres of Land whereof the place where the Trespass was done was parcel and the Post-Fine assessed to 15 s. And afterwards Scambler the forreign Opposer allowed to them the said 15 s. because the said Land was within their Fee and afterwards in the behalf of the said Dean and Chapter he demanded of the Plaintiff the said 15 s. who refused to pay it for which he by the Commandment and in the right of the Dean and Chapter entred and took the said Horse in the name of a Distress as Bailiff to the said Dean and Chapter for the said 15 s. and afterwards sold it c. upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law And it was moved That here it is not averred That the Land whereof the Fine was levied was within their Fee but they say That Scambler allowed it because it was within their Fee. And that is not a sufficient averment quod curia concessit And also the opinion of the Court was Ante 56. 2 Len. 179. That the Dean and Chapter cannot distrain for this matter but they ought to sue for the same in the Exchequer as it appeareth 9 H. 6. 27. in the Duchess of Summersets Case Gawdy Iustice The Grant doth not extend to the Post-Fine for the Fine pro licentia Concordandi is the Kings Silver and not the Post-Fine Wray Iustice All passeth by it for it is about one and the same matter And they in Opinion to have given Iudgment for the Plaintiff Quaere of it CCCXX South and Marsh's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer NOte It was holden by the Court That where Marsh was endebted unto South without any Obligation for it but only by a Note in writing signed with the Hand of Marsh scil By me W. Marsh but not sealed that such a debt might be assigned to the Queen although that before the Assignment against a Creditor he might have waged his Law for in as much as by these Notes and Bills the certainty of the debt appeareth and being true debts they may well be assigned See 21 H. 7. 9. An Obligation may be assigned to the Queel without Deed enrolled and where the Obligee is not endebted to the Queen But it cannot be assigned to a subject Noy 52. if not for a debt due by the Assignor to the Assignee for otherwise it is Maintenance And in this Case it was holden That where the King sues for a debt assigned to him the Obligor cannot plead Nihil debet for now by the Assignment it is become matter of Record CCCXXI. Trapp's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. RObert Trapps 1 Eliz. seised of 15 Messuages in Clarkenwell in the Occupation of 15 several persons viz. A.B.C. c. and named them certain demised them to one Cox And afterwards conveyed the Inheritance of them to one Brian Trapps in Fee who afterwards demised to J.S. all those 15 Messuages in Clarken-well which Robert Trapps did demise inter alia to Cox by Indenture dated 1 Eliz. now in the Occupation of A.B.C. c. And one of the Occupiers names was left out in the recital And it was holden by the whole Court That notwithstanding the said Omission the said Messuage did pass for there was sufficient certainty before and the falsity came after the verity CCCXXII Brewin and Mansfield's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That A. was endebted to him in 10 l. and made the Defendant his Executor and died And that the Defendant in Consideration that the Plaintiff would forbear the Defendant for a certain time promised to pay it at two several days and shewed which in certain And it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That it is not set down in the Declaration by what portions the 10 l. shall be paid Clench Iustice conceived That the Defendant had liberty to pay it in what portions he pleased Gawdy He ought to pay it by equal portions as a Rent reserved payable at two Feasts without saying by what portions it shall be paid And he said That if the plea for the cause aforesaid had been defective yet now after Verdict all is helped for it is but form And afterwards the Opinion of the whole Court was That the matter shewed was not good to stay Iudgment Wherefore the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover CCCXXIII Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was The Plaintiff in a
1 And. 234. every one ought to assent Wray There the Ordinance made was to charge the Inheritance but here it is only to charge their Goods wherefore the assent of the greater part is sufficient And afterwards a Procedendo was granted CCCLV. Pendleton and Green's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. PEndleton sued Green in the Spiritual Court for Tythes Ante 203. 1 Len. 94. who pleaded That Pendleton was not lawful Incumbent but one Taylor and that plea those of the Spiritual Court would not allow to the Parishioner to plead to the right of the Incumbency and thereupon he prayed a Prohibition for otherwise he should be twice charged for Tythes and therefore a Prohibition was granted CCCLVII Knevytt and Cope's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. KNevytt brought Ejectione firmae against Cope and declared Quod 4 Len. 59. cum John Hopkins by his Indenture bearing date the 20 of May 32 Eliz. had let to him his House and two yard-Yard-Lands containing 40 Acres of Land Meadow and Pasture apud Tythingham de Forecomb in parochia de S. c. upon Not guilty pleaded The Venire facias was de Tythingham de Forecomb Exception was taken by Cook That the Declaration had not any certainty for it is not shewed in certain How much there was of Meadow how much of Land and how much of Pasture there was contained in the said two Yard-Lands and the Iury may find the Defendant guilty as to the Land only but not to the residue Also he hath not shewed in the Declaration When the Lease was made but only saith That by Indenture bearing date the 20 of May c. but doth not shew any day of delivery of the Indenture for then the Lease takes effect To which Exception It was said by the Court That the Declaration as to that was good enough for it shall be intended to have been delivered at the day of the date Ante 193. Another Exception was taken to the Visne Because that the Visne ought to be of the Parish and not of Tythingham c. See 11 H. 7. 23 24. Forcible Entry in the Mannor of B. in B. the Visne shall not be of the Mannor of B. but of B. Gawdy Iustice You shall never have a Visne of the Parish for divers Towns may be in one Parish but here the Visne is good of Tythingham c. for it may be that it is a Town Cook It is but a Ville Conus from which a Visne cannot come CCCLVIII Taylor and Fisher's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. TAylor brought an Action of Trespass against Fisher for entring into his House and taking and carrying away of his Goods To which the Defendant pleaded That before the Trespass supposed one A. was possessed of the said Goods and the said Goods being in the House of the said Plaintiff the said A. sold them to the Defendant by force whereof he was possessed And so possessed came to the Plaintiffs House where c. And by assent and licence of the Plaintiffs Wife he entred into the said House and carried away the said Goods c. Vpon which there was a Demurrer It was holden That the same is no plea for there is no Colour given to the Plaintiff and the licence given by the Wife is not any matter for the justifying of the Entry And as to the Goods the plea was holden good For if A. might sell them being in the House of another and not in his own possession is scrupulous to the Lay-people Wray If the Goods of the Defendant were in the House of the Plaintiff with the knowledge of the Defendant it had perhaps been a good plea but that is not alledged here Cook 30 E. 3. 23. In Trespass for breaking of his Pound the Defendant said That he came to the place where the Cattel were impounded and there found the Plaintiffs Wife to whom he offered Pledges for the Cattel impounded to make Amends according to reason and prayed to have deliverance of the Cattel and the Plaintiffs Wife delivered them without that that he brake the Pound c. And it was said That this want of Colour is but matter of form which he ought to have alledged upon his Demurrer or otherwise he shall not have advantage of it Wray Iustice The Defendant in his plea doth not meet with the Plaintiff Therefore the plea is not good in substance It was Adjourned CCCLIX Downhall and Catesby's Case Pasch 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Formedon by Downhall against Catesby 4 Len. 113. the parties were at Issue And it was tryed by Nisi prius It was moved in Banco because that some of the Iurors did eat and drink before that they gave their Verdict That the Court would not receive the Postea The Court said That we cannot do here for we do not know if your Information be false or not and that matter ought to have been examined by the Iustices of Nisi prius and they ought to certifie us of it and then we shall have good cause to stay it And it was then said there That if any of the Iurors eat and drink before the Verdict at their own Costs that the same doth not make the Verdict void but otherwise if it be of the Costs of the Plaintiff or the Defendant CCCLX Withrington and Delabar's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Appeal of Murder by Withrington against Delabar of the death of her Husband The Defendant pleaded never accoupled in lawful Matrimony And pleaded over Not guilty The Plaintiff replyed Lawfully accoupled but did not reply over to the Felony It way moved as a discontinuance of the whole Wray If the Defendant pleads matter tryable at the Common Law and over to the Felony there the Plaintiff ought to reply to both but where the first matter is not tryable by the Common Law there the same is not needful Quod caeteri Justiciarii concesserunt CCCLXI. Lake's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. STephen Lake Commissary of the Bishop of Canterbury Fr. Alredge Register and R. Hunt Apparitor were endicted of Extortion that they colore officiorum suorum had malitiose accepted and received 11 s. 6 d. for the Absolution of one B. who was excommunicated where they ought to have but 2 s. 6 d. And Exception was taken to this Indictment because that all their Offences are put together scil colore Officiorum suorum whereas the particular Offence of every Offendor ought to be specially set down but here they are confounded Which see by the Statute of 25 E. 3. 9. That Ordinaries shall not be impeached by such general Indictments unless they say and put in certain In what thing and of what and in what manner the said Ordinaries have committed Extortion But that Exception was not allowed for of that the party grieved cannot have notice for they took in gross and afterwards parted it betwixt
for procuring a Warrant from a Justice of Peace upon a surmise to arrest one upon suspition of stollen Goods p. 101 For stopping of a River whereby the Plaintiffs Lands are drowned though the Plaintiff had no Title in the Land at the time of the first stopping of it p. 174 Lieth not for the not delivery of a Greyhound upon an Assumpsit made thereof p. 219 For publishing a scandalous Bill p. 138 Either the Action or an Assise at the election of the party for a disturbance of him to take his Common p. 263 For Words p. 171 269 Action upon Statutes Brought upon the Statute of 2 Ma. the Defendant shall not have costs in it by the Statute of 23 H. 8. p. 92 Upon the Statute of 21 H. 8. of taking Lands to Farm by spiritual persons to what Leases it shall extend p. 122 A Bill in the Exchequer-Chamber lieth not to have the treble value upon the Statute of 2 E. 6 cap. 13. p. 204 Upon the Statute of Hue-and-Cry lieth not against the Hundred for a Robbery committed in the persons house p. 262 Advowsons Where by grant of Advowson the Rectory Appropriate doth not pass p. 111 Agreement Made by a Parson with a Parishioner in consideration of 20 s. per annum he shall be discharged of Tythes during the life of the Parson not good without Deed p. 257 Amendment Of the Proclamations upon a Fine levied p. 107 Amercement Of the Hundred for the escape of a Felon where not good p. 207 Annuity Pro consilio impendendo not grantable over p. 185 Appropriation and Disappropriation Of a Church must be by a judicial Act and not by a private Act of the party Apportionment Not of a Release p. 13 Arbitrament and Award To perform an Act to be done by a stranger not good p. 62 To pay Mony such a day to a stranger or his Assigns and he dies before the day it must be paid to his Administrator or his Assigns p. 212 Assumpsit Where and in what Case lieth against an Executor where not p. 69 Where the consideration is not good to ground an Action upon it p. 88 128 The Plaintiff declares upon one consideration and the Jury find that promise was upon that and another consideration the Plaintiff cannot have judgment p. 91 Declaration in it where not good because levied so general p. 91 For the performance of an Award where good p. 105 Where binds an Enfant though there be no present consideration p. 164 To forbear a Suit per paululum tempus no consideration in it p. 202 Within the Statute of 23 H. 8. of Sheriffs as well as an Obligation p. 228 Assignment Of a Debt to the King where good and how it shall retake p. 197 Upon an Assignment of a Debt to the King a Lease is found by Office the King not bound to set forth in the Inquisition the certainty of the Term p. 204 Attachment Cannot be by the Custom of London of a Debt which is depending in the Kings Courts of Record p. 210 236 244 Cannot be by the Custom before the Debt is due p. 236 Attornment what p. 17 Tenant by possibility of Issue extinct not compellable to Attornment p. 121 Upon a surrender of the Reversion and Rent by a Copyholder to the use of a stranger where it passeth without Attornment p. 197 The Lessor granteth the Reversion to the Lessee and to a stranger the Reversion passeth without Attornment p. 279 Averment That the Tenant was not seised where not good p 92 Not against a Deed enrolled p. 176 B. BAil Of an Enfant condemned and Execution for Debt where shall pay the Mony recovered p. 107 Bar In Avowry where not good p. 92 In Trespass where good where not p. 122 Recovery in one Action where a Bar in another p. 194 Outlawry pleaded in Bar after Imparlance where good p. 205 Bill Upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. for Perjury doth not lie upon a Perjury committed in an Answer in the Chancery p. 201 C. CErtificate Of the Ordinary of the inability of a Clerk refused by him he must certifie the particular cause of his refusal and a general Certificate is not good p. 199 Chancery After Judgment at Law cannot grant Injunctions p. 18 Chauntry What shall be said a Chauntry within the Statute of 2 E. 6. p. 115 Cinque-Ports Certiorari granted further to certifie a Record p. 3 Common Where obtained by long sufferance may be lost by long negligence p. 202 Common recovery Where not bar the issue in tail p. 143 Tenant in tail rendring rent suffers a common recovery of the Land if the Rent be gone p. 261 Condition Proviso where a Condition where not p. 16 Where broken where not p. 67 Where the words in a Will are viz. shall go about to sell his part shall for ever lose the same the words for ever shall be referred to perdere and not to vendere p. 181 None can enter for a Condition broken but the Lessor or one by his direction p. 269 Conspiracy Where it lieth upon an acquittal in an Appeal p. 140 Constable Cannot compel strangers who pass to Watch nor set them in the Stocks for refusing so to do p. 208 Constat Where must be made of a Patent enrolled vacated p. 165 Tenant in tail of the gift of the King surrenders his Letters Patents and a vacat is made of the enrolment it shall bind the issue in tail p. 165 Conusans of Pleas In a Writ of Right must shew before whom to be holden p. 148 Not grantable to an inferior Court against the priviledge of the Court of King-Bench p. 149 Of Pleas to the University of Camb. if they shall have Conusans upon an information upon the Statute of 7 E. 6. cap. 5. p. 214. 217 Copyhold and Copyholder For years shall go to Executors p. 9 Makes a Lease for years and afterwards surrenders the reversion and rent to a stranger who is admitted it passeth without attornment p. 197 The admittance by the Lord of a stranger to a Copyholder is no disseisin to the Copyholder for that an Estate at Will only passeth p. 210 Corporations Cannot stand seised to an use but may charge their Possessions with an use p. 176 Covenant To make Assurance how to be expounded p. 27 A. Covenanted to convey the Freehold to a Copyholder in consideration of a Covenant performed and the Copy-holder covenanted to pay such a sum he is bound to pay the sum before the Assurance made otherwise it was of a Covenant to be performed p. 219 Custom That the Lord of the Mannor might grants Copies in remainder only with the assent of the Tenants and not otherwise if good p. 227 Of the Mayor and Aldermen of London to make Acts and Ordinances to bind the Citizens and Free-men where good where not p. 264 D. DAmages Where Judgment is given for the Plaintiff and upon a Writ of Enquiry excessive damages are given by the Jury which Writ is
Executor shall sell who dies his Executor cannot sell B. 69. To the Heirs of the Body of his Eldest Son is void B. 70. I give my Lease to my Wife for life and then to my Children unpreferred B. 90. To the Heir in see is void and he is in by descent B. 101. C. 18. That his Executor shall pay a Debt this is no Legacy B. 119 120. Devise shall be taken according to the Common not Legal construction B. 120. C. 18 19. Devise of three Closes to three and if any die that the other shall have all his part to be divided between them B. 129. That A. shall pay yearly 10 l. out of a Mannor is a good Devise of the Mannor to A. B. 165. They shall be construed favourably but not against Law B. 165. If the Devisor be distrained and dies before re-entry nothing passeth B. 165. All his Lands called Jacks in the occupation of J S. what passes if not in the occupation of J.S. B. 226. Like Case C. 18 19 132. Of a Mannor to B. and of a third part thereof to C. they are joynt Tenants C. 11. Words in a Devise shall never be judged repugnant if by any rational Construction they may consist C. 11 28 29 Devise of Lands to his Wife for life and after that she may give them to whom she will C. 71. Lands called H. in two Vills A. and B. Devise of H. in A. for life remainder of Hayes Land to L. No Land passes in remainder but Lands in A. C. 77. To J. for thirty one years to pay Debts remainder after the Term expired to his Heirs Males and if he die within the Term that G. shall have it and be Executor J. dies his Issue enters G. evicts him C. 110. Devise that the eldest Son shall take the profits until the younger be of Age and the remainder to the younger Son the elder hath see conditional C. 216. Devise that his Feoffees to Uses shall be seised to other Uses who are accounted Feoffees C. 262. Diminution The manner of alledging it A. 22. With what time it must be alledged B. 3. Disceit Fine reversed by such a Writ because the Land is Ancient Demesne A. 290. C. 3 12 117 120. Not abated by death of one Defendant C. 3. Upon a Recovery in a Quare Impedit A. 293. The manner of proceeding therein A. 294. For an Infant against his Guardian who lost the Land by default in Dower B. 59. Where Estate of the Conusee remains after the Fine reversed C. 12 120. Whom it shall bind without summons C. 120. Discent Takes not away the entry of him who claims by Devise condition broken c. A. 210. B. 192. cont B. 147. Disclaimer He who hath disclaimed shall not have a Writ of Error C. 176. Discontinuance de Process c. Vide Continuance Discontinuance de Terre Remainder in fee after a Lease for life where not discontinued by Fine by the Tenant for life A. 40. B. 18 19. None of Copyholds A. 95. Nor upon a Covenant to stand seised made by Tenant in tail A. 110 111. By Feoffment of Tenant in tail A. 127. B. 18 19. Quid operatur if the Feoffees joyn in the Discontinuance B. 18 19. Lease for years by Cestuy que use pur vy is no Discontinuance but warranted by the Stat. of 32 H. 8. B. 46. None if the Reversion be in the King B. 157. C. 57. Nor by Bargain and Sale by Deed enrolled without Livery C. 16. Disseisin and Disseisor Where a Man shall be a Disseisor at the election of another A. 121. B. 9. If Tenant per auter vy hold over after the death of Custuy que vie if he be a Disseisor B. 45 46. The like if Tenant for years holds over B. 45 46. If the younger Brother enter if he be a Disseisor or Tenant at sufferance B. 48. If Disseisee may give licence to put in Cattle before Entry C. 144. He who Disseiseth a Copyholder gains no Estate C. 221. Disseisin to the use of Baron and Feme he only agrees the Estate vests in both but the Feme is no Disseisor C. 272. Distress Cannot distrain upon the Kings Lands A. 191. Where and who may distrein the Cattle of a Stranger though not Levant and Couchant where and who not B. 7. If one as Bailiff may say he takes a Distress for one cause and carry it away for another B. 196. Dower The Wife not Dowable if the Husband be attaint of Treason although pardoned A. 3. Of what age the Feme must be A. 53. Inquiry of Damages where the Baron died seised A. 56 92. In such an Inquiry the Jury may find above the value of the Dower A. 56. By Custom of Gavel-kind whether demandable as by Common Law A. 62 133. How a Grand-Cape in D. must be executed A. 92. Wife Dowable of a Seisin in Fee defeasible by a Condition A. 168. The Wife shall be endowed at Common Law where the King is to have Primer Seisin A. 285. If a conditional Estate be a good Joynture to bar Dower A. 311. Bar that the Heir granted to the Wife a Rent in satisfaction c. he ought to shew what Estate he had in the Land B. 10. An Infant cannot lose by default in Dower unless per Gardian B. 59 189. Notwithstanding what divorces the Wife shall be endowed B. 169 170. If the Wife shall be endowed where the Husband takes a Fine and renders back presently C 11. If she be barred by Fine and Non-claim if she brings her Writ within five years and desists prosecution six years after C. 50. Touts temps prist a render Dower where necessary to plead it or to give Judgment by default C. 50 52. If the Wise of the Lord shall be endowed of Demeine Lands grantable and granted by Copy by the Lord B. 153. C. 59. Of a Presentation to a Church C. 155. It is a good Bar in Dower that the Feme accepted Homage from the Tenant C. 272. Pleading of agreement to a Joynture made during Coverture C. 272. Divorce If it be causa frigiditatis in the Man who hath Issue by another if the first Marriage be good or the Divorce good until avoided by Sentence B. 169 170 171 172. The several kinds of Divorce B. 169. In pleading of Divorce the Judges name Coram quo must be precisely pleaded B. 170 171. Droit The form of a Writ of Right and what is demandable therein A. 169. B. 36. Whether it lies of an Office Stat. W. 2 cap. 25. A. 169. B. 36. The manner of arrayment of the twelve Recognitors by four Knights A. 303. Droit of an Advowson where it lies A. 316. No challenge to the Polls after the Array made A. 303. Where a Man hath no remedy but by this Writ B. 62 63 65. A Writ of Droit Close directed to the Bailiff and procceeded coram Sectatoribus good C. 63 64. In such Writ twelve Recognitors retorned suffice in an Inferior Court
C. 64. The manner of swearing the Jurors C. 162. Upon Issue upon the meer Right the Tenant must first give evidence C. 162. In a Writ of Right Sur Disclaimer it is a good Bar that the Lord since accepted the Rent from the Tenant C. 272. Duresse A good Bar in an Action of Account A. 13. It may be pleaded without a Traverse C. 239. What is what is not Duresse 239. Dutchy A Case thereof and of Grants made under that Seal B. 151 152 162 163 164. E. Ejectione Firme LIes of Title in London A. 19. Lies not de Tenemento A. 118. Where it lies not but upon an actual ouster A. 212. If the Plaintiff hath no Title nor the Defendant any the Plaintiff shall not recover A. 215. Et bona catalla cepit A. 312. Lies not of Copyhold upon the Lords Lease but of the Copyholders Lease A. 328. Where one pleads and the other demurs and the dem is adjudged for the Plaintiff the Plaintiff cannot relinquish the Issue and take Judgment as in Trespass B. 199. De uno Cubiculo better than de una Camera C. 210. De Romea C. 210. De Messuagio sive Tenemento is not good C. 228. The Plaintiff may relinquish his Damages where part of the Action fails and take Judgment for the other C. 228. Ejectione Custodie For a Lord of the Heir of his Copyholder A. 328. Election Of an Acre in a great Field sold to a Corporation how they must make Election A. 30. To whom given where the condition is in the disjunctive A. 70. Devise of an Acre in a Field the Devisee must make his election in his life A. 254. Grant of a Mannor except B. Arce where is two of that name the Grantor hath the election A. 268. Award in the disjunctive and one part is void yet the other must be performed A. 305. Where one hath election to claim an Estate by two manner of Conveyances by one Deed C. 16 17 128. Covenant to stand seised of Lands in S. of the yearly value of 40 l. who hath the election C. 27. Cannot be transferred over to the prejudice of another C. 154. Elegit Vide Extent and Execution If after Elegit retorned that the Lands are already in Extent the Plaintiff may have a Capias A. 176. If it be executed but not retorned Quid operatur A. 280. B. 12 13 49 50. Granted against an Executor upon Devastavit retorned B. 188. Lessee for years may pay his Rent to the Plaintiff before Suit C. 113. Embleament If Conusee of a Statute or Recognizance or the Conusor shall have the Corn sowed B. 54. Entry Estraying of Beasts sua sponte no Entry A. 110. What Act is an Entry what not A. 209 210. Entry of him who claims by Devise or Condition broken where not taken away by a descent A. 191 209 210. Semble cont B. 147. An Heir may bring an Action for Nusance without Entry A. 273. Husband Leases the Land of his Wife Tenant in Tail and dies the Feme must enter before she make Leases A. 122. In what case Cestuy que Use is put to his Entry A. 258. By death of Tenant in Tail without Issue the Freehold vests in him in Remainder without Entry A. 268. Where Trespass is maintainable without Entry A. 302. B. 47 97 98 137. Where the Entry of him in Remainder upon forfeiture of Tenant for life is lawful B. 61 62 63. The Patentee of the King must enter where there is an Intruder B. 147 148. The Lessee levies a Fine to the use of himself and his Heirs if he may re-enter without Attornment C. 103. Disseisee must re-enter before he can licence one to put in Cattle C. 144. He in Remainder after the death of Cestuy que vie may bring Trespass without Entry G. 152 153. By entry of a Stranger upon the Kings Farmer he who enters hath gained the Term of the Farmer C. 206. He who hath an under Lease in Reversion of part of the Term from a Lessee of a greater Term cannot enter to defeat the former Estate but the Lessee may C. 269. Two Tenants may plead several Tenancy in this Action B. 8. What is demandable in a Writ of Entry A. 169. Entry sur disseisin in London C. 148. Error Upon a Bill of Intrusion in the Exchequer A. 9. B. 194. By Journies accompts in a real Action against an Heir upon the death of his Ancestor Quaere A. 22. Judgment for the Defendant reversed and Judgment given pro quer ' A. 33. Of an Assise A. 55 255. Where it lies of a Judgment in Ireland A. 55. C. 159. Lies not in the Common Bench A. 55 159. Nor upon the first Judgment in Trespass or Account A. 193 194 309. B. â—68 What Heir shall have it to reverse a Recovery A. 261. 291. Of a Quid juris clamat A. 290. Upon a Judgment in a Writ of Disceit A. 293. Who must joyn or sever in Error in the realty A. 293 294 317. It is Error in a Judgment in an Inferior Court if no Plaint be A. 302. To reverse a Fine for Infancy and reversed in part A. 317. By an Executor to reverse an Uâ—lary in Felony against their Testator A. 326. Where by reversal of one Record another is annulled A. 325 326. A second Writ of Error in nature of Diminution to remove part of a Record B. 2 3. De recordo quod coram vobis residet B. 2 3. C. 107. The principal shall have no Writ of Error upon the Judgment against the Bail B. 4. In fact viz. the death or infancy of one of the Defendants after Verdict upon a Judgment in the Kings Bench B. 54. C. 96. Upon a Judgment in the Exchequer by whom allowed B. 59. Lies of a Judgment in London Sessions upon an Indictmenr B. 107. If Error lies against the Queen unless the party petition for the Writ B. 194. Upon a Judgment in a Scire facias in the Chancery of Chester B. 194. There must be two Writs to reverse two Fines B. 211. If in such case the one Fine may be pleaded to the one Writ and the other Fine to the other Writ B. 211. If upon a Writ of Error of Fine the Plaintiff is non-suit a Stranger may have a Writ de recordo quod coram vobis residet C. 107. Commission to three Judges to examine a Judgment which was given in London and reversed in the Hustings there in Assise of Fresh-force C. 169. If the Bishop who pleads that he hath nothing but as Ordinary must joyn in the Writ of Error upon a Quare Impedit C. 176. He who disclaims shall not have Error C. 176. Escape Lyeth against the Sheriff although the Execution might be avoided by Audita Quereia or Error A. 3. B. 93 86. In what case a Vill shall be amerced for the escape of a Felon A. 107 C. 207. The Sheriff lets one escape whom he took by Cap. Utla when he had a Capias
ad satisfaciend against him in his hands yet escape lies not A. 263. If it lies where the party was charged in Execution while he was Prisoner for Felony A. 276. It lieth not for escape of a Bail if no Scire facias issued against him B. 29 30. Was first given by equity of the Stat. W. 2. cap. 11. B. 9. No Costs upon non-suit in this Action B. 9. If the old Sheriff keep any Prisoner after he is discharg'd of his Office it is an Escape B. 54. If one escape upon an illegal Writ the Court will aid the Sheriff though he cannot deny to execute the Process B. 86. The Sheriff cannot seise the party who escapes by his consent B. 119. Escheat If a Remainder depending upon an Estate for life Escheat the Seigniory is extinct A. 255. Essoine In an Ejectione Firme adjorned A. 134. The Term in the eye of the Law begins the day of Essoines cont as to lay gents A. 210 211. In Quare Impedit B. 4 185. The office and force of an Essoine B. 4. If the Defendant appear and be essoined no Amerciament ought to be against him B. 185. An unnecessary and feigned delay C. 51. per Dyer Estoppel Count of a demise generally Defendant pleads nihil habuit in Tenementis the Plaintiff may estop the Defendant by pleading the Deed A. 156 204 206. Who shall take advantage of an Estoppel A. 157 158. The Jury ought to find it though the party hath not pleaded it A. 204 206. If Deed enrolled be an Estoppel to the party to plead Non est factum A. 184. Where the Court will take notice thereof if not pleaded A. 184. What Deeds made void by Statute are good by Estoppel against the party who made them A. 308 309. By matter of Record B. 3. Where one shall be estopped by a recital in a Bond Indenture c. where not B. 11. C. 118. What Estoppel made by the Ancestor shall bind the Heir B. 57 58. A Verdict for the Plaintiff upon a plene administravit estops the Sheriff of that County where the Tryal was to retorn nulla bona B. 67. By Deed indented B. 73. One seised in Fee takes a Lease of the Herbage of his own Land he is not estopped to claim Fee B. 159. No Estoppel by a Record if the Judgment be reversed C. 52. Jurors are not estopped by an Estoppel implied unless pleaded in the Record C. 209 210. Estovers Prescription for them within a Forrest A. 2. To a Messuage new built upon an old Foundation B. 44. What Estovers Lessee for years may take of common right C. 16. If Lessor grant Fire-boot Lessee may take Trees if there be no Under-wood C. 16. Evidence What Evidence may be given upon a Not Guilty in Trespass A. 301. C. 83. What upon a Nil debet in Debt for Rent B. 10. He who is in the affirmative must give Evidence first C. 162. Exception Count of a Demise of Demesne Lands and Evidence that the Demise was with an Exception yet good Evidence A. 139 140. Where in a Writ there must be a Forsprize B. 162. What may be excepted out of a Lease for years A. 49. De grossis arboribus crescen ' A. 61 116 117 246. Where a Praecipe shall demand a House with or without an Exception for part A. 252. Exchange By Baron and Feme who levy a Fine of the Land taken in Exchange the Feme may enter into her own Lands A. 285. Execution Where the Defendant taken by a Cap. pro fine shall be in Execution for the Plaintiff A. 51 276. The Defendant rendring himself shall not be in Execution unless the Plaintiff pay it A. 58. Execution shall be of the Goods which the Defendant had at the time of the Execution awarded A. 144 145. By Fieri facias good after the Defendants death A. 144. By Writ of Possession the Sheriff must turn all persons out of Doors A. 145. By Capias ad satisfaciend after Elegit retorned that the Lands were first delivered to others by Extent A. 176. The Sheriff upon a retorn Habendo may enquire the kinds of the Cattle if the Count or Avowry be incertain A. 193. One in Prison by Utlary against whom the Sheriff hath a Capias ad satisfaciend Escape lies not though the Sheriff do not charge him with the Capias ad satisfaciend ' A. 263. Stayed by Rule of Court after Judgment A. 276. Where the Defendant taken and in Prison for Felony is chargeable in Execution A. 276 277. B. 85 86 87. What are well executed not being retorned and what not A. 280. B. 49 50. But one Execution upon a joynt Praecipe in debt Secus upon a several Praecipe A. 288. After Execution sued the Defendant cannot sell his Goods bona fide A. 304. One attaint of Felony and also charged with Executions shall not be discharged of the Executions contra of Actions A. 326 327. B. 84 to 89. If the Execution be continued no Scire facias is necessary B. 77 78 87. In what Cases a Capias in Execution lay at Common Law and in what now per Statute B. 86 87. Capias lies against the Bail in B. R. and C. B. in a common Action and upon Audita Querela B. 88. If the Body of a Lord be liable to Execution B. 173 174. Executors Scire facias Executoribus c. without their names is good A. 17. How Judgment shall be against them where part only is found in Assets A. 67 68. Where Assets is found for part and after Goods come to the Executors hands how the Plaintiff must sue forth Execution scil by Scire facias A. 67 68. No plea against an Executor that the Executor was cited to appear to prove the Will and made default and that adm was com to the Defendant A. 90 91. Where Judgment shall be de bonis propriis where de bonis testatoris A. 94. The Executor gives his Bond for Mony a good Administration C. 111 112. Debtor makes the Creditor his Executor A. 112. What is a good refusal of Executors to prove the Will A. 135. Devise that Executors shall sell a Reversion sale by Parol is good and the Vendee is in by the Will A. 148. Debt by single Contract lies not against them though they do not demur but plead A. 165. Action by them de bonis asport in vita testatoris and the form thereof A. 193 194 205. One made Executor if he shall permit J. S. to hold a Term for three years when his power begins A. 229. By grant of Bona Catalla Goods of the Testators pass A. 263. Executor of Executor how to be named A. 275. In what case they shall recover Arrears of Rent in Fee by the Statute 32 H 8. 37. A. 302 303. Plene administravit before notice of the Suit the original being in a forein County A. 312 69. B. 60. The Executrix of the Debtee marries the Debtor she may have an Action for the
185. If a pain set in a Court-Baron may be mitigated by afferrors C. 8. The remedy for a Grantee of the King to recover a Post-Fine C. 56 234. Fine for alienation without Licence may be levied upon any Lands of the Vendor C. 241. Fine of Land. See more C. 74. Partes finis nihil habuer where Executors sell by vertue of a Devise that they shall sell A. 31. Not receiveable if made to two heredibus suis A. 62. A Fine levied of two parts of a Mannor sans dire in tres partes dividend good in a Fine but ill in a Writ A. 115. How to be pleaded upon the Statutes of 4 H. 7. 1 H. 3. 32 H. 8. A. 75 76 77 78. B. 36 37. Quod partes finis nihil habuer how and in what cases to be pleaded A. 78 83 185. B. 36 37. C. 37 119. Where it shall be reversed in part or in the whole A. 115. C. 120. Levied in Exeter City and reversed because it was de duobus Tenementis A. 188. Who shall be bound and how by a Fine and Non-claim after five years A. 212 213 214 259 260 261. B. 18 19 36 37. C. 10. What remainder and contingent Uses are barred by Fine A. 244. B. 18 19 36 37. C. 10. With render of a Rent in Fee and the Lands to the same persons for life how the Law construes this render A. 255. In pleading of it it is not necessary to say that the Conusor was seised A. 255. Dangerous to plead a Fine inter alia A. 255. By Baron and Feme Come ceo que il ad del done le Baron does not bar the Feme of Dower A. 285. Of Ancient Demesne Lands avoided by a Writ of Disceit A. 290. C. 220. For life without the word Heirs is not to be received for fear of occupancy B. 124. The force of a Fine without proclamation such Fine is not void but avoidable by Formedon B. 157. An Infant may declare the Uses and it binds B. 159. Where it must be pleaded and conclude Si actio and where by Estoppel B. 160. Forfeiture Baron and Feme makes a Feoffment of the Wives Joynture to one and his Heirs to the use of the Feoffee for the life of the Feme and adjudged a Forfeiture A. 125 126. Tenant for life forfeits his Estate by levying a Fine A. 40 212 214 262 264. If a remainder which is to vest upon a contingency may be forfeited before it vest A. 244 245. What distress or acceptance shall bar a Lessor to enter for a forfeiture for non-payment A. 262. If Bargain and Sale by Tenant for life be a forfeiture A. 246. It is no forfeiture B. 60 65. What Aid Prayers Vouchers Attornments and Pleadings by Tenant for life and years in real Actions is a forfeiture of his Estate B. 61 62 63 64 65 66. C. 169 170. If Tenant for life and the Reversioner joyn in a Fine and the Reversioner reverse the Fine for his Nonage yet he cannot enter for forfeiture B. 108. If Cestuy que vie die and the Tenant hold over if he be Tenant at Will Sufferance or a Disseisor C. 151 152. Form. Want of Traverse is but Form A. 44. Pleading to a Condition performance of Covenants generally is but form A. 311. Want of shewing a Deed is but Form B. 74. C. 193. Want of shewing a place is substance C. 200. What other matter is but Form C. 235. Formedon After the Tail spent the Plaintiff may suppose all to be dead without Issue A. 286. C. 103. Gavel-kind Land no Assets to bar a Formedon A. 315. In Reverter upon a Gift to the Heirs of the Body of Baron and Feme remainder to their Heirs B. 25. Upon a Gift in Tail remainder to Coparceners the Heir of the Survivor must bring a Formedon for that they claim as purchasers C. 14. Forrest Lex Forestae is but a private Law and must be pleaded B. 209 210. Fraud Fraud shall not be presumed but must be averred C. 255. G. Gardian GArdian in Soccage may grant the Ward though he cannot forfeit C. 190. Gardian in Soccage may enter for Condition broken and make Leases A. 322 323. The Court refused to appoint one for an Infant retorned Tenant in Dower unless in Court in person B 189. Gavel-kind Dower of such Lands is by custom a moiety quamdiu sola c. A. 133. Such Lands are not Assets to bar a Formedon A. 315. Grant. Of Estovers pro Easiamento A. B. heredum suor ' how construed A. 2. Lease at will 10 l. Rent The Lessor grants eundem reditum for life A. 151. Of the next avoidance does not give the then present avoidance A. 167. Of a Vicaridge does not pass the Presentation thereunto A. 191. If an Executor bona sua the Testators Goods pass A. 263. All my Goods and Chattels in such a Town a Lease of the Pawnage of a Park passes C. 19. All Wood upon such Land to be cut and carried away in 30 years does not grant any but what was then growing C. 29 30. A Grant cannot be but of a thing in esse C. 29 30. The force of the word Grant in a Lease C. 33. Grant of all Woods and Underwoods C. 59. Grant of a Rent-Charge to begin when J. S. dies without Issue who had Issue which died without Issue C. 103. All my now Goods and Chattels if the interest or possibility of a Term pass C. 153 to 158. Of the third avoidance c. the Wife is endowed of it the Grantee shall have the fourth C. 155. What interest of a Term or possibility may be granted C. 157 158. Of the Ear-grass of a Meadow C. 213. That the Grantee may take a Load of Hay yearly out of his Meadow the Grantee cannot take no Hay in one year and take two the next C. 226. What shall be sufficient certainty to describe what Lands are granted though part of the description be false A. 119. B. 226. C. 18 19 162 235. Grant of Common in all my Lands the Grantee shall have no Common in the Orchards Gardens c. C. 250. Divers good Cases where Grants of Tenant in Tail and he in Reversion or of Coparceners Joynt-Tenant and Tenant in Common shall be adjudged joynt or several Grants or the confirmation of one C. 254 255 256. Grant of the King and Patents Of a Mannor cum pertin Another Mannor which holds of it passes A. 26. Of an Acre in a great Field not specifying where is void Secus in the case of a common person A. 30. By his Grant Omnium bonorum catallorum Felonum what passes A. 99 201 202. B. 56. Shall be taken according to the true meaning A. 119 120. B. 80. Of a Chose en Action must be very strictly penned N. 271. C. 17 18 196 198. By the Statute of 31 H. 8. cap. 20. the King may grant Lands forfeited before Office B. 124. The force of a Non obstante in