my Lord Coke to be an allowance by the King 's Grant to any person for the sole buying or selling of any thing restraining all others of that Liberty which they had before the making of such a Grant 3 Inst 181. and this he tells us is against the ancient and fundamental Rights of this Kingdom This Patent agreeth exactly with that Definition 9 E. 3. cap. 1. 18 E. 3. c. 3. 25 E. 3. c. 2. Roll. Abr. 180. 2 R. 2. c. 1. 11 R. 2. c. 7. and therefore it must be against Law 't is against an Act of Parliament which gives Liberty to Merchants to buy and to sell in this Realm without disturbance and 't is expresly against the Statute of 21 Jac. cap. 3. which declares all such Letters Patents to be void That which may give some colour to make such Grants good 2 Inst 540. 11 Rep. is a pretence of Order and Government in Trade but my Lord Coke was of Opinion that it was a hinderance to both and in the end it produced Monopolies There is a great difference between the King's Grant and his Prohibition for the one vests an Interest which is not done by the other and all Prohibitions determine by the King's death but Grants still remain in force Adjornatur Langford versus Webber IN Trespass for the taking of a Horse Justification upon a bare possession good against a wrong doer the Defendant justified for that Joseph Ash was possessed of a Close c. and that the Defendant as his Servant took the Horse in that Close Damage fesant And upon a Demurrer to this Plea for that the Defendant did not shew what Title Ash had to this Close The Councel for the Defendant insisted that it being in Trespass 't is sufficent to say that Ash was possessed because in this Case possession is a good Title against all others But it might have been otherwise in Replevin The Title of the Close is not in question Cro. Car. 138. Yelv. 74. Cro. Car. 571. pl. 10. the possession is only an inducement to the Plea and not the substance thereof which is the taking of the Horse and the Law is plain that where the interest of the Land is not in question a Man may justifie upon his own possession against a wrong-doer Mr. Pollexfen on the other side alledged that damage fesant would bring the Title of the Land in question But the Court gave Iudgment for the Defendant Perkins versus Titus A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgment given in the Common-Pleas Fine upon an Admittance where it must be certain in Replevin for taking of the Plaintiff's Sheep The Defendant avowed the taking damage fesant The Plaintiff replied that the Lands where c. were Copy-hold held of the Manor of Bushy in Com. Hertf. the Custom whereof was that every Tenant of the said Manor qui admissus foret to any Copyhold Estate should pay a years Value of the Land for a Fine as the said Land is worth tempore Admissionis And upon a Demurrer the Question was 1. Whether this be a good Plea or not as 't is pleaded 2. If it be good as pleaded then whether such a Custom may be supported by Law 1. It was for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error now and in Michaelmas Term following argued that it was not a good Custom The substance of whose Arguments were that Fines are either certain or incertain those which are incertain are arbitrary and therefore cannot be due of Common Right nor by Custom for there can be no Custom for an incertain Fine and such is this Fine for the value of the Land cannot be known because as this Custom is pleaded it doth not appear whether it shall be a years value past or to come at the time of the admittance of the Tenant A Custom to assess rationabilem denariorum summam for a Fine upon an admittance that is to say 13 Rep. 1. being two years Rent of a Tenant of the yearly value of 53 s. 4 d. is no good Custom A Lease is made for so many years as a third person shall name this is altogether incertain 13 Edw. 3. Fitz. Abr. 273. but when the Term is named then 't is a good Lease but this can be done but once How can this Fine be assessed It cannot be by Iury for then it stands in need of the Common Law and will be therefore void for a Custom must have nothing to support it but usage 1. Neither can this be a good Custom as 't is pleaded because all Customs are made up of repeated Acts and Vsages and therefore in pleading them it must be laid time out of mind which is not done here for admissus foret hath a respect to future admissions and are not to those which are past 2. Here is no time laid when this Fine shall be paid for 't is said Quilibet tenens qui admissus foret c. solvet tantam denariorum summam quantum terra valebat per Annum tempore admissionis c. which last words must be taken to relate to the value of the Land and not to the time when the Fine shall be paid so that if there be such a Custom which is Lex loci and not fully set forth and expressed the Common Law will not help it by any Construction 2. Point Whether such a Custom can be good by Law And they argued that it cannot Where the Fine is certain the Lord may refuse to admit without a tender of it upon the prayer of the person to be admitted 4 Rep. 27. b. but where 't is incertain the Lord is first to admit the Tenant and then to set the Fine the reasonableness whereof is to be determined by Iudges before whom the Case shall depend or upon Demurrer or by a Iury upon proofs of the yearly value of the Land but for non payment of an unreasonable Fine the Lord cannot enter Cro. Eliz. 779. Cro. Car. 196. The Law admits of no Custom to be good but such as is very certain for incertainty in a Custom as well as in a Grant makes both void and therefore 't is held a void Custom for an Infant to make a Feoffment when he can measure an Ell of Cloth Rol. Abr. 565. 6 Rep. 60. Davies Rep. 37. It may be objected that certum est quod certum reddi potest the meaning of which saying must be quod certum reddi potest by something which is certain for if this Rule should be taken to be an answer to incertainties it would destroy all the Books which say a Custom must be certain The Law is very clear Fitz. Bar. 177. 2 Rol. Abr. 264. that a Custom is void for the incertainty therefore this Custom must be void for the value of Land is the most incertain thing in nature and therefore Perjury will not lye for swearing to the value Serjeant Fuller and Mr.
contra As to the first Exception it was said that the Wardmote Court was held before the Mayor for the Iuries there are not to try any Matter but only to make Presentments which are carried before the Mayor Exceptions were taken against the Indictment which was for not serving at a Wardmote Inquest for such a year 1. Because 't is a thing not known at the Common Law that a Man should be of a Iury for a whole year The Indictment was that the Defendant was an Inhabitant of such a place and elected a Iury Man 2. But doth not say that he ought to hold the Office to which he was elected It was quashed Calthrop versus Axtel THE Husband being seized in Fee had Issue two Daughters Ejectment upon the Statute of Ph. Mar. for marrying under 16 without the Parents Consent Antea Hicks versus Gore and dyed his Wife survived who was then by Law Guardian in Socage to her Children one of which under the Age of sixteen years married one Mr. B. without her Mother's Consent by reason whereof her Estate became forfeited during life to her Sister by vertue of the Statute of 4 5 Ph. Mar. who now brought an Ejectment which was tried at the Bar. The Mother was produced as a Witness at this Trial against the married Daughter but it was objected against her that she was Tenant in Possession of the Lands in question under her other Daughter that some part of the Estate was in Houses and that she had made Leases thereof to several Tenants for 99 years c. and covenanted with the Lessees that she together with the Infants when of Age shall and will joyn to do any â—â—â—rther Act for the quiet enjoyment thereof therefore this is like the Case of a Bailiff or Steward who if they put themselves under such Covenants shall never be admitted as Witnesses in any Cause where the Title of such Lands shall come in question The Proofs that the Mother did not consent were That she made Affidavit of the whole matter and got the Lord Chief Iustice's Warrant to search Mr. B's Houss for her Daughter and upon application made to my Lord Chancellor she obtained a Writ of Ne exeat Regnum and got a Homine replegiando and gave notice of the Fact in the Gazett and exhibited an Information in the Crown Office against Mr. B. and his Father and his Maid Attorny General contra E contra The Preamble of this Act will be a Guide in this Case which is For that Maids of great Substance in Goods c. or having Lands in Fee have by Rewards and Gifts been allowed to contract Matrimony with unthrifty persons and thereupon have been conveied from their Parents by sleight or force c. Then it enacts That no person shall convey away a Maid under 16 years without her Parents Consent which Assent is not necessary within the meaning of this Act unless the Child be taken away either by sleight or force which must be proved The Mother was no good Guardian to these Children for she did set up one G. to be a Curator for her Daughter in the Spiritual Court to call her self to an accompt for the personal Estate of which her Husband died possessed she having given Security to exhibit a true Inventory This Accompt was stated in the Prerogative Court between her and the Curator to 300 l. only for which she gave Bond when in truth the Personal Estate was worth more and afterwards obtained a Decree in Chancery thinking thereby to bind the interest of the Infants In this Case it was said that there must be a continued refusal of the Mother for if she once agree though afterwards she disassent yet 't is an assent within the Statute There must likewise be proof of the stealing away Obrian versus Ram. Mich. 3 Jac. 2. Rot. 192. Angl ' ss Entry of a Writ of Error out of Ireland DOminus Rex mandavit praedilecto fideli Conciliario suo Willielmo Davis Militi Capitali Justic suo ad placita in Curia ipsius Domini Regis coram ipso Rege in Regno suo Hiberniae tenend ' assign ' Breve suum Clausum in haec verba ss Jacobus secundus Dei gratia Angliae Scotiae Franciae Hiberniae Rex Fidei defensor c. pradilecto fideli Conciliario nostro Willielmo Davis Militi Capital ' Justic ' nostro ad placita in Curia nostra coram nobis in Regno nostro Hiberniae tenend ' assign ' salutem Quia in Recordo Processu acetiam in redditione Judicii loquelae quae fuit in Curia nostra coram nobis in praed Regno nostro Hiberniae per Billam inter Abel Ram Mil. nuper dict Abel Ram de Civitate Dublin Alderman ' Elizabetham Grey de Civitate Dublin Viduam de quodam debito quod idem Abel a praefat ' Elizabetha exigebat Quae quidem Elizabetha postea cepit Donnough Obrian Armigerum in virum suum obiit Necnon in adjudications executions ejusdem Judicij super Breve nrÌ„um de Scire FacÌ„ extra eandem Curiam nostram coram nobis emanen ' versus ipsum praed In adjudicatione Executionis super Scire Fac. Donnogh in loquela praed ut dicitur Error intervenit manifestus ad grave dampnum ipsius Donnogh sicut ex querela sua accepimus Nos Error si quis fuerit modo debito corrigi partibus praed plenam celerem justiciam fieri volentes in hac parte vobis mandamus qd ' si judicium in loquela praed ' reddit ' ac adjudicationem executionis judicii praed super breve nostrum de Scire facÌ„ praed adjudicatÌ„ tunc record ' process tam loquel ' quam adjudicationis executionis judicii praed ' cum omnibus ea tangen ' nobis sub sigillo vestro distincte aperte mittatis hoc Breve ita qd ' ea habeamus in Crastino Ascentionis Domini ubicunque tunc fuerimus in Angl ' Ut inspect ' record ' process praed ' ulterius inde pro Errore illo corrigendo Fieri fac ' quod de jure fuerit faciend ' Et Scire fac praefat ' Abel qd ' tunc sit ibi ad procedend ' in loquela praed ' faciend ' ulterius recipiend ' quod dicta Curia consideraverit in praemissis Teste meipso apud Westm xxii Januarii Anno Regni nostri secundo Price Record ' Process The Return loquelae unde infra fir mentio cum omnibus ea tangen ' coram Dno Rege ubicunque c. ad diem locum infracontent ' mitto in quodam Record ' huic Brevi annex ' Scire feci Abel Ram qd ' tunc sit ibi ad procedend ' in loquela praed prout interius mihi praecipitur Respons ' W. Davis Placita coram Domino Rege apud the Kings Courts de Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno Regni Domini
which he claims he ought to shew the other Will by which it must appear that nothing is contradictory to it or that it doth confirm the first but if Presumptions shall be admitted it must be in favour of the Heir for nothing shall be presumed to disinherit him Afterwards in Trinity-Term 5 Willielmi Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and a Writ of Error was brought in the House of Peers to reverse that Iudgment but it was affirmed Anonymus A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgment in the Common Pleas in an Ejectment for Lands in the County of Essex in which a Special Verdict was found viz. That R. F. What Words in a Will make Tenants in Common was seized in Fee of the Lands in question who had Issue two Daughters Frances Jane Frances had Issue Philp Frances Anne R. F. the Father devised unto Philip Frances and Anne the Children of his Daughter Frances and to Jane his other Daughter the Rents and Profits of his Mannor of Spain for thirty years to hold by equal parts viz. the three Grandchildren to have one Moiety and his Daughter Jane the other Moiety And if it happen that either of them should die before the thirty years expired then the said Term should be for the benefit of the Survivor and if they all die then the same was devised over to other Relations Afterwards he made a Codicil in these words viz. I give Power and Authority to my Executors to let my whole Lands for the Term of thirty years for the benefit and behalf of my Children Anne one of the Granchildren died without Issue Frances another of the Grandchildren died but left Issue The first Question was whether the Power given to the Executors by the Codicil will take away that Interest which was vested in the Grandchildren by the Will Mr. Appleton argued that it would not because the Executors had only a bare Authority to let it or improve it for the benefit of the Children there was no Devise of the Land to them If Power be given to Executors to sell Lands 't is only an Authority and not an Interest in them but a bare Authority only to let is of much less importance 2. After the Testator had devised the Profits of these Lands to his Grandchildren and Daughter equally to be divided during the term and had provided that if any dye without Issue that then it should survive and if all dye then to remain over to collateral Relations c. Whether Frances being dead but leaving Issue her Interest shall survive to Philip or go to such her Issue As to that he held that the Testator made them Tenants in Common by equal parts and therefore he devised it by Moieties in which there can be no Survivorship 'T is like a Devise to the Wife for life 2 Cro. 448. 1 Roll. Abr. 833. King versus Rumbal Cro. Car. 185. and after her decease to his three Daughters equally to be divided and if any of them die before the other then the Survivors to be her Heirs equally to be divided and if they all die without Issue then to others c. the Daughters had an Estate Tail and there was no Survivorship So in this Case it shall never go to the third Grandchild as long as any Issue of the second are living On the other side it was argued that they are Ioyntenants and not Tenants in Common E contra for the Testator having devised one Moiety to his three Grandchildren joyntly by equal parts that will make them Ioyntenants But the Court were all of Opinion that the words in the Will shew them to be Tenants in Common for equally to be divided runs to the Moieties So the Iudgment was affirmed Woodward 's Case THE Statute of 23 H. 8. c. 9. Church Ornaments are a personal Charge upon the Inhabitants and not upon those who live else where though they occupy Lands in that Parish Godb. 134. pl. 4. 152. pl. 29. 154. pl. prohibites a Citation out of the Diocess wherein the Party dwelleth except in certain Cases therein mentioned one whereof is viz. Except for any Spiritual Cause neglected to be done within the Diocess whereunto the Party shall be lawfully cited One Woodward and others who lived in the Diocess of Litchfield and Coventry but occupied Lands in the Diocess of Peterborough were taxed by the Parishioners where they used those Lands for the Bells of the Church and they refusing to pay this Tax a Suit was commenced against them in the Bishop of Peterborough's Court who thereupon suggested this Matter and prayed a Prohibition because they were not to be charged with this Tax it being only for Church Ornaments And a Prohibition was granted the reason given was because 't is a personal charge to which the Inhabitants only are liable and not those who only occupy in that Parish and live in another but the repairing of the Church is a real Charge upon the Land let the Owner live where he will DE Term. Sanct. Trin. Anno 4 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1688. Wright Chief Justice Holloway Justices Powel Justices Allibon Justices The Bishop 's Case Friday June 15th THE King having set forth a Declaration for Liberty of Conscience did on the 4th day of May last by Order of Council enjoyn that the same should be read twice in all Churches c. and that the Bishops should distribute it through their respective Diocesses that it might be read accordingly The Archbishop of Canterbury who then was together with six other Bishops petitioned the King setting forth that this Declaration was founded upon a dispensing Power which had been declared illegal in Parliament and therefore they could not in Honour or Conscience make themselves Parties to the Distribution and Publication of this Declaration who thereupon were summoned before the King in Council and refusing there to give Recognizance to appear before the Court of Kings Bench they were committed to the Tower by Warrant of the Council-Board The Attorney General moved for a Habeas Corpus retornable immediate and the same Morning in which that Motion was made Sir Edward Hales Lieutenant of the Tower returned the same and they were all brought into the Court. The Substance of the Return was viz. That they were committed to his Custody by Warrant under the Hands and Seals of the Lord Chanchellor Jefferies and also naming more of the Lords of the Privy-Council Dominos Concilij for contriving making and publishing a Seditious Libel against the King c. Then it was prayed that the Return might be filed and that the Information which was then exhibited against them for this Crime might be read and that they might all plead instanter Serjeant Pemberton Mr. Finch and Mr. Pollexfen oppsed the reading of it and moved that the Bishops might be discharged because they were not legally before the Court for it appears upon the Return that there is no lawful cause of
first Son of the Body of the said Simon Leach my Brother lawfully to be begotten and to the Heirs Males of the Body of such first Son lawfully to be begotten with like Remainder in Tail Male to the second third fourth c. Sons and for default of such Issue to Sir Simon Leach my Kinsman being Son and Heir of Simon Leach of Cadley in the County of Devon ' Esquire deceased and to the Heirs Males of his Body lawfully to be begotten and for default of such Issue to the right Heirs of me the said Nicholas Leach for ever They find that Nicholas Leach died without Issue that Simon Leach his Brother and Heir with Remainder over in Contingency as aforesaid entered and afterwards married Anne the Daughter of Unton Croke and that after the said Marriage viz. 20 August 25 Car. 2. he executed a Deed purporting a * Two months before a Son was born Surrender of the said Lands and Tenements to Sir Simon Leach in manner following viz. To all Christian People c. I Simon Leach of Elsefield in the County of Oxon Esquire send greeting Know ye that I the said Simon Leach for divers good Causes and valuable Considerations me hereunto moving have granted surrendred remised released and for ever quit claimed and confirmed and by these Presents do grant surrender remise release and for ever quit claim and confirm unto Sir Simon Leach of Cadley in the County of Devon Knight of the Bath and his Heirs and Assigns for ever all and every the Mannors c. To have and to hold the same to the said Sir Simon Leach for ever They find that Simon Leach Brother of the Testator was not compos mentis at the time of the sealing and delivery of the said Surrender That on the 10th day of November 25 Car. 2. which was two Months after this Surrender made the said Simon Leach had Issue of his Body Charles Leach who is his Son and Heir that he after the death of his Father entred and made a Lease to Tompson by vertue whereof he was possessed until the Defendant Sir Simon Leach entred upon him c. Two Questions were made upon this Special Verdict 1. Whether this Surrender by a person Non compos mentis was void ab initio and so could pass no Estate to the Surrendree for if so then though the Ideot himself is estopped by his own Act yet that can be no Barr to him in the Remainder because the Act being void the Estate in Law still remains in him 2. If it is not void in its self then whether it is voidable after the death of the Party by Charles Leach he claiming by virtue of a collateral Remainder and not as Heir at Law to the Devisor As to the first Point it was argued that the Cases of Lunaticks and Infants go hand in hand and that the same Reasons govern both that the Law is clear that a Surrender made by an Infant is void therefore a Surrender made by a person Non compos mentis is also void Fleta lib. 1. c. 11. num 10. the reason is because they know not how to govern themselves And as Fleta saith Semper judicabuntur infra aetatem F.N.B. 202. a. Regist 238. b. if he makes any Conveyance of his Land the Law hath provided a remedial Writ even for himself to avoid his own Alienation His Feoffments are void 39 H. 6.42 Bract. fol. 12. no. 5. fol. 100 120. Brit. cap. 34. fol. 88. Perk. 5. pl. 21. and if Warranties are annexed those they are also void if he granteth a Rent-Charge out of his Land that is likewise void and if the Grantee should distrain for this Rent after the death of the Grantor his Heir shall have an Action of Trespas against him and therefore by parity of Reason this Surrender must be void In Fitzherbert Tit. Grantee pl. 80. there is a Case to this purpose viz. An Assize was brought against the Tenant supposing that he had no right of Entry unless under a Disseisor by whom the Brother of the Demandant was disseised The Tenant pleaded that the supposed Disseisor was the Father of the Demandant whose Heir he then was and that his said Father made a Feoffment of the Land to the Tenant with Warranty and demanded Iudgment c. The Demandant replied that his Father at that time was Non compos mentis and the Tenant was compelled to rejoin and take Issue upon the Insanity which shews that if he was Non compos he could not have made such a Feoffment So if he maketh a Feoffment in Fee and afterwards taketh back an Estate for Life Fitz. Remitter pl. 23. the Non compos shall be remitted to his ancient Title which shews likewise that such Feoffment was void for the Remitter supposeth a former Right 'T is incongruous to say that Acts done by persons of no discretion shall be good and valid in the Law such are Infants and Lunaticks and it stands with great reason that what they do should be void especially when it goes to the destruction of their Estates Therefore 't is held that if a person Non compos releaseth his right that shall not barr the King in his Life time but he shall seize the Land and if he die his Heir may bring the Writ Dum non fuit compos mentis and may enter 'T is for this reason that a Release made by an Infant Executor is no barr because it works in destruction of his Interest 5 Co. 27. Russel 's Case 34 Ass pl. 10. the reason is the same where a person Non compos maketh a Feoffment for that likewise destroys his Estate So likewise an Infant can neither surrender a future Interest by his acceptance of a new Lease Cro. Car. 502. nor make an absolute Surrender of a Term of which he is possessed for such a Surrender by Deed is void 'T is agreed that if a Man Non compos maketh a Feoffment by Letter of Attorny 't is meerly void because 't is not delivered to the Feoffee by the hands of the Feoffor but 't is said that if it be delivered by him in person then 't is only voidable at any time by Action or Entry Finch 's Law 102. And of this Opinion was Sir Henry Finch in his Discourse of the Law who in the Margen of his Book quotes several Authorities in the Year Books to justifie this Opinion and amongst the rest he cites Sir Anthony Fitzherberts Natura Brevium 35 Ass pl. 10. who taking notice of the old Authorities seems to reject their Reasons who affirm a person Non compos shall not avoid his own Act when he recovers his memory because he cannot then tell what he did when he was in his former Condition But certainly when he recovers his Iudgment he is then of Ability to consider what was done during his Insanity and to avoid such Acts by shewing how his indisposition came by the
ought to be left out and of that Opinion was the Court and therefore a Rule was made that he might discontinue this Action without Costs Mordant versus Thorold Hill 1 2 Gulielmi Rotulo 340. THE Plaintiff brought a Scire Fac. upon a Iudgment The Case was thus Viz. Ann Thorold recovered in Dower against Sir John Thorold in which Action Damages are given by the Statute of Merton 20 H. 3. c. 1. Sir John Thorold brought a Writ of Error in B. R. and the Iudgment was affirmed Then the Plaintiff in Dower brought a Writ of Enquiry for the Damages and married Mr. Mordant and died before that Writ was executed Mr. Mordant takes out Letters of Administration to his Wife and brought a Sci. Fa. upon the Iudgment and the question was whether it would lie This depended upon the construction of the Statute of King Charles the II. which enacts That in all personal Actions 17 Car. 2. c. 8. and real and mixt the death of either party between the Verdict and the Iudgment shall not hereafter be alledged for Error so as such Iudgment be entred within two Terms after such Verdict Serjeant Pemberton insisted that this was a judicial Writ and that the Administrator had a right to it though the Wife died before the Profits were ascertained by the Writ of Enquiry 't is no more than a plain Sci. Fa. upon a Iudgment which an Executor may have and which was never yet denied though this seems to be a Case of the first Impression The Council on the other side argued that 't is true an Executor may have a Scire Facias upon a Iudgment recovered in the life of the Testator by reason only of such Recovery but this Scire Facias is brought for what never was recovered because the Wife died before any thing was vested in her for the Iudgment will stand so as to effect the Lands but not for the Damages Curia When a Statute which gives a remedy for mean Profits is expounded it ought to be according to the Common Law Now where entire Damages are to be recovered and the Demandant dies before a Writ of Enquiry executed the Executor cannot have any remedy by a Scire Facias upon that Iudgment because Damages are no duty till they are assessed Sed adjornatur DE Term. Sanctae Trin. Anno 2 Gulielmi Mariae Regis Reginae in Banco Regis 1690. Shotter versus Friend Vxor ' Hill 2 Willielmi Rot. 39. THE Plaintiff and his Wife declared upon a Prohibition setting forth Proof by one Witness good in the Spiritual Court that John Friend on the 13th of October 22 Car. 2. made his Will by which he bequeathed to Mary Friend 10 l. to be paid to her within two years after his decease and that he made Jane the Wife of the Plaintiff Shotter Executrix and dyed that the said Executrix whilst sole and unmarried paid the said Legacy to Mary Friend who is since dead that Thomas Friend the Husband of the said Mary did after her death demand this Legacy in the Consistory Court of the Bishop of Winton that the Plaintiff pleaded payment and offered to prove it by one single Witness which Proof that Court refused though the Witness was a person without Exception and thereupon Sentence was given there against the Plaintiff which Sentence was now pleaded and upon Demurrer to the Plea The Question was whether upon the whole matter the Defendant should have a Consultation or whether a Prohibition should be granted because the proof by one Witness was denied by that Court. It was argued that the Defendant should not have a Consultation because Matters Testamentary ought to have no more favour than things relating to Tythes in which Cases the Proof by one Witness hath been always held good So 't is in a Release to discharge a Debt which is well proved by a single Testimony and it would be very inconvenient if it should be otherwise for Feoffments and Leases may come in question which must not be rejected because proved by one Witness A Modus decimandi comes up to this Case upon the Suggestion whereof Prohibitions are never denied and the chief reason is because the Spiritual Court will not allow a Modus to be any discharge of Tythes of Kind The Courts of Equity in Westminster-Hall give Relief upon a Proof by one Witness so likewise do the Courts of the Common Law if the Witness is a good and credible person 'T is true a Prohibition shall not go upon a Suggestion that the Ecclesiastical Court will not receive the Testimony of a single Witness If the Question is upon Proof of a Legacy devised or Marriage or not or any other thing which originally doth lie in the Cognizance of that Court but payment or not payment is a matter of Fact triable at the Law and not determinable there if therefore they deny to take the Evidence of a single Witness a Prohibition ought to go 2 Inst 608. 2. The Sentence is no obstacle in this Case because the Plaintiff had no Right to a Prohibition until the Testimony of his Witness was denied and Sentence thereupon given and this is agreeable to what hath been often done in cases of like nature As for instance Cro. Eliz. 88. Moor 907. Prohibitions have been granted where the Proof of a Release of a Legacy by one Witness was denyed So where the Proof of payment of Cythes for Pidgeons was denied upon the like Testimony Cro. Eliz. 666. Moor 413. 2 Rol. Rep. 439. 2 Rol Abr. 300. pl. 9. 299 pl. 14 17. Yelv. 92. Latch 117. 3 Bulst 242. Hutt 22. So where a Suit was for Subtraction of Cythes and the Defendant pleaded that he set them out and offered to prove it by by one Witness but was denied a Prohibition was granted And generally the Books are that if the Spiritual Court refuse such Proof which is allowed at the Common Law they shall be prohibited There is one Case against this Opinion which is that of Roberts in 12 Co. 12 Co. 65. Rep. but it was only a bare Surmise and of little Authority Those who argued on the other side held that a Consultation shall go E contra and that for two Reasons 1. Because a Prohibition is prayed after Sentence 2. Because the Ecclesiastical Court have an original Iurisdiction over all Testamentary things As to the first Point 'T is plain that if that Court proceed contrary to those Rules which are used and practised at the Common Law yet no Prohibition ought to go after Sentence but the proper remedy is an Appeal 2. It cannot be denied but that that Court had Cognizance of the principal matter in this Case which was a Legacy and Payment or not is a thing collateral Now wherever they have a proper Iurisdiction of a Cause both that and all its dependences shall be tried according to their Law which rejects the Proof by a single Witness
Declaration was held to be naught for that very reason for if a Debt upon a Specialty be demanded the Declaration must be for the whole Sum if for less you must shew how the other was satisfied The Earl of Macklefield's Case THE Plaintiff brought an Action upon the Statute de Scandalis Magnatum against Sir Thomas Grosvenor Special Bail denied in a Scandalum Magnatum for that he being Foreman of the Grand Iury in Cheshire spoke these Words of the Plaintiff viz. That he was a tedious Man and a Promoter of Sedition and tedious Addresses The Plaintiff desired that the Defendant might put in Special Bail but the Court would not grant it and said it was a discretionary thing and not to be demanded of right It was denied to the Duke of Norfolk unless Oath made of the words spoken and therefore the Court ordered Common Bail to be filed Holloway's Case HE was taken at Nevis in the West-Indies and brought over hither and now appeared in Custody at the Barr being outlawed for High-Treason in the late Conspiracy Sir Samuel Astry Clerk of the Crown read the Indictment upon which he was outlawed and the King by his Attorney General consented that the Outlawry should be reversed which could not have been done without such consent and that he might come to his Trial but he having nothing to alledge in his defence other than that he had made an ingenuous Confession to the King and hoped that he might deserve Mercy the Court made a Rule for his Execution to be on Wednesday following and did not pronounce any Sentence against him and he was executed accordingly Dominus Rex versus Barnes al' THE Defendant Barnes and others were excommunicated for not coming to their Parish Churches who pleaded the Statute of 5 Eliz. 5 Eliz. c. 23. which inflicts pecuniary Penalties for not appearing upon the Capias but enacts That if the excommunicate person have not a sufficient addition according to the Statute of 1 H. 1 H. 5. c. 5. 5. or if in the Significavit it be not contained that the Excommunication proceeds upon several causes in that Statute mentioned and amongst the rest for refusing to come to Divine Service he shall not incurr the Penalties Now Mr. Pollexfen made these Objections 1. The Defendant was excommunicated for not coming to his Parish Church which is not required by this Statute for if he doth not tefuse to hear Divine Service in any Church the Penalties are saved 2. The Statute of Additions requires that the Condition and Dwelling place of the Defendant shall be inserted which was not done in this Case for they are excommunicated by the Names of A. B. Mercator B. C. Scissor ' E. F. de Parochia c. which last Addition of the Parish shall referr to him only last mentioned and not to all the rest and so it was always ruled in Indictments Attorney General contra The Statute of 5 Eliz. is grounded upon that of 1 of the Queen which enjoins every person to resort to his Parish Church or upon lett thereof to some other or to forfeit 12 d. every Sunday and Holy day to be levied by the Churchwardens there for the use of the Poor Now though the Parish is not named in this Act yet the Law must be interpreted as it was then 2. The word Parish goes to all so 't is in Informations for Riots And by Astry Clerk of the Crown t is always so in Significavits Tamen quaere Curia If the Defendant had pleaded below or here that he had heard Divine Service in any other Church though not in his own Parish the Penalties should not have went out but being now incurred there is no remedy and the word Parish goes to all preceding Prodgers versus Frazier IN Trespass The Defendant pleaded The Grant of the Custody of an Ideot passeth an Interest to the Executor of the Grantee that before the time of the Trespass supposed to be committed Bridget Dennis was seized in Fee of the Lands in question who by a Writ de Indeota inquirendo was found to be an Ideot not having any lucid intervals per spacium octo annorum c. by virtue whereof the King was entituled who granted the Custody to Sir Alexander Frazier who died and that the Defendant Mary Frazier was his Executrix The Plaintiff replyed and confessed the Ideocy but that the King granted the Custody of the Ideot to the Plaintiff And upon this Replication the Defendant demurred In this Case it was agreed by the Council on both sides that the King by his Prerogative hath the sole interest in him of granting the Estate of an Ideot to whom he pleaseth without any account but 't is otherwise in case of a Lunatique for there the Grantee shall have nothing to his own use but must put in Security to account to the Lunatick if ever he comes to be capable or else to his Executors or Administrators Vide Frances's Case in Moor fol. 4. But the Questions that did arise in this Case were 1. That there was not sufficient Title found for the King for by the Inquisition the Ideot was found to be so per spatium octo annorum c. which is incertain because before that time she might have lucida intervalla and then she cannot be an Ideot without being naturally so therefore the Iury ought to have found her an Ideot a nativitate for that is the only matter which vests an interest in the King But it was answered and agreed by the Court that the finding her to be an Ideot was sufficient without the addition of any other words and therefore per spacium octo annorum shall be surplusage for in this Case Words are not so much to be regarded as the reason of the Law which doth not allow of Ideocy otherwise than a nativitate But supposing a seeming incertainty in this Office found yet it being said generally that she was an Ideot the subsequent words shall not hurt because the general finding shall be taken in that sense which is most for the advantage of the King As for Example Dyer 155. b. 161. b. 306. b. It was found by Office that a person died seised of two Mannors and that he held one of the Queen by Knights Service generally and the other of a Mesne Lord in Chivalry which is the same Tenure now it was held that the first general finding shall be intended Knights Service in Capite because it was most for the King's benefit that he might thereby be entituled to the Wardship of the Heir who was found to be under Age. 2. Whether the Grant of the Custody of an Ideot will pass any Interest to the Executor of the Grantee because such a Grant carries a Trust with it and the King may have some knowledge and consideration of the Grantee but not of his Executor To which it was answered that here was an interest coupled with a
the one took 70 l. and the other 30 l. damages shall be assessed severally It was admitted that regularly the damages ought to be entire especially where the Action is joint but where the Facts are several damages may likewise be so assessed but in this Case the Iury hath done what the Court would do had it béen in a Criminal Cause Curia This is all but one Fact which the Iury is to try 'T is true when several Persons are found Guilty criminally then the damages may be severed in proportion to their Guilt but here all are equally guilty of the same offence and it seems to be a contradiction to say that the Plaintiff is injured by one to the value of 50 l. and by the other to the value of 1000 l. when both are equally Guilty Every Defendant ought to answer full as much as the Plaintiff is damnified now how is it possible he should be damnified so much by one and so little by the other But notwithstanding this Opinion Iudgment was afterwards given for the Plaintiff Peak versus Meker IN an Action on the Case for Words the Plaintiff declared that he was a Merchant and bred up in the Church of England and that when the present King came to the Crown the said Plaintiff made a Bonfire at his Door in the City of London and that the Defendant then spoke of him these words for which he now brought this Action viz. He innuendo the Plaintiff is a Rogue a Papist Dog and a pitiful Fellow and never a Rogue in Town has a Bonfire before his Door but he The Plaintiff had a Verdict and 500 l. Damages were given A Writ of Error was brought but it was adjudged without argument that the words were actionable Joyner versus Pritchard AN Action was brought upon the Statute of R. II. Admiralty for prosecuting of a Cause in the Admiralty Court which did arise upon the Land it was tried before the Chief Iustice in London and a Verdict for the Plaintiff Mr. Thompson moved in Arrest of Iudgment for that the Action was brought by Original in which it was set forth that the Defendant prosecut fuit adhuc prosequitur c. in Curia Admiralitat now the prosequitur is subsequent to the Original and so they have recovered Damages for that which was done after the Action brought Curia These words adhuc prosequitur must refer to the time of suing forth this Original like the Case of a Covenant for quiet Enjoyment and a breach assigned that the Defendant built a Shed whereby he hindred the Plaintiff that he could not enjoy it hucnsque which word must refer to the time of the Action brought and not afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Dominus Rex versus ........ AN Information was brought against the Defendant for Forgery Forgery setting forth that the Defendant being a man of ill fame c. and contriving to cheat one A. did forge quoddam scriptum dated the 16th day of October in the year 1681. continens in se scriptum obligatorium per quod quidem scriptum obligatorium praed A. obligatus fuit praed Defend in quadraginta libris c. He was found Guilty and afterwards this Exception was taken in arrest of Iudgment Viz. That the Fact alledged in the Information was a contradiction of it self for how could A. be bound when the Bond was forged 2. It is not set forth what that scriptum obligatorium was whether it was scriptum sigillatum or not Curia The Defendant is found Guilty of the forging of a Writing in which was contained quoddam scriptum obligatorium and that may be a true Bond. Iudgment was arrested MEMORANDUM On Tuesday April the 27th Sir Thomas Powes of Lincolns-Inn was made Sollicitor General in the Place of Mr. Finch and was called within the Bar. Hanchet versus Thelwal IN Ejectment a special Verdict was found Devise What words in a Will make an Estate for Life and what in Tail in which the Case did arise upon the construction of the words in a Will Viz. The Testator being seised in Fee had Issue Two Sons and Four Daughters He made his Will and devised his Estate being in Houses by these words Viz. Irem I give and bequeath to my Son Nicholas Price my Houses in Westminster and if itplease God to take away my Son then I give my Estate to my four Daughters naming them share and share alike and if it please God to take away any of my said Daughters before Marriage then I give her or their part to the rest surviving And if all my Sons and Daughters dye without Issue then I give my said Houses to my Sister Anne Warner and her Heirs Nicholas Price entred and died without Issue then the four Sisters entred and Margaret the eldest married Thellwel and died leaving Issue a Son who was the Lessor of the Plaintiff who insisted upon his Title to a fourth part of the Houses The Question was what Estate the Daughters took by this Will whether joint Estates for Life or several Remainders in Tail If only joint Estates for Life then the Plaintiff as Heir to his Mother will not be entituled to a fourth part if several Remainders in Tail then the Father will have it during his Life as Tenant by the Curtesie This Case was argued this Term by Mr. Pollexfen for the Plaintiff And in Hillary Term following by Councel for the Defendant The Plaintiffs Council insisted that they took joint Estates for Life and this seemed to be the intent of the Testator by the words in his Will the first Clause whereof was Viz. I give and bequeath my Houses in W. to Nicholas Price Now by these words an Estate for Life only passed to him and not an Inheritance for there was nothing to be done or any thing to be paid out of it 2. The next Clause is Viz. If it please God to take away my Son then I give my Estate to my four Daughters share and share alike Now these words cannot give the Daughters a Fee-simple by any intendment whatsoever but if any word in this Clause seems to admit of such a Construction it must be the word Estate which sometimes signifies the Land it self and sometimes the Estate in the Land But here the word Estate cannot create a Fee-simple because the Testator gave his Daughters that Estate which he had given to his Son before and that was only for Lise Then follow the words share and share alike and that only makes them Tenants in Common 3. The next Clause is Viz. If it please God to take away any of my said Daughters before Marriage then I give her or their part to the rest surviving These words as they are penned can have no influence upon the Case 4. Then followeth the last Clause Viz. And if all my Sons and Daughters dye without Issue then I give c. These words create no Estate tail in the
Finch contra The chief Objection is the incertainty of this Custom now if a Custom as incertain as this hath been held good in this Court 't is a good Authority to support this Custom And as to that it was said that a Custom for a person whom a Copy holder should name to have his Land after his death and that he should pay a Fine for his admitance And if the Lord and Tenant cannot agree about the Fine that then the rest of the Tenants should assess it 1 Rol. Rep. 48. 2 Cro. 368. 4 Leon. 238. Noy 3. 2 Brownl 85. this was adjudged a good Custom by the Court of Common-Pleas and affirmed upon a Writ of Error in this Court It was the Case of Crab and Bevis cited in Warne and Sawyers Case Adjornatur Afterwards the first Iudgment was affirmed and all the Court held the Custom to be a good Custom Hacket versus Herne JVdgment was had in Debt upon a Bond against Father and Son Where the Defendants in the Action must joyn in a Writ of Error and afterwards the Father alone brought a Writ of Error and the Error assingned was that his Son was under Age but because the Son did not join in the Errors the Court ordered the Writ to be abated If a Quare impedit be brought against a Bishop and others and Iudgment be against them all they must likewise all join in a Writ of Error unless it be where the Bishop claims only as Ordinary 'T is true Rol. Abr. 929. pl. 30. this is against the Opinion of my Lord Rolls in his Abridgment who puts the Case that where a Scire Facias was brought against four Executors who pleaded plene administraverunt the Iury find Assets in the Hands of two of them and that the other eant inde sine die two bring a Writ of Error and altho' at the opening of the Case it was held that the Writ should abate for that reason because brought only by two yet he says the Iudgment was afterwards affirmed and the Writ held good But there is a difference where a Writ of Error is brought by the Plaintiffs in the original Action 5 Co. 25. a Ruddock's Case and when by the Defendants for if two Plaintiffs are barred by an erronious Iudgment and afterwards bring a Writ of Error the Release of one shall bar the other because they are both actors in a personal thing to charge another and it shall be presumed a Folly in him to join with another who might release all But where the Defendants bring a Writ of Error 't is otherwise for it being brought to discharge themselves of a Iudgment the Release of one cannot barr the other because they have not a joint Interest but a joint burthen and by Law are compelled to join in Errors Mosse versus Archer COvenant by an Assignee of an Assignee of Lands which were exchanged the Breach assigned was Breach not well assigned that a Stranger habens jus titulum did enter c. There was a Uerdict for the Plaintiff and it was now moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Plaintiff had not shewed a sufficient breach for he sets forth the Entry of a Stranger habens jus titulum but doth not shew what Title and it may be he had a Title under the Plaintiff himself 2 Cro. 315. Hob. 35. after the Exchange made and to prove this the Case of Kirby and Hansaker was cited in point and of that Opinion was all the Court. Nota It was said in this Case that an Exchange ought to be executed by either Party in their Life-time or else it is void Taylor versus Brindley THE Original in Trespass was quare Clausum fregit Variance between the Original and Declaration where 't is no Error and the Plaintiff declared quare Clausum Domum fregit and had Iudgment in the Common-Pleas and a Writ of Error was brought in this Court and the variance between the Original and Declaration was assigned for Error and that one was not warranted by the other But Serjeant Levinz argued that because the Original was certified three Terms since 2 Cro. 674. 1 Rol. Abr. 790. n. 7. Cro. Car. 272. 18 Eliz. cap. and no Continuances between it and the Declaration therefore that could not be the Original to this Action and that the Court might for that reason intend a Verdict without an Original which is helped by the Statute of Jeofails But he argued that where the Original varies from the Declaration and is not warranted by it 't is not aided by this Statute Iudgment was affrmed DE Term. Sancti Mich. Anno 3 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1687. Wright Chief Justice Holloway Justices Powel Justices Allibon Justices Sawyer Attorny General Powis Sollicitor General Mathews versus Cary Pasch 3 Jac. Rot. 320. TRespass for entring of his House and taking of a Silver Tankard Where the Defendant justifies by way of excuse he must set forth the Warrant and that he took the Goods virtute Warranti The Defendant made conusance as Bayliff of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster for that the place where c. was within the Iurisdiction of the Leet of the said Dean who was seised of a Court Leet which was held there such a day c. And that the Iury did present the Plaintiff being a Tallow-Chandler for melting of stinking Tallow to the annoyance of the Neighbours for which he was amerced and that the Amerciament was affered to 5 l. which not being paid the Defendant by a Mandate of the said Dean and Chapter distreined the Tankard c. The Plaintiff replied de injuria sua propria absque hoc that he did melt Tallow to the annoyance of the Neighbours c. And upon a Demurrer to this Replication it was argued this Term by Mr. Pollexfen for the Defendant and Tremaine for the Plaintiff and afterwards in Michaelmas Term 1 Will. Mariae by Mr. Bonithan and Serjeant Thompson for the Defendant It was said for the Defendant that a Presentment in a Court Leet which concerns the person as in this Case and not the Free hold 5 H. 7.3 Fitz. Bar. 271. Bro. Abr. tit Travers sans ceo pl. 183. Presentment in Court pl. 15. was not traversable and that the Amerciament was a Duty vested in the Lord for which he may distrain or bring an Action of Debt Co. Entr. 572. But on the other side it was said that if such a Presentment is not traversable the party hath no remedy 't is contrary to the Opinion of Fitzherbert in Dyer Dyer 13. b. who affimed the Law to be that it was traversable and that if upon such a Presentment a Fine should be imposed erroniously 11 Co. 42. 1 Rol. Rep. 79. it may be avoided by Plea and this agrees with the second Resolution in Godfrey 's Case 2. It was objected to the Plea that it was not good for it sets
forth that the Plaintiff was amerced and that it was affered at the Court and so he hath confounded the Office of the Iurors and Affearers together which he ought not to do for he should be amerced to a certain Sum Hob. 129. Rol. Abr. 542. and not in general which Sum may be mitigated or affered by others If it had been a Fine 8 Co. 38. 1 Leon. 142. it need not be affered because that is imposed by the Court but this is an Amerciament which is the act of the Jury and therefore it must be affered 3. The chiefest Exception was to the matter of the Warrant viz. the Defendant sets forth that he seised by virtue of a Precept from the Dean and Chapter whereas he ought to shew it was directed to him from the Steward of the Court and then to set forth the Warrant without which he cannot justifie to distrain for an Amerciament And of this Opinion was the whole Court and therefore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff in Michaelmas Term Primo Will. Mariae If it had been in Replevin where the Defendant made cognizance in the right of the Lord it might be well enough as here pleaded but where 't is to justifie by way of excuse there you must averr the Fact and alledge it to be done and set forth the Warrant it self 3 Cro. 698.748 1 Leon. 242. and the taking virtute Warranti for a Bayliff of a Liberty cannot distrain for an Amerciament by virtue of his Office but he must have a Warrant from the Steward or Lord of the Leét for so doing The other Exception that the Amerciament ought to be to a Sum Rast Ent. 606. Co. Ent. 665. the Presidents are otherwise for an Amerciament per duodecim probos legales homines adtunc ibidem jurat ad 40 s. afferat ' is well enough but the Warrant is always set forth Dominus Rex versus Darby THE Defendant was indicted for speaking of scandalous words of Sir J.K. a Justice of the Peace Viz. Sir J.K. Indictment for Scandalous words is a buffle-headed Fellow and doth not understand Law he is not fit to talk Law with me I have bafled him and he hath not done my Clyent Justice Mr. Pollexfen for the Defendant said that an Indictment would not lye for these words because not spoken to the Party in the exceution of his Office but behind his back it will not lye for irreverent words but for Libels and Writings because such are publick but words are private offences But the Court being of Opinion that an Indictment would lye where an Action would not because it respects the publick Peace and that an Action would not lye in this Case unless the party had a particular loss Sid. 65. 2 Cio 5 8. and therefore it hath been held not to be actionable to call a Iustice of Peace Fool Ass Coxcomb He then took Exceptions to the Form of the Indictment 1. There is no place of Abode laid where the Defendant did inhabit which is expresly required by the Statute of H. 5. Viz. 1 H. 5. cap. 5 That in Indictments there shall be addition of the Estate Degree c. and of the Towns Hamlets Places and Counties where the Defendants dwell And by the Statute of H. 6. 8 H. 6. cap. 12 which gives the Iudges power to amend Records in affirmations of Iudgments such defects which are named in the Statute of H. 5. are excepted and therefore where a Writ of Error was brought to reverse an Outlawry upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. for Perjury 2 Cro. 167. the Defendant was Indicted by the Name of Nicholas Leech de Parochia de Aldgate and did not shew in what County Aldgate was and for this cause it was reversed 2. The Caption is coram Justiciariis ad pacem dicti Domini Regis conservand ' and the word nunc is left out It was the Opinion of Iustice Twisden that it ought to be nunc conservand ' Sid. 422. for otherwise it may be the Peace of King Stephen The Councel on the other side said that it was a new Doctrine that the King shall not have the same Remedy by an Indictment which the Subject may have by an Action What is the meaning of the words of all Commissions de propalationibus verborum As to the first Exception they said that the Indictment was certain enough for the Defendant is laid to be de Almondbury in the West-Riding of Yorkshire To the second Exception they said that ad pacem conservand ' without nunc is well enough for it cannot be intended upon this Indictment that they were Iustices to preserve the Peace in any other Kings Reign and what was quoted out of Siderfin is but the Opinion of one single Iudge This is a Scandal upon the Government and 't is as much as to say that the King hath appointed an ignorant Man to be a Iustice of Peace for which an Indictment will lye And of that Opinion was the whole Court and gave Iudgment accordingly Ball versus Cock A Writ of Covenant did bear Teste the first day of Trinity Term Error to reverse a Fine where the Cognisor died after the Caption and before it passed the King's Silver retornable tres Trinitatis and it was taken by Dedimus 30 Julii A Writ of Error was brought to reverse this Fine and the Error assigned was that the Cognizor died after the Caption and before the Enrolment at the King's Silver Office It was argued by the Councel for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Error that a Fine Sur Cognizance de droit c. is said to be levied when the Writ of Covenant is returned and the Concord and King's Silver which is an antient Revenue of the Crown pro licencia concordandi duly entred for though the Cognisor dieth afterwards Dyer 220. b. 5 Co. 37. Cro. Eliz. 469. the Fine is good and the Land passeth but if the King's Silver be not entred the Fine may be reversed by Writ of Error for it is an Action and Iudgment and the death of either Party abates it If it should be objected that this cannot be assigned for Error because 't is against the Record which is Placita terrae irrotulat de Termino Sanctae Trinitatis anno primo Jacobi c. 'T is true an Error cannot be assigned against the very essence of a Record but in the matter of time it may and so 't is in this Case 'T is like Syer's Case 32 Eliz. 3 Inst 230. 4 Co. Hind's Case 10 H. 7.24 who was indicted for a Burglary supposed to be done primo Augusti and upon the Evidence it appeared to be done primo Septembris and though he was acquitted of the Indictment for that reason viz. because the Iudgment relates to the day of the Indictment yet it was resolved by all the Iudges of England that the very day needs not be set down in
the Indictment for be it before or after the Offence the Iury ought to find according to the truth of the Case upon the Evidence for they are sworn ad veritatem dicendam c. This must be assigned for Error for if the contrary be said 't is against the Record the Custos Brevium having retorned that the Fine was taken 30 July which could not be in Trinity Term for that ended 8 July otherwise 't is repugnant to it self Econtra It was argued that this is not assignable for Error Dyer 220. b. 12 Co. 124. 't is true if the Party had died before the Entry of the King's Silver it had been Error but if afterwards 't is not so Thus was the Case of Warnecomb and Carril which was Husband and Wife levied a Fine of the Lands of the Wife and this was by Dedimus in the Lent Vacation she being then but 19 years of Age the King's Silver was entred in Hillary Term before and she died in the Easter week and upon a Motion made the first day of Easter Term to stay the engrossing of the Fine it was denied by the Court for they held it to be a good Fine Another reason why this is not assignable for Error 2 Cro. 11. Yelv. 33. is because 't is directly against the Record which is of Trinity Term and can be of no other Term and to prove this he cited Arundel's Case where a Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Fine taken before Roger Manwood Esq in his Circuit he being then one of the Iustices of the Common-Pleas and the Dedimus was returned per Rogerum Manwood Militem for he was Knighted and made Chief Baron the Eerm following the Fine passed and this was afterwards assigned for Trror that he who took the Caption was not a Knight but it being directly against the Record they would not intend him to be the same person to whom the Writ was directed Adjurnatur Afterwards the Fine was affirmed Lock versus Norborne UPon a Trial at Bar in Ejectment for Lands in Wiltshire Verdict shall only be given in Evidence amongst privies the Case was thus Viz. Mary Philpot in the year 1678. made a Settlement by Lease and Release to her self for Life then to Trustees to support contingent Remainders then to her first second and third Son in Tail Male c. then to Thomas Arundel in Tail Male with divers Remainders over It was objected at the Tryal that she had no power to make such Settlement because in the year 1676. her Husband had setled the Lands in question upon her for Life and upon the Issue of his Body c. and for want of such Issue then upon George Philpot in Tail Male with several Remainders over the Remainder to Mary Philpot in Fee Proviso that upon the tender of a Guinea to George Philpot by the said Mary the Limitations as to him should be void George Philpot having afterwards made a Lease of this Land to try the Title the Trustees brought an Ejectment but because the tender of the Guinea could not be proved there was a Verdict for the Defendant And now Mr. Philpot would have given that Verdict in Evidence at this Trial but was not suffered by the Court for if one Man hath a Title to several Lands and if he should bring Ejectments against several Defendants and recover against one he shall not give that Verdict in Evidence against the rest because the Party against whom that Verdict was had may be relieved against it if 't is not good but the rest cannot tho' they claim under the same Title and all make the same defence So if two Tenants will defend a Title in Ejectment and a Verdict should be had against one of them it shall not be read against the other unless by Rule of Court But if an Ancestor hath a Verdict the Heir may give it in Evidence because he is privy to it for he who produceth a Verdict must be either party or privy to it and it shall never be received against different persons if it doth not appear that they are united in Interest Therefore a Verdict against A. shall never be read against B. for it may happen that one did not make a good defence which the other may do The tender of the Guinea was now proved DE Term. Sancti Hill Anno 3 Jac. II. in Banco Regis 1687 8. Wright Chief Justice Holloway Justices Powel Justices Allibon Justices Powis Attorny General Wm. Williams Sollicitor General THIS Vacation Sir Robert Sawyer had his Quietus and Sir Thomas Powis was made Attorny General and Sir William Williams of Greys-Inn was made Sollicitor General Rex versus Lenthal AN Inquifition was taken in the second year of this King under the Great Seal of England by which it was found that the Office of Marshal of the Kings-Bench did concern the Administration of Iustice and that Mr. Lenthal was seised thereof in Fee and that upon his Marriage he had setled the said Office upon Sir Edward Norris and Mr. Coghill and their Heirs in Truff that they should permit him to execute the same during his Life c. That the said Trustees had neglected to give their attendance or to execute the said Office themselves that this Canveyance was made by Mr. Lenthal without the notice of this Court that he received the Profits and afterwards granted the said Office to Cooling for Life That Cross and his Wife had obtained a Iudgment in this Court against Bromley and had sued forth Erecution for the Debt and Damages for which he was committed to the custody of the said Cooling and being so in Execution did go at large They find that Cooling had not sufficient to answer Cross and his Wise for the said Debt c. whereupon they impleaded Mr. Lenthal in the Common-Pleas for 121 l. 2 s. 4 d. to answer as superior that at the Trial Mr. Lenthal gave this secret Deed of Settlement in Evidence whereupon the Plaintiffs in that Action were non-suited ad dampnum c. They find that Cooling went out of the said Office and the Trustees neglecting the execution thereof Mr. Lenthal granted the same to Glover for Life that during the time he executed this Office one Wordal was convicted of Forgery and commited to his Custody and that he permitted him voluntarily to Escape by which the said Office was forfeited to the King The King had granted the Office to the Lord Hunsdon Sir Edward Norris and Mr. Coghill come in and plead that Mr. Lenthal was seised in Fee and that he made a Settlement of the Office upon his Marriage with Mrs. Lucy Dunch with whom he had 5000 l. Portion viz. upon them and their Heirs in trust prout in the Inquisition and that he did execute the Office by-their permission Mr Lenthal pleads and admits the Grant to Sir Edward Norris and the other Trustee bearing date such a day c. but saith that the next
' ac qd ' Record ' ill ' in nullo vitiosum aut defectivum existit Ideo considerat ' est qd ' Judicium praed ' adjudication ' executionis superinde in omnibus affirmetur ac in omni suo robore stet effectu dict' causis materiis superius pro Error ' assign ' in aliquo non obstante Et ulterius per Cur. Judgment affirmed Domini Regis Dominae Reginae nunc hic cons est qd ' praedict ' Abel Ram recuperet versus praefatum Donatum Obrian octodecim libras eidem Abel per Curiam Domini Regis Dominae Reginae nunc hic secundum formam Statuti in hujusmodi casu edit ' provis adjudicat ' pro mis custag ' dampn ' suis quae sustin ' occasione dilationis executionis Judicij praedict ' praetextu prosecutionis praedict ' Brevis de Errore Et qd ' praedictus Abel habeat inde executionem c. Obrian versus Ram. ERror to reverse a Iudgment given in Ireland Whether a Sci. fa. will lie against the Husband alone after the death of the Wife upon a Judgment had against her dum sola upon a Scire Fac. brought against the Plaintiff in the Errors setting forth that Debt was brought upon a Bond against Elizabeth Grey and a Iudgment was thereupon obtained for 800 l. dum sola That the said Elizabeth afterwards intermarried with Mr. Obrian That a Scire Facias was brought upon that Iudgment against Husband and Wife to shew cause why the Plaintiff should not have execution That upon this Scire Facias there were two Nichils returned and thereupon Iudgment was had against Husband and Wife It rested for a year and a day and then the Wife died and the Plaintiff brought a new Scire Fac. against the Husband alone to shew cause why he should not have Execution upon the first Iudgmont The Defendant pleaded that there was another Scire Fac. brought against him and his Wife for the same Cause c. And upon a Demurrer to this Plea Iudgment was given in Ireland against him The Question now was whether this Scire Fa. will lye against the Husband alone after the death of his Wife This Case was argued by Mr. Finch and Mr. Pollexfen that the Husband was not chargable It was admitted on all sides that if a Feme sole is indebted and marries that an Action will lye against the Husband and Wife and he is lyable to the payment of her Debts It was agreed also that if a Iudgment be had against a Feme sole and she marries and afterwards dies that the Husband is not chargable because her Debts before Coverture shall not charge him unless recovered in her Life-time In like manner no Debts which are due to her dum sola shall go to the Husband by virtue of the inter-marriage if she dye before those are recovered but her Administrator will be entituled to them which may be the Husband but then he hath a Right only as Administrator 1 Roll Abr. 351. and the reason is because such Debts before they are recoverd are only choses in Action And from hence the Council did inferr that the Iudgment in this Case against the Wife dum sola did not charge the Husband Then the Question will be if the Husband is not chargeable by the Original Iudgment whether the Iudgment on the Scire Fac. had not made an alteration and charged him after the death of his Wife And as to that it was said that this Iudgment upon the Scire Fac. made no new charge for 't is only quod habeat executionem c. and carries the first Iudgment no farther than it was before for 't is introduced by the Sci. Fac. At the Common Law no Execution could be had upon a Iudgment after a year and a day and there was then no remedy but to bring an Action of Debt upon that Iudgment This Inconvenience was remedied by the Statute of Westm W. 2. cap. 45. the 2. which gives a Scire Fac. upon the Iudgment to shew cause why Execution should not be had which can be no more than a liberty to take Execution upon the Original Iudgment which cannot charge the Husband in this case because 't is only a consequence of that Iudgment and creates no new charge for a Release of all Actions will discharge this award of Execution But the Reasons why the original Iudgment shall not be carried farther by the Iudgment in the Scire Fac. are as follow 1. By considering the nature of a Scire Fac. which lay not at the Common Law but is given by the Statute in all persosonal Actions the words whereof are these Viz. 2 Inst 469. Sid. 351. Observandum est de caetero quod ea quae inveniuntur irrotulat c. Vpon which words it is evident that the execution of the first Iudgment on Record is all which is given by this Act after the year and day and it takes off that bar which was incurred by the lapse of time and gives a speedy Execution of the Iudgment recorded 2. The Proceedings upon a Scire Facias shew the same thing for the Writ recites the first Iudgment and then demands the Defendant to shew cause why the Plaintiff should not have Execution thereon juxta vim formam effectum recuperationis praed but prays no new thing 3. A Scire Facias is not an Original but a Iudicial Writ which depends purely upon the first Iudgment 1 Roll. Abr. 777. pl. 6. 8 Co. 143 Dr. Drurie's Case and a Writ of Error suspends the execution of both so likewise if the Original Iudgment be reversed even a Iudgment obtained upon a Scire Facias will be reversed in like manner 4. The Law doth not charge a Man without an Appearance but here is none and the Statute can never operate upon this Case because that extends only to such Iudgments upon which there has been a Recovery and here is nothing recovered upon this Scire Facias for 't is only to have Execution upon the first Iudgment If the Law should be otherwise this absurdity would follow Viz. There would be a Recovery without a Record for the purport of the Scire Facias is only to have Execution according to the form and effect of the Record and the very Record it self doth not charge the Husband Besides the first Iudgment did charge the Lands of the Wife which are still liable to satisfie the Debt why therefore must the Lands of the Husband be charged Cannot the Administrator of the Wife bring a Writ of Error to reverse this Iudgment and if it should be reversed shall the Husband pay the Debt and the Administrator of the Wife be restored The Objections made by the Council on the other side against this Opinion were viz. That if an Action of Debt will lie upon a Iudgment in a Scire Facias the Original Iudgment is by this means carried farther for without
same to Mrs. Berkley for Life remainder over to Henry Killigrew in Tail and that he made Mrs. Berkley Executrix of his Will which was found in haec verba That afterwards in the year 1645. the said Sir Henry Killigrew made aliud Testamentum in Writing but what was contained in the said last mentioned Will juratores penitus ignorant They find that Sir Henry Killigrew in the year 1646. died seised of those Lands and that Mrs. Berkley conveyed the same to Mr. Nosworthy 's Father whose Heir he is and that the Defendant Sir William Basset is Cosin and Heir to Sir Henry Killigrew c. The Question upon this special Verdict was whether the making of this last Will was a revocation of the former or not It was argued this Term by Mr. Finch and in Michaelmas Term following by Serjeant Maynard for the Plaintiff that it was not a revocation In their Arguments it was admitted that a Will in it's nature was revocable at all times but then it must be either by an express or implied revocation That the making of this latter Will cannot be intended to be an implied revocation of the former for if so then the Land must also be supposed to be devised contrary to the express disposition in the first Will and that would be to add to the Record which finds Viz. that what the last Will was penitus ignorant It is possible that a subsequent Will may be made so as not to destroy but consist with a former for the Testator may have several parcels of Land which he may devise to many persons by divers Wills and yet all stand together A man may likewise by a subsequent Will revoke part and confirm the other part of a former Will and therefore admitting there was such a Will in this case 't is still more natural that it should confirm than revoke the other If the Testator had purchased new Lands and had devised the same by a subsequent Will no person will affirm that to be a revocation of the former Will When a Man hath made a disposition of any part of his Estate 't is a good Will as to that part so is likewise the disposal of every other part they are all several Wills tho' taken altogether they are an intire disposition of the whole Estate Nothing appears here to the contrary but that the latter Will may be only a devise of his personal Estate or a confirmation of the former which the Law will not allow to be destroyed without an express revocation The Case of Coward and Marshal is much to this purpose Cro. Eliz. 721. which was a devise in Fee to his younger Son and in another Will after the Testators Marriage to a second Wife he devised the same Lands to his Wife for Life paying yearly to his younger Son 20 s. It was the Opinion of Anderson and Glanvil that both these Wills might stand together and that one was not a revocation of the other because it appeared by the last Will that he only intended to make a Provision for his Wife but not to alter the Devise to his Son So where a Man had two Sons by several Venters Cro. Car. 24. Hodgkinson vers Whood Co. Lit. 22. b. 1 Co. 104. a. 319. b. and devises the Lands to his eldest Son for Life and to the Heirs Males of his Body and for default of such Issue to the Heirs Males of his second Son and the Heirs Males of their Bodies Remainder to his own right Heirs and then made a Lease of 30 years to his youngest Son to commence after the death of the Testator the youngest Son entred and surrendred the Term to his elder Brother who made a Lease to the Defendant and then dyed without Issue afterwards the youngest Brother entred and avoided this Lease made by his Brother It was held that the Lease thus made to him was not a revocation of the devise of the Inheritance to his Brother tho' it was to commence at the same time in which the devise of the Inheritance was to take effect but it was a revocation quoad the Term only that the elder Brother should not enter during that time for the devise shall not be revoked without express words and that tho' the Testator had departed with the whole Fee without reserving an Estate for Life to himself yet the Law created such an Estate in him till the future Vse should commence and in such case the right Heirs cannot take by Purchase but by Descent so that here the Inheritance in Fee simple was not vested in the elder Brother by Descent for then the Lease which he made would be executed out of the Feé and the younger Brother would be bound thereby But in the Case at the Bar there is no colour of a Revocation 1. Vpon the nature of the Verdict to which nothing can be added neither can it be diminished for whatever is found must be positive and not doubtful because an Attaint lies if the Verdict be false Therefore the Court cannot take notice of that which the Iury hath not found Now here the entry of the Iudgment is Viz. Quibus lectis auditis per Curiam hic satis intellectis c. But what can be read or heard where nothing appears That Case in the Year-Book of the 2 R. 3. 2 R. 3. f. 3. comes not up to this question it was an Action of Trespass for the taking of his Goods The Defendant pleaded that the Goods did appertain to one Robert Strong who before the supposed Trespass devised the same to him and made him Executor c. The Plaintiff replied that the said Strong made his last Will and did constitute him Executor And upon a Demurrer to this Replication because he had not traversed that the Defendant was Executor it was argued for the Plaintiff that this last Will was a Revocation of the former for tho' there were no express words of Revocation yet by the very making another the Law revoked the former and to prove this two Instances were then given viz. That if a Man devise his Lands to two and by another Will gives it to one of them and dies he to whom 't is devised by the last Will shall have it So likewise if the Testator by one Will giveth Lands to his Son and by another Will deviseth the same again to his Wife then makes an Alienation and taketh back an Estate to himself and dieth and in an Assise brought between the Widow and the Son he was compelled by the Court to shew that it was his Father's intention that he should have the Land otherwise the last Devisee will be entituled to it Now both these Instances are not sufficient to evince that the last Will in this Case was a revocation of that under which the Plaintiff claims because those Wills were contradictory to each other for by one the Land was devised to the Son and by the other to
Revocation or not at all which revocation must depend upon the construction and exposition of the sixth Paragraph in the Statute of Frauds c. the words whereof are Viz. That no Devise of Lands c. or any clause thereof shall be Revoked otherwise than by some Codicil in Writing or other Writing declaring the same or by burning cancelling tearing or obliterating the same by the Testator himself or in his presence and by his direction or consent But all devises of Lands c. shall be good until burnt cancell'd torn c. by the Testator c. or unless the same be altered by some other Will or Codicil in Writing or other Writing of the Devisor signed in the presence of three Witnesses declaring the same So that the Question will be whether a Will which revokes a former Will ought to be signed by the Testator in the presence of three Witnesses 'T is clear that a Will by which Lands are devised ought to be so signed and why should not a Will which revokes another Will have the same formality The Statute seems to be plain that it should for it saies that a Will shall not be revoked but by some Will or Codicil in writing or other writing of the Devisor signed by him in the presence of three or four Witnesses declaring the same which last Clause is an entire sentence in the disjunctive and appoints that the Writing which revokes a Will must be signed in the presence of three Witnesses c. Before the making of this Act it was sufficient that the Testator gave directions to make his Will tho' he did never see it when made which mischief is now remedied not in writing the Will but that the Party himself should sign it in the presence of three Witnesses and this not being so signed but only published by the Testator in their presence 't is therefore no good Revocation Iustice Street was of a contrary Opinion that this was a good Revocation That the words in the fifth Paragraph of this Statute which altered the Law were Viz. That all Devises of Lands c. shall be in Writing and signed by the Party so devising or by some other person in his presence and by his express Directions and shall be attested and subscribed in the presence of the Devisor by three or four credible Witnesses In which Paragraph there are two parts 1. The act of the Devisor which is to sign the Will but not a word that he shall subscribe his Name in the presence of three Witnesses 2. The act of the Witnesses viz. that they shall attest and subscribe the Will in the presence of the Devisor or else the Will to be void But the sixth Paragraph is penn'd after another manner as to the Revocation of a Will which must be by some Codicil in writing or other Writing declaring the same signed in the presence of three Witnesses Now here is a Writing declaring that it shall be revoked not expresly but by implication and though that Clause in the disjunctive which says that the revocation must be by some Writing of the Devisor signed in the presence of three Witnesses c. yet in the same Paragraph 't is said that it may be revoked by a Codicil or Will in Writing and therefore an exposition ought to be made upon the whole Paragraph that the intention of the Law may more fully appear Such a construction hath been made upon a whole Sentence Sid. 328. 1 Sand. 58. where part thereof was in the disjunctive as for instance viz. A Man was possessed of a Lease by disseisin who assigned it to another and covenanted that at the time of the assignment it was a good true and indefeasable Lease and that the Plaintiff should enjoy it without interruption of the Disseisor Or any claiming under him in this Case the Diffeisee re-entred and though the Covenant was in the disjunctive to defend the Assignee from the Disseisor or any claiming under him yet he having undertaken for quiet enjoyment and that it was an indefeasable Lease it was adjudged that an exposition ought to be made upon the whole Sentence and so the Plaintiff had Iudgment The Chief Iustice Herbert was of the same Opinion with Iustice Street Rex versus Grimes and Thompson THE Defendants were indicted for being Common Pawn-Brokers Two are indicted for a Confederacy one is acquitted and that is the acquittal of the other and that Grimes had unlawfully obtained Goods of the Countess of c. and that he together with one Thompson per confoederationem astutiam did detain the said Goods until the Countess had paid him 12 Guineas Thompson was acquitted and Grimes was found Guilty which must be of the first part of the Indictment only for it could not be per confoederationem with Thompsom and therefore it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that to obtain Goods unlawfully was only a private injury for which the party ought not to be indicted To which it was answered that a plain Fraud was laid in this Indictment which was sufficient to maintain it and that tho one was acquitted yet the Iury had found the other guilty of the whole But the Court were of Opinion that the acquittal of one is the acquittal of both upon this Indictment and therefore it was quash'd King versus Dilliston Hill 2 3 Jacobi Rot. 494. A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgment in Ejectment given in the Common-Pleas Infant not bound by a Custom for one Messuage and twenty Acres of Land held of the Manor of Swafling There was a special Verdict found the substance of which was viz. That the Land in question was Copy-hold held of the said Manor of Swafling in the County of Suffolk and that Henry Warner and Elizabeth his Wife in right of the said Elizabeth were seized thereof for Life Remainder to John Ballat in Fee That the Custom of the said Manor was that if any Customary Tenant doth surrender his Estate out of Court that such Surrender shall be presented at the next Court of the said Manor and publick Proclamation shall be made three Court days afterwards for the Party to whose use the Surrender was made to come and be admitted Tenant and if he refuseth then after three Proclamations made in each of the said Courts the Steward of the said Manor issueth forth a Precept to the Bailiff thereof to seise the Copyhold as forfeited They find that Henry Warner and his Wife and John Ballat made this Surrender out of Court to the use of Robert Freeman and his Heirs who died before the next Court and that John Freeman an Infant was his Son and Heir That after the said Surrender three Proclamations were made at three several Courts held for the said Manor but that the said John Freeman did not come to be admitted Tenant thereupon the Steward of the said Manor made a Precept to the Bayliff who seized the Lands in
question as forfeited to the Lady who entred and made a Lease to the Plaintiff upon whom the Defendant re-entred The single Question upon this special Verdict was whether this was a Forfeiture and so a good seisure to bind the right of an Infant It was argued for the Plaintiff in the Action that it was a good Seisure and a Forfeiture till the Infant should come of Age for as a Copyhold is established by Custom so likewise 't is Custom which obligeth the Infant to the Conditions thereof and therefore where one under Age hath an Estate upon a Condition to be performed by him 8 Co. 44. b. Whittingham 's Case Latch 199. Jones 157. and that Condition is broken during his Minority the Estate is lost for ever In this Case the Custom obligeth the Heir to be admitted that the Lord may be entituled to a Fine which if he should lose because his Tenant is an Infant then that priviledge of Infancy works a wrong which the Law will not permit 'T is true an Infant shall not be prejudiced by the Laches of another but shall be answerable for himself and therefore if he is Tenant of Lands and the Rent should be unpaid for two years and no Distress can be found a Cessavit lies against him and the Lord shall recover the Land because of the Non-performance which arises by his own default So if one under Age be a Keeper of a Gaol and suffer a Prisoner to escape out of Execution 2 Inst 382. an Action of Debt will lie against him upon the Statute of W. 2. It was agreed that such a Custom and Non-claim will not foreclose an Heir 8 Co. 100. Sir Rich. Letchford 's Case who is an Infant and beyond Sea at the time of his Ancestors Death though he is bound by the Custom to claim it at the next Court but that if he will come over and tender himself though after a Seisure he shall be admitted and so shall the person in this Case if after his Minority he offer himself to be admitted But it cannot be denied 2 Cro. 226. but that the Lord may seize when the Heir is beyond Sea till he return and tender himself to be admitted and by the same reason he may also seize in this case during the Minority A Temporary Forfeiture is no new thing in the Law Cro. Car. 7. for if a Feme Covert be a Copyholder and marrieth and her Husband makes a Lease for years without License of the Lord 't is a Forfeiture and shall bind her during the Coverture So the Law is Cro. El. 351. that the Lord may seize the Land till a Fine is paid for 't is a reasonable Custom so to do It hath been a good Custom for the Lord to assign a person to take the Profits of a Copyhold Estate descended to the Infant during his Minority without rendring an Accompt when he came of Age. 1 Leon. 266. 2 Leon. 239. So that all taht is to be done in this Case is to enforce the Infant to be admitted that the Lord may be entituled to a Fine The Inheritance is not bound but the Land is only seized quousque E contra It was argued that here is a general Seizure E contra which cannot extend to an Infant for he is not bound in a Writ of Right much less in an inferior Court after three Proclamations but if this had been a Temporary Seisure the Iury ought to have found it so which is not done There are many Authorities in the Books which affirm that an Infant is not obliged to be admitted during his Non-age 1 Leon. 100. 3 Leon. 221. or to tender the Fine in order to an Admittance that the Law was settled in this Point and therefore without any further Argument he prayed Iudgment for the Defendant Afterwards in Hillary-Term 1 Willielmi Mariae this Case was argued seriatim at the Bench three Iudges being of a contrary Opinion to the Chief Iustice for the affirming of the Iudgment Iustice Eyre premised two things 1. That he could not intend but that this Verdict had found an absolute Forfeiture the Iury having no way qualified it as to a certain time and therefore he would give a Iudgment upon the whole Record 2. He agreed that a Feoffment of an Infant was no Forfeiture at the Common Law and that as a particular Custom may bind an Infant for a time so it may barr him for ever but whether this Custom as 't is found in general words shall bind an Infant after three Proclamations is now the Question he not coming then to be admitted And he held that it shall not and that for these reasons 1. The Right of Infants is much favoured in the Law and their Laches shall not be prejudicial to them as to Entry or Claim upon a Presumption that they understand not their Right 1 Inst 380. 2 Inst 401. and therefore in a Cessavit per biennium which is a remedy given by the Statute of W. 2. and which extends to Infants Westm 2. c. 31. who have not the Land by descent for if a Cesser be in that Case the Infant shall have his Age because the Law intends that he doth not know what Arrerages to tender 'T is admitted that if an Infant doth not present to a Church within six Months or doth not appear within a year that his Right is bound but this is because the Law is more tender of the Church and the life of a Man than of the Priviledges of Infancy So if an Office of Parkship be given or descends to an Infant if the Condition in Law annexed to such an Office which is skill be not observed the Office is forfeited But that a Proclamation in a base Court should bind an Infant when he is not within the reason of the Custom is not agreeable either to Law or Reason 2. Cro. Jac. 80. Cro. El. 879. Noy 42. 1 Rol. Abr. 568. All Customs are to be taken strictly when they go to the destruction of an Estate and therefore a Custom was that if a Copyholder in Fee surrender out of Court and the Surrendree doth not come in after three Proclamations the Lord shall seize it A Copyholder in Fee surrendred to another for Life the Remainder over in Fee if the Tenant for Life will not come in he in the Remainder shall not be barred for the Custom shall be intended to extend only to those in possession But the Infant in this Case is not within the Letter of the Custom for 't is found that the Surrender was made to one Freeman who died before the next Court-day and that John Freeman the Infant was his Son and Heir so they have found a Title in him for the word Heir is not here a word of Purchase but of Limitation 3. Jones 157. Noy 92. Infants are not bound by other Customs like this as a Custom that every Copyholder
Executors one of them of Age 2 Sand. 212. and the other not one may make an Attorney for the other There is no difference between Executors and Infants in this Case for Executors recover in the right of the Testator and the Bayliffs in the Right of him who hath the Inheritance Besides the Avowants are in the nature of Plaintiffs and whereever a Plaintiff recovers the Defendant shall not assign Infancy for Error Adjornatur Capel versus Saltonstal INdebitatus assumpsit in the Common Pleas Where there are several Plaintiffs in a personal thing and one dyeth before Judgment the Action is abated in which Action there were four Plaintiffs one of them died before Iudgment the others recover and now the Defendant brought a Writ of Error in this Court to reverse that Iudgment and the Question was whether the Action was abated by the death of this person Those who argued for the Plaintiffs in the Action held that the Debt will survive and so will the Action for 't is not altered by the death of the party for where Damages only are to be recovered in an Action well commenced by several Plaintiffs and part of that Action is determined by the Act of God or by the Law and the like Action remaineth for the residue the Writ shall not abate As in Ejectment if the Term should expire pending the Suit 1 Inst 285. the Plaintiff shall go on to recover Damages for though the Action is at end quoad the possession yet it continues for the Damages after the Term ended So if the Lessor bring Waste against Tenant pur auter vie and pending the Writ Cestui que vie dieth the Writ shall not abate because no other person can be sued for Damages but the Survivor So where Trover was brought by two 2 Bulst 262. 1 Inst 198. and after the Verdict one of them died the Iudgment shall not be arrested because the Action survives to the other Mr. Pollexfen contra He admitted the Law to be that where two Iointenants are Defendants the death of one would not abate the Writ because the Action is joint and several against them But in all Cases where two or more are to recover a personal thing there the Death or Release of one shall abate the Action as to the rest though 't is otherwise when they are Defendants and are to discharge themselves of a personalty 6 Co. 25. b. Ruddock's Case 2 Cro. 19. And therefore in an Audita Querela by two the death of one shall not abate the Writ because 't is in discharge Now in this Case Iudgment must be entred for a dead Man which cannot be for 't is not consistent with reason The Case of Wedgewood and Bayly is express in it which was this Trover was brought by six and Iudgment for them one of them died the Iudgment could not be entred 'T is true where so many are Defendants and one dies the Action is not abated but then it must be suggested on the Roll. Curia Actions grounded upon Torts will survive but those upon Contracts will not The Iudgment was reversed Fisher versus Wren In the Common-Pleas THE Plaintiff brought an Action of Trespass on the Case Prescription and Custom alledged together and declared that he was seized of an ancient Mesuage and of a Meadow and an Acre of Land parcel of the Demesnes of the Mannor of Crosthwait and sets forth a Custom to grant the same by Copy of Court Roll and that there are several Freehold Tenements parcel of the said Mannor and likewise several Customary Tenements parcel also thereof grantable ad voluntatem Domini and that all the Freeholders c. time out of Mind c. together with the Copyholders according to the Custom of the said Mannor have enjoyed solam seperalem Pasturam of the Ground called Garths parcel of the said Mannor for their Cattle Levant and Couchant c. and had liberty to cut the Willows growing there for the mending of their Houses and the Defendant put some Cattle into the said Ground called Garths which did eat the Willows by reason whereof the Plaintiff could have no benefit of them c. Vpon Not Guilty pleaded there was a Verdict for the Plaintiff And now Serjeant Pemberton moved in arrest of Iudgment and took these Exceptions 1. As to the manner of the Prescription which the Plaintiff had laid to be in the Freeholders and then alledged a Custom for the Copyholders c. and so made a joint Title in both which cannot be done in the same Declaration because a Prescription is always alledged to be in a person and a Custom must be limited to a place and therefore an entire thing cannot be claimed both by a Prescription and Custom Vaughan 215. Carter 200. 1 Sand. 351. because the Grant to the Freeholders and this Vsage amongst the Copiholders could not begin together 2. As to the Custom 't is not good as pleaded to exclude the Lord for it can never have a good Commencement because Copyholders have Common in the Lords Soil only by permission to improve their Estates which Common being spared by the Lord and used by the Tenant becomes a Custom but no Vsage amongst the Tenants or permission of the Lord can wholly divest him of his Soil and vest an Interest in them who in the beginning were only his Tenants at Will 2 Sand. 325. 3. The third Exception and which he chiefly relyed on was viz. That this is a Profit apprender in alieno Solo to which all the Tenants of the Mannor are entituled and that makes them Tenants in Common and therefore in this Action where Damages are to be recovered they ought all to join 'T is true in real Actions Tenants in Common always sever 1 Inst 197 198. Godb. 347. but in Trespasses quare Clasum fregit and in personal Actions they always join and the reason is plain because in those Actions though their Estates are several yet the Damages survive to all and it would be unreasonable to bring several Actions for one single Trespass E contra It was argued that it cannot be denied E contra but that there may be a Custom or Prescription to have solam seperalem pasturam but whether both Prescription and Custom can be joyned together is the doubt now before the Court and as to that he held it was well enough pleaded 1 Sand. 351. for where there is an unusual Right there must be the like remedy to recover that Right it was thus pleaded in North's Case But admitting it not to be well pleaded 't is then but a double Plea to which the Plaintiff ought to have demurred and this may serve for an Answer to the first Exceptions Then as to the last Objection that 't is a Profit apprender in alieno solo for which all the Tenants ought to join 't is true a Common is no more than a Profit apprender
c. yet one Commoner may bring an Action against his Fellow besides in this Case they are not Tenants in Common for every Man is seized severally of his Freehold Adjornatur Ayres versus Huntington AScire Facias was brought upon a Recognizance of 1000 l. Amendment of the word Recuperatio for Recognitio after a Demurrer to shew cause quare the Plaintiff should not have Execution de praedictis mille libris recognitis juxta formam Recuperationis where it should have been Recognitionis praed And upon a Demurrer it was held that the words juxta formam Recuperationis were Surplusage The Record was amended and a Rule that the Defendant should plead over Mather and others versus Mills THE Defendant entred into a Bond to acquir Non damnificatus generally where 't is a good Plea discharge and save harmless a Parish from a Bastard Child Debt was brought upon this Bond and upon Non damnificatus generally pleaded the Plaintiff demurred and Tremain held the Demurrer to be good for if the Condition had been only to save harmless c. then the Plea had been good but 't is likewise to acquit and discharge c. and in such Case Non damnificatus generally is no good Plea 1 Leon. 71. because he should have shewed how he did acquit and discharge the Parish and not answer the Damnification only E contra E contra 2 Co. 3. 2 Cro. 363 364 2 Sand. 83 84. It was argued that if the Defendnat had pleaded that he kept harmless and discharged the Parish such Plea had not been good unless he had shewed how c. because 't is in the affirmative but here 't is in the negative viz. that the Parish was not dampnified and they should have shewed a Breach for though in strictness this Plea doth not answer the Condition of the Bond yet it doth not appear upon the whole Record that the Plaintiff was dampnified and if so then he hath no cause of Action Iudgment for the Defendant DE Term. Sanctae Trin. Anno 1 Gulielmi Mariae Regis Reginae in Banco Regis 1689. Memorandum That on the 4th day of November last past the Prince of Orange landed here with an Army and by reason of the Abdication of the Government by King James and the Posture of Affairs there was no Hillary-Term kept Coram Johanne Holt Mil ' Capital ' Justic Gulielmo Dolben Mil ' Justiciar Gulielmo Gregory Mil ' Justiciar Egidio Eyre Mil ' Justiciar Kellow versus Rowden Trin. 1 Willielmi Mariae Rotulo 796. IN Debt by Walter Kellow Where the Reversion in Fee is expectant upon an Estate Tail and that being spent it descends upon a collateral Heir he must be sued as Heir to him who was last actually seized of the Fee without naming the intermediate Remainders Executor of Edward Kellow against Richard Rowden The Case was this viz. John Rowden had Issue two Sons John and Richard John the Father being seized in Fee of Lands c. made a Settlement to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to John his eldest Son in Tail Male the Remainder to his own right Heirs The Father died the Reversion descended to John the Son who also died leaving Issue John his Son who died without Issue so that the Estate Tail was spent Richard the second Son of John the elder entred and an Action of Debt was brought against him as Son and Heir of John the Father upon a Bond of 120 l. entred into by his Father and this Action was brought against him without naming the intermediate Heirs viz. his Brother and Nephew The Defendant pleaded Quod ipse de debito praed ut filius haeres praed Johannis Rowden Patris sui virtute scripti obligatorii praed onerari non debet quia protestando quod scriptum obligatorium praed non est factum praed Johannis Rowden pro placito idem Richardus dicit quod ipse non habet aliquas terras seu tenementa per discensum haereditarium de praed Johanne Rowden patre suo in feodo simplici nec habuit die exhibitionis billae praed Walteri praed nec unquam postea hoc parat est ' verificare unde pet judicium si ipse ut filius haeres praed Johannis Rowden patris sui virtute scripti praed onerari debeat c. The Plaintiff replied that the Defendant die Exhibitionis billae praed habuit diversas terras tenementa per discensum haereditarium a praed Johanne Rowden patre suo in feodo simplici c. Vpon this pleading they were at Issue at the Assises in Wiltshire and the Iury found a special Verdict viz. that John Rowden the Father of Richard now the Defendant was seized in Fee of a Messuage and 20 Acres of Land in Bramshaw in the said County and being so seised had Issue John Rowden his eldest Son and the Defendant Richard that on the 22th of Januarii 18 Car. I. John the elder did settle the Premisses upon himself for Life Remainder ut supra c. That after the death of the Father John his eldest Son entred and was possessed in Fee-Tail and was likewise entituled to the Reversion in Fee and died in the 14th year of King Charles the II. that the Lands did descend to another John his only Son who died 35th Car. II. without Issue whereupon the Lands descended to the Defendant as Heir of the last mentionted John who entred before this Action brought and was seised in Fee c. But whether upon the whole matter the Defendant hath any Lands by by descent from John Rowden in Fee-simple the Iury do not know c. The Council on both sides did agree that this Land was chargable with the Debt but the Question was whether the Issue was found for the Defendant in regard the Plaintiff did not name the intermediate Heirs It was argued that the Defendant ought to be sued as immediate Heir to his Father and not to his Nephew for whoever claims by descent must claim from him who was last actually seised of the Freehold and Inheritance this is the express Doctrine of my Lord Coke in his first Institutes and if so Co. Lit. 11. the Defendant must be charged as he claims Seisin is a material thing in our Law for if I am to make a Title in a real Action I must lay an actual seisin in every Man 8 E. 3.13 Bro. Assise 6. F.N. B. 212. F. 't is so in Formedons in Descender and Remainder in both which you are to run through the whole Pedegree But none can be Filius Haeres but to him who was last actually seised of the Fee-simple and therefore the Brother being Tenant in Tail and his Son the Issue in Tail in this Case they were never seised of the Fee 1 Inst 14. b. for that was expectant upon the Estate Tail which being spent then John the Father was last seised thereof and
Intratur Trin. 1 W. M. Rot. 249. THis was a Trial at the Bar A Will shall not be revoked by a subsequent Writing unless that be also a good Will by a Wiltshire Iury in an Ejectment brought by the Plaintiffs as Heirs at Law to Ann Speke who died seized in Fee of the Lands in Question Vpon not Guilty pleaded this Question did arise at the Trial Whether the Answer of a Guardian in Chancery shall be read as Evidence in this Court to conclude the Infant There being some Opinions that it ought to be read and the Defendants Council insisting on the contrary Mr Iustice Eyres being the Puisne Iustice was sent to the Court of Common-Pleas then sitting to know their Opinions who returning made this Report That the Judges of that Court were all of Opinion that such Answer ought not to be read as Evidence for it was only to bring the Infant into Court and to make him a Party Then the Plaintiffs proceeded to prove their Title as Heirs at Law viz. by several Inquisitions which were brought into Court and by the Heralds Office The Defendants Title likewise was thus proved viz. That the Lady Speke being seised in Fee c. did by Will dated in March 1682. devise the Lands to John Petit for Life Remainder to the Defendant and his Heirs for ever That the Lady Speke died so seised that John Speke the Tenant for Life and Father to the Defendant was also dead c. This Will was proved by several Witnesses one of which likewise deposed that my Lady Speke made two other Wills subsequent to this now produced and a Minister prov'd that she burnt a Will in the Month of December which was in the year 1685. Then the Plaintiffs produced another Will made by her at Christmas 1685. attested by three Witnesses but not in the presence of my Lady so that though it might not be a good Will to dispose the Estate yet the Council insisted that it was a good Revocation of the other for 't is a Writing sufficient for that purpose within the sixth Paragraph of the Statute of Frauds The Case of Sir George Sheers was now mentioned whose Will was carried out of the Chamber where he then was into a Lobby and signed there by the Witnesses but one of them swore that there was a Window out of that Room to his Chamber through which the Testator might see the Witnesses as he lay in his Bed Vpon which Evidence the Iury found this special Verdict viz. That Ann Speke being seised in Fee c. did on the 12th day of March 1682. make her Will and devised the Lands to John Pettit for Life and afterwards to George his Son and to his Heirs for ever upon condition that he take upon him the Name of Speke That the 25th of December 1685. she caused another Writing to be made purporting her Will which was signed sealed and published by her in the presence of three Witnesses in the Chamber where she then was and where she continued whilst the Witnesses subscribed their Names in the Hall but that she could not see them so subscribing They find that the Lessors of the Plaintiff are Heirs at Law and that they did enter c. This matter was argued in Easter Term following and the Question was whether this Writing purporting a Will was a Revocation of the former or not and that depended upon the Construction of the sixth Paragraph in the Act of Frauds viz. All Devises of Lands shall be in Writing and signed by the party or some other in his presence and by his express Directions and shall be attested by three or four Witnesses c. and that such devise shall not be revocable but by some other Will or Codicil in Writing or other Writing c. declaring the same Now the want of Witnesses doth not make the last Will void in it self but only quoad the Lands therein devised it hath its operation as to all other purposes It must therefore be a Revocation of the former and this is agreeable to the Resolution of the Iudges in former times for there being nothing in the Statute of Wills which directs what shall be a Revocation 32 H. 8. cap. 1. Dyer 143. the Iudges in Trevilian's Case did declare that it might be by word of mouth or by the very intention of the Testator to alter any thing in the Will for before the late Statute very few words did amount to a Revocation Moor 429. 1 Roll. Abr. 614 615 616. If Lands are devised and afterwards a feoffment is made of the same but for want of Livery and Seisin 't is defective yet this is a Revocation of the Will though the Feoffment is void The Council on the other side argued that this Will was not void by any Clause in the Statute of Frauds E contra for if this is a Revocation within that Statute then this second Writing purporting a Will must be a good Will for if 't is not a good Will then 't is not a good Revocation within that Law No Man will affirm that the latter Writing is a good Will therefore the first being a Devise of Land cannot be revoked but by a Will of Land which the second is not This Statute was intended to remedy the mischief of parol Revocations and therefore made such a solemnity requisite to a Revocation It cannot be denied but that this latter Writing was intended to be made a Will but it wanting that perfection which is required by Law it shall not now be intended a Writing distinct from a Will so as to make a Revocation within the meaning of that Act. If a Man hath a power of Revocation either by Will or Deed and he makes his Will in order to Revoke a former this is a Writing presently but 't is not a Revocation as long as the person is living Therefore a Revocation must not only be by a Writing but it must be such a Writing which declares the intention of a Man that it should be so which is not done by this Writing Vpon the first Argument Iudgment was given for the Defendant that the second Will must be a good Will in all Circumstances to Revoke a former Will Cross versus Garnet THE Plaintiff declared that on such a day and year there was a discourse between him and the Defendant concerning the Sale of two Oxen then in the possession of the Defendant and that they came to an agreement for the same that the Defendant did then sell the said Oxen to the Plaintiff and did falsly affirm them to be his own ubi revera they were the Oxen of another Man The Plaintiff had a Verdict Cro. Eliz. 44. 1 Rol. Rep. 275. 2 Cro. 474 1 Roll. Abr. 91. More 126. Yel 20. Sid. 146. and Serjeant Thompson moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Declaration was not good because the Plaintiff hath not alledged that the Defendant did affirm the
But if any wrong be done in this Case the Party must Appeal so no Writ of Restitution was granted Rex versus Guardianum de le Fleet. AN Inquisition being found to seize the Office of Warden of the Fleet into the King's Hands Inquisition quashed the Court of Chancery assisted with three Iudges was moved that it might be Quashed The Exceptions taken were viz. 1. 'T is found that the Defendant was Warden of the Fleet but doth not say what Estate he had therein whether for Life or years or in Fee c. 2. The Offences which are the causes of the Forfeiture are laid to be committed at the Fleet by suffering Escapes and by Extortion and 't is not found where the Fleet is scituate so there being no Visne those Offences cannot be traversed 3. 39 H. 6.32 They do not find the Escape to be sine licentia contra voluntatem of the Warden the Debts being unpaid 4. Admitting it to be a Forfeiture the Office cannot go to the King but it shall go to the next who hath the Inheritance The Opinion of the Court was that there are two things which entitle the King to this Office neither of which were found by this Inquisition 1. An Estate in the Party offending 2. A cause of Forfeiture of that Estate Now here was no Estate found in the Warden but only that the Office was forfeited by suffering of Escapes c. If this had been an Office of Inheritance ◠Co. 95. then it ought to be found that such a person was seised in Fee c. and so what Estate soever he had in it ought to be expresly found But as this is found 't is void because it doth not answer the end for which the finding of Offices was provided which is to entitle the King to the Offenders Estate An Indictment is but another sort of Office and here being no Estate found 't is much like an Indictment which finds no Offence therefore it must be quashed It might have been objected that no Man can tell what Estate the Warden had in this place and that not being known no Office could be found for the King But this Objection runs to the finding of all manner of Offices in general whose very nature is to find an Estate and to divest the subject thereof and vest it in the King Besides in this Case one of the Indentures by which the Office was granted to the Warden must be enrolled in the Court of Common-Pleas This cannot be helped by a Melius Inquirendum 3 Cro. 895. 9 Co. 95. Keilw 194. which never will support a defective Inquisition and this is such because it doth not appear that the Defendant had any Seisin or Estate in the Wardenship of the Fleet. Barker Mil ' versus Damer Hill 1 Rot. 635. AN Action of Covenant was brought by Sir William Barker who was Defendant in a former Action against Mr. Damer wherein he declared that William Barker his Father was seised in Fee of the Land in Question being in Ireland and made a Lease thereof to one Page for 31 years under the yearly Rent of 200 l. in which Lease Page did Covenant for himself his Executors Administrators and Assigns to pay the Rent to Mr. Barker his Heirs and Assigns That William Barker the Father by Lease and Release convey'd the Reversion to Sir William Barker the now Plaintiff that the Term was vested in the Defendant and assigns the breach for non-payment of the Rent The Defendant pleaded to the Iurisdiction of this Court that the Lands in the Declaration mentioned lay in Ireland where they have Courts of Record c. and so properly triable there To this Plea the Plaintiff demurr'd and the Defendant joyned in Demurrer The single Question was whether an Assignee of the Reversion can bring an Action of Covenant against the Assignee of a Lessee in any other place than where the Land is Those who argued that he may said that this Action being brought upon an Express Covenant is not local but transitory 2 Inst 231. Noy 142. 2 Cro. 142. ibidem Sid. 157. 2 Roll. Ab. 571. 1 And. 82. for debitum contractus sunt nullius loci and if it is a duty 't is so every where therefore it hath been adjudged that upon a Covenant brought in one County the breach may be assigned in another Tremain Serjeant Contra. E contra He admitted that Debt upon a Lease for years upon the Contract it self and Covenant between the same Parties are transitory Actions and may be brought any where but when once that privity of Contract is gone as by assignment of the Lessee or the death of the Lessor Latch 197. and there remains only a Privity in Law there the Action must be brought in the County where the Land lieth the reason is Hob. 37. because the Party is then chargeable in respect of the possession only Therefore it was held that where an Assignee of a Reversion of Lands in Sommersetshire brought an Action of Debt in London Cro. Car. 184. Jones 83. Dyer 40 b. upon a Lease for years made there reserving a Rent payable at London which was in arrear after the Assignment that the Action was not well brought for it ought to have been laid in Sommersetshire where the Lands were because the privity of Contract was lost by the assignment of the Reversion and therefore the Party to whom that assignment was made ought to maintain the Action upon the privity in Law by reason of the Interest which he had in the Land it self and that must be in the County where it lieth Curia There is a difference between an Action of Debt for Rent brought by an Assignee and an Action of Covenant for the first is an Action at the Common Law which hath fixed the Rent to the Reversion and therefore such an Action must be maintained upon the Privity of Estate which is always local But an Assigneé of a Reversion could not bring an Action of Covenant at the Common Law 1 Sid. 402. 3 Cro. 580. 1 Sand. 240. 32 H. 8. c. 34. for 't is given to him by a particular Statute viz. of 32 H. 8. but the Statute did not transfer any Privity of Contract to the Assignee but the intent of it was to annex to the Reversion such Covenants only which concerned the Land it self as to repair the House or amend the Fences and not to anner or transfer any collateral Covenants as to pay a Sum of Mony for that is fixed by the Common Law to the Reversion 'T is true At the Common Law an Assignee of a Reversion might have maintained an Action of Covenant for any thing agreed to be done upon the Land it self Privity of Contract is not thereby transferred so as to make the Action transitory but it must be brought upon the Privity of Estate for if a Man doth covenant to do any collateral thing not in the
intestate leaving one Son an Infant Administration was granted durante minore aetate he died before 17. whether Administration de bonis non of the Father shall be granted to the next of Kin of him or his Son 61 62 7. Whether an Interest is vested in an Infant where Administration is granted durante minore aetate so that if he die before 17. it goes to his Executor 61 8. Before the Statute of Distribution if there was but one Child he had a right of Administration but it was only personal and if he died before it was granted to him by the Court it would not go to his Executor 62 9. Husband hath a right of Administration to the Goods of the Wife because the Marriage is quasi a Gift in Law 64 10. If Administration had been granted to a Stranger before the Statute of Distributions and no Appeal within fourteen days he who had right though beyond Sea was barred 64 11. Husband and Wife Administratrix to her first Husband recover in Debt the Wife died and the Husband brought a Scire Facias to have Execution it will not lie by him alone because it was a Demand by the Wife as Administratrix in auter droit ibid. 12. Judgment was had in Somersetshire the Plaintiff died intestate Administration is committed by an inferior Diocess 't is void because the Entry of the Judgment in Middlesex where the Records are kept made him have bona notabilia in several Diocesses and so Administration ought to be granted in the Prerogative 324 13. If the Intestate hath two Sons and no Wife each have a Moiety of the personal Estate if but one an interest is vested in him 59 14. At Common Law none had a Right to an Intestate's Estate but the Ordinary was to distribute it to Pious Uses ibid. Admiral and Admiralty There was a Sentence in the Admiralty for taking of a Ship and afterwards Trover was brought for taking of the same Ship whether it lies or not 194 2. Pawning of a Ship for Necessaries at Land and a Libel was exhibited in the Admiralty whether good or not 244 3. Where things arising upon Lands may be sued for in the Admiralty 245 Addition See Indictment Where it makes a thing certain as an Ejectment de Tenemento is incertain but with the addition vocat ' the Black Swan 't is made certain 238 Admittance See Baron and Feme 9. A Custom cannot warrant an incertain Fine upon an Admittance to a Copyhold 133 2. The Lord may refuse to admit without a tender of the Fine where 't is certain ibid. 3. Where 't is incertain the Lord is to admit first and then to set the Fine ibid. 4. Custom that upon every Admission the Tenant should pay a years value of the Land as it was worth tempore admissionis t is good 132 5. For a Fine upon an Admission an Action of Debt will lye for though it favours of the realty yet 't is a certain duty 230 6. Before Admittance the Estate is in the Surrenderor and he shall have an Action of Trespass against any person who enters before another is admitted 226 7. Before an Admittance the Surrendree cannot enter but by special Custom to warrant it 225 Affidavit See Action on the Case for a Wrong 4. See Baron and Feme 11. Infant 21. Agreement and Disagreement Whether assent is necessary to a Surrender it being a Conveyance at the Common Law 't is not necessary in Devises or in any Conveyances directed by particular Statutes or by Custom 298 2. Whether the Estate shall be in the Surrendree immediately upon the execution of the Deed if he doth not shew some disassent to it 300 3. Agreement is not so much necessary to perfect a Conveyance as a Disagreement is to make it void ibid. 4. A Feoffment to three and Livery is made to one the Estate is in all till disagreement 301 Alien Leases made to Alien Artificers are void by the Statute of 32 H. 8. This Statute was pleaded by an Alien who was a Vintner and held to be no Artificer 94 Amendment See Mistrial Costs 2. 1. Of the Distringas by the Roll after a Verdict the Day and Place of Assizes being left out 78 2. In matters of Form the Court have sent for a Coroner to amend his Inquisition 101 3. Of a Mis-entry of a Writ of Enquiry without paying of Costs 113 4. Return to an Homine Replegiando amended by Rule of Court 120 5. A Riot was laid to be committed after the Indictment it was amended being only a Misprision of the Clerk 167 6. Where matter of Form is cured by a Verdict but 't is not amendable upon a Demurrer 235 7. Scire Facias upon a Recognizance to have Execution for 1000 l. juxta formam Recuperationis it should have been recognitionis amended after a Demurrer 251 Amerciament See Court 3. 1. Differs from a Fine for that is the act of the Court but an Amerciament is the act of the Jury 138 2. It need not be to a Sum certain for that may be affered 138 3. A Bailiff of a Liberty cannot distrein for an Amerciament Virtute officii but he ought to set forth the taking Virtute Warranti ibid. Appeal Against three for a Murder the Count was that O. gave the wound of which the person died the Jury found that L. gave the wound and that O. and M. were assisting this varies from the Count and yet held good 121 2. The Wound was given in one County and the Death ensued in another and the Party was Tryed where the Wound was given and held good ibid. 3. At Common Law it was at the Election of the Appellant to bring the Appeal in either County and the Tryal to be by a Jury of both but now it may be brought in the County where the Party died 122 4. Whether Auter foitz Convict of Man-Slaughter is a good Plea to an Appeal of Murder 156 157 5. If a Woman be slain her next of Kin shall maintain an Appeal 157 6. How many things are required by the Statute of Gloucester to be alledged in an Appeal of Murder 158 7. The Appellee pleaded in Abatement but did not plead over to the Felony whether good or not 267 8. Where the Appellee must plead in propria persona and where per Attornatum 268 Apportionment Where a Contract under Hand and Seal for a Sum certain shall not be apportioned in an Action pro Rata as if it be for a Years Service the Plaintiff must serve a Year and aver it tho' the Contract is executory 153 2. But if a Promise is for a Years Board an Action may be brought for three Quarters of a Year for if there is a Variance between the Agreement and the Declaration 't is for the benefit of the Defendant 154 Apprentice Whether Justices of Peace have any power to compel men to take poor Children Apprentices since the Statute gives power to Church-wardens to raise
before a Coroner the person having drowned himself it was suffocat ' emergit fuit if it had stood singly upon the word emergit it had been insensible but the word suffocat ' expressing the sense it was held good 100 4. Where nothing is vested in the King before Office found ibid. 5. It must always be found that there is an Estate in the person offending and a cause of Forfeiture of that Estate to vest it in the King 336 Interest in a thing See Pardon 4. Where a Man may have an interest in a Chattel without a Property 61 2. Devise to a Wife and Children after Debts and Legacies paid an interest vests in the Devisees but 't is otherwise in case of Administration for there no Interest vests till actual distribution 65 3. A Man may have a Property tho' not in himself as in the Case of Joyntenancy 97 Intestate See Administration Innuendo The proper office of it is to make the subject matter certain 53 2. It will not help insensible words 54 Joyntenancy and Tenancy in Common See Abatement 3. Baron and Feme 12. Interest 3. If one Joyntenant bring an Action against the other unless he pleads the Jointenancy in abatement the Plaintiff will recover 97 2. If two Coparceners lease a House and the Rent is arrear and one brings an Action and recovers Judgment shall be arrested because both ought to joyn 109 3. Tenants in Common must join in the personalty but 't is otherwise in real Actions for though their Estates are several yet the Damages to be recovered survive to all 109 251 4. Where one Commoner may bring an Action against his Fellow 251 Joint Action See Action for a wrong 6. Ioyntenancy 2 3. Where an Action may be joint or several at the Election of the Plaintiff 86 2. Where 't is brought against three Defendants who plead jointly the Jury may sever the Damages and the Plaintiff may take Execution de melioribus damnis as well as where their Pleas are several and Tryals at several times 101 102 3. Judgment against two and one brought a Writ of Error and assigned the Infancy of the other for Error the Writ was abated because both did not joyn 134 4. The Defendants in the original Action must joyn in a Writ of Error but it seems otherwise where the Plaintiffs bring Error 135 5. Two covenant to sell Lands and the Purchasor agreed to pay the Mony to one of them he alone ought to bring the Action 263 6 Where there are several Proprietors of a Vessel for carriage of Goods which are damaged by carrying the Action must be brought against all or against the Master alone 321 322 7 Where two Tenants in Common were sued for not setting out of Tythes the Action ought to be brought not against him who set them out but against the other who carried them away 322 8. Two are bound joyntly one is sued he may plead in Abatement that he was bound with another but cannot plead Non est factum 323 9 In all Cases which are grounded upon Contracts the Parties who are Privies must be joyned in the Action ibid. 10 Action must be brought against all where a promise is created by Law 324 Issue Must be joyned upon an affirmative and a negative by concluding to the Country 80 Iudges The making altering and displacing of several Judges Serjeants at Law and King's Council 71 99 100 104 125 143 191 239 Iustices of Peace Offences against the Statute of 23 Eliz c. 1. for not coming to Church may be enquired of by them in their Sessions 79 2. Where a Statute appoints a thing finally to be done by them yet the Court of King's Bench may take Cognizance of it 95 3. Conviction for keeping of a Gun before a Justice of Peace the time when he had not 100 l. per Annum must be precisely alledged 280 Iustification See Pleading 4 5. Where 't is pleaded by way of Excuse to an Action of Trespass for the taking of any thing the Defendant must averr the Fact to be done and set forth the Warrant to him directed and the taking virtute Warranti and not generally that he took it by a Mandate c. 138 2. In Replevin where the Defendant made Conusance in right of the Lord he may Justifie the taking generally ibid. Iudgment 1. At the Common Law no Execution could be of a Judgment after a year and a day but the remedy was to bring an Action of Debt upon Judgment 187 189 2. Now a Scire Fac. is given upon a Judgment after the year by the Statue of W. 2. 189 3. When a Judgment is once execucuted the Goods are in custodia legis and shall not be taken away by an Exchequer Process or by the Commissioners of Bankrupts 236 L. Lapse See Notice Lease A Covenant in a Lease for years that the Lessee should pay the Rent without obliging his Executors or Administrators 't is determined by his Death 231 2. For 99 yeas if three persons or any of them so long live reserving a Rent and an Herriot upon the death of either the Beast of the Assignee shall not be taken for a Herriot for the Lessee is to pay his best Beast and that shall not be carried further than to the person named 231 Libel Where a Fine and Corporal punishment was imposed upon the Offender after Conviction 68 Limitation An Estate was setled upon Trustees to the use of A. and her Heirs provided she marry with the consent of Trustees remainder over to B. This is a Limitation and not a Condition 32 Limitation of Action See 21 Jac. 16. Where a Trespass is laid with a continuando for more than six years and the Statute pleaded and entire Damages it must be intended only for that which falls within the six years and that the Jury rejected the beginning of the Trespass 111 2. This Statute relates to a distinct and not to a continued Account 112 3. It provides a Remedy when the Plaintiff is beyond Sea at the time when his Right accrews and saves it till he returns whether it may be extended in a Case where the Defendant is beyond Sea longer than six years from the time the Plaintiff was entituled to the Action 311 312 Local Actions Whether Covenant will lie by an Assignee of a Reversion against an Assignee of a Lessee in any other place than where the Land lieth 337 2. Debitum contractus sunt nullius loci ibid. 3. Debt for Rent upon a Lease for years brought upon the Contract and Covenant between the same Parties are transitory ibid. 4. If Privity of Contract is gone by making an Assignment and only a privity in Law remains the Action must be brought in the County where the Land lieth ibid. M. Mayor See Corporation Marriage See Condition 3. Evidence 7. Limitation Notice A Maid above 12 and under 16 taken from Parents or Guardian and Married forfeits her Estate to the next in