in the upper Bench. BRownsworth versus Trench Trin. 10. Iacobi rotulo 3628. An Action of Debt brought upon an Escape against a Bailiff of a Liberty and after a Triall Exception was taken to the Declaration because it was not alleadged therein that the Sheriff made a Warrant to the Bailiff upon the Execution but it was onely alleadged that at A. aforesaid by vertue of the Warrant aforesaid he took the Prisoner and saith not within his Liberty aforesaid and the Exception was held void Trin. 10. Iacobi An Action of Debt brought by Executors and the Defendant pleads that the Plaintiffs were not Executors and tried and found for the Defendant and the Defendant upon the Statute for Costs desired Costs because the Jury found against the Plaintiff that he was not Executor and if a Verdict passe against one that is not an Executor he shall pay Costs but Costs were denied by the whole Court for the Jury might finde an untruth BAlder versus Blackborn Trin. 16. Iacobi rotulo 465. An Action of Debt brought for Rent reserved upon a Lease for years the Case this Land was devised to a Woman in this manner that she should have the profits of the Land untill the Daughter of the Devisor should be eighteen years old and the Woman made the Lease in question reserving Rent and afterwards married and then died and if the Husband after her Death should have the Land untill the Daughter of the Devisor came to eighteen years old was the question and adjudged he should hold the Land for the Devise of the profits is the Devise of the Land and is not like a Lease made by a Guardian in Socage which ends by the Deâ—… of the Guardian the Declaration was for one Mesuage demised the fourth of May 15. Jac. for one year and so from year to year as long as both parties should agree paying twenty four pounds by the year and Nil debet per patriam was pleaded and the Jury found it specially that one I. W. was seised of the Tenement and held it in Socage and made it his last Will in writing and by that did devise to A. his Daughter the said Tenement and her Heirs for ever at the full Age of eighteen years the words of the Will were Item I will that my Wife and Executrix shall have the Education of my Daughter with the portion of Money and profits of my Land to her own use without account untill my Daughters Age aforesaid provided she shall pay the out-rents and keep her Daughter at School and by that Will made his Wife Executrix and the said W. died and his Wife survived and took upon her the Executorship and married with one P. the Woman performed the Condition and afterwards died and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff that it was a terme and that the Husband should have it An Action of Debt was brought against an Executor and the Case was thus Administration was committed to one during the minority of the Executor who wasted the Goods of the Testator and after the Executor attained the Age of seventeen years an Action of Debt was brought against the Executor and the opinion of the Court was prayed whether he might plead generally ne unques Executor or excuse himself by pleading the special matter and the Court doubled but most safe to plead the special matter An Action of Debt was brought for Rent reserved by Indenture payable at two Feasts or within twenty daies then next following and the Plaintiff declared upon a Lease for the Rent and because ten pound at the Feast of the Anunciation 10. Jacobi was behind and unpaid the Action was brought the Defendant pleads Non demisit and a Verdict for the Plaintiff and after a Triall exception was taken to the Declaration because it was not alleadged that the Rent was arrere at that Feast and twenty daies after but it was not allowed after a Verdict because he should have taken advantage thereof before RAtliff versus Executors Pasch 15. Jacobi An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation to perform Covenants in an Indenture The Defendant pleads performance of the Covenants the Plaintiff alleadges a breach upon this Covenant that the Lessee should injoy the Land without any lawfull interruption or disturbance of the Lessor or his Executors and shewes that the Executors entred upon him in the Land and outed him and shews not any interruption for any just cause and adjudged good in the upper Bench. WHitton versus Bye Trin. 16. Jacobi It was adjudged in the upper Bench in an Action of Debt brought by a Lessor against a Lessee for years for Rent reserved during the Tearme being behind and unpaid that a Release pleaded to be made by the Lessor to the Lessee six years before the Rent was arrere of all Demands was a good Barr One cannot reserve a Rent to a stranger it must be reserved according to the privity WAinford Administrator Kirby versus Warner Trin. 13. Jacobi rotulo 1906. An Action of Debt brought upon a Bond to which the Defendant pleads that the intestate was indebted to him in such a sum and that he retained c. in his hands to satisfie himself of the Debt due to him And that he had not assets over to satisfie the Plaintiff to which Plea the Plaintiff demurrs because he did not plead generally fully administred but an Exception was taken because he shewed not that the Condition of the Bond was for payment of Money STone versus Goddard Trin. 14. Jacobi rotulo 2258. An Action of Debt brought upon divers Emissets of divers Wares Videlicet unum ahenum for five shillings unum scabum for six shillings and so divers other words which the Court could not understand what they signified in regard no Anglice was put to them and the Defendant pleaded Nil debet per patriam and the Jury gave a Verdict for the Plaintiff and Damages given for the whole Debt and moved in Arrest of Judgement and Judgement that the Plaintiff should have no Judgement for the insufficiency of his Declaration WEeks versus Wright unum Clericorum R. B. The Plaintiff exhibited a Bill against the Defendant for Money due upon an Obligation and Issue was joyned and the Cause tried and a Verdict for the Plaintiff and after Triall the Defendant moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Bill was not filed that it was not helped by the Statute of Jeofayles nor within that Statute for it is an Original but afterwards the Court granted that a new Bill should be filed so that the matter might be put to arbitrement and if the Arbitrators could not determine the matter the Court would And note the Court seemed to be of an opinion that the want of a Bill is not helped by the Statute WItchoct Linesey versus Nine Trin. 9. Jacobi rotulo 726. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation to perform the Covenants contained in an
may take the power of the County to make a replevin upon the plures replevin a replevin will not lye of deeds or charters concerning Land and no return habend lyes upon a justistification and if a discontinuance be after a second deliverance the return habend shall be irreplegiable And if the Defendant after an advowry will not gage deliverance he shall be imprisoned for the contempt no disclaimer lies upon a justification but upon an advowry And if the replevin was sued by writ and the Sheriffe return thereupon that the cattell are not to be found then a withernam shall be awarded against the Defendant and if a nihil be returned then a capias alias plur withernam and thereupon an Exigent and if hee do at the return of the exigent find pledges to make deliverance and be admitted to his Fine then the Plaintiff shall declare upon an uncore detent and goe to tryall upon the right of the cause of distress and if it be found for the Plaintiff he shall recover his costs and dammages And if for the Defendant he shall have a return habend But if upon the return of the Plures repleg the Defendant appear then no withernam lies but he must gage deliverance or be committed and the Plaintiff shall count against him upon an uncore detent and so proceed to the rightfull taking of the distress And if it be found for the Plaintiff if the Cattell be not delivered he shall recover the value of the goods and costs and dammages if for the Defendant costs and dammages and a return habend WIlkins versus Danre Trin. 6. Jacobi rotulo 930. The Defendant avowed a rent charge granted to his Father in fee with a clause of Distress the Plaintiff demands Oyer of the deed which was a grant of the rent to one and his heirs to hold to him his Heirs Executors and Assigns to the use of the said H. and his Assigns during the life of a stranger And whether it was in fee or for life was the question and whether the habendum be contrary to the premises or do stand with the estate If the habendum had been to him and his Heirs during his own life this had been void but it was held otherwise for a strangers life and no occupancy can be of a rent CHappell versus Whitlock Mich. 6. Jac. rotulo 1316. The question was upon a liberty in the deed to make Leases provided they shall not exceed the number of three lives or twenty and one years and the lease was made for 80. years if two live so long if he make a Lease absolute it must not be above twenty and one years but in this case it is uncertain MAnning versus Camb Pasch 7. Jacobi rotulo 341. in Replevin the Defendant avows damage fesant by reason of a devise made to the Advowant by will for one and twenty years by one Lockyer who was seised of the Land in fee The Plaintiff saith that true it is that Lockyer was seised in fee of the Land in question and by the said Will devised the Land to the said D. for the said years in confidence only to the use of it if she should remain unmarried and afterwards and before the taking dyed thereof seised J. L. being then Sonne and Heir of the said Lockyer after whose death the Land descended to the said J. as Son and Heir c. after whose death the Legatees entred into the Land and were thereof possessed to the use and confidence above said the reversion belonging to the said J. L. And the woman took Manning to her Husband by reason wherof the said term devised by the said L. to the said A. and J. to the use and confidence above-said ended the said being under the age of 14. years to wit of the age of two years by reason whereof the custody of the Heir did belong to the Husband and Wife by reason whereof they seised the Heir and entred into the Land and maintained their count the Defendant confessed the Will and the devise for years in confidence and further that after the term he devised the Land to his sonne in fee and a demurrer The condition must go to the estate and not to the use COuper versus Fisher Trin. 6. Iac. rotulo 513. The Defendant as Administrator of Foster advows for rent reserved upon a Feofment made in fee of the Mannor reserving rent in fee to the Feoffer in the name of a Fee-farm-rent with a clause of Distress for the not paying of it and that the rent did desend to the issue of the Feoffer And for the rent due to the Heir the Feoffer in his life advows the Plaintiff in his barre to the Advowry saith that neither the intestate nor his Ancestors nor any other whose estate the said T. hath in the rent were ever seised of the same rent within forty years then last past before the taking c. And a demurrer pretending that he ought to alledg seisen in the Advoury with forty years And it was held by the whole Court that the seisin is not to be alledged being it was by deed made within the time of prescription neither is the seisin but where the seisin is traversable there it must be alledged and in no other case and the Judgment was given for the Advowant Mich. 8. Jacobi An Advowry was made for an amerciament in a Court leet and shews that he was seised of the Mannor in Fee and that he and all c. have had a Court leet and the Plaintif traverses that he was seised of the Mannor in Fee and the Court held If the Defendant had a reputed Mannor it would maintain the Avowry though he had indeed no Mannor in truth REynolds versus Oakley The Defendant avows for rent reserved upon a lease for life and the Plaintiff shews that the place in which c. did adjoyn to the close of the Plaintiff and that the Cattell against the Plaintiffs will did escape into the other close and that he did presently follow the Cattell and before he could drive them out of the close the Defendant did distrain the Plaintiff's Beasts And whether the Distress were lawfull or not was the question And the Court held in this case because the Beasts were always in the Plaintif's possession and in his view the Plaintiff would not distrein the Cattell of a stranger but if he had permitted the Beasts to have remained there by any space of time though they had not been levant and couchant the Lessor might have distreyned the Beast of a stranger BLown versus Ayer Hill 40. Eliz. rotulo 1610. In a Replevin the question was upon these words to wit the said Abbot and Covent granted to the said R. that he and his Assigns Fierboot Cart-boot and Plowboot sufficient by the appointment c. without making wast under the penalty of forfeiting the devise whether those words make a condition or no and
But in this case before Attornement the Grantee hath nothing and after Attornement the particuler Estate being granted it shall be drownd in the reversion Harris Serjeant the words of the devise are that his Feoffees and all other Persons which after his Death shall be seised shall be seised to the same uses before declared and of one Acre he hath not any Feoffees for of that the Feoffment was voyd and yet it was agreed that the devise was good as Lyngies Case was in 35. H. 8 cited by Anderson in Welden and Elkintons Case Commentaries 523 b. And he argued that though that when a conveyance may enure in severall courses yet it cannot enure for part in one course and part in another course and for that this devise enures as a devise of Land for one Acre and declaration of the use of the Feoffment foâ—…her Acre for it is agreed in Sir Rowland Haywards Case 2. 〈…〉 a. 6. Coke 18. a. Sir Edward Cleeres Case and also in this 〈◊〉 the devisor hath made expresse declaration that the Land shall passe by the Feoffment and that the Will shall be but a declaration of the use of the Feoffment and for that nothing shall passe by the devise with which the Justices seemed to accord and cited a case to be adjudged in the Kings Bench 40. Eliz. where the Father gives and grants Lands to his Son his heires with warranty and makes a Letter of Attorney within the deed to make Livery and adjudged that that shall not enure as a Covenant to raise a use for that that it appeares by the Letter of Attorney that his intent was that that should enure as a Feoffment and not as any other manner of conveyance see 14 Eliz. Dyer 311. 83. Master Cromwells Case and so it was adjudged accordingly Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Common Bench Gargrave against Gargrave Katherine Gargrave was Plaintiff in a Replevin against Sir Richard Gargrave Knight and the case was this The Father of Sir Richard Gargrave was seised of divers Tenements called Lyngell Hall in Lyngell Hall and of a Moore called Kingstey Moore in another Town and the Tenants of the said Father of Sir Richard have used to have Common in the said Moore and the said Father so being of that seised demised the said Tenements to the said Katherine Gargrave for her Joynture by these words by the name of Hingell Hall and certaine Land Meadow and Pasture in certainty and with all â—ands Tenements and Hereditaments to that belonging or with that occupied and enjoyed now or late in the Tenure of one Nevill and Nevill was Tenant of the said premises and had Common in Kingsley Moore upon which the question was if the said Katherine by this demise shal have Common in the said Moore or not And Hutton Serjeant argued that the said Katherine shall have Common in the said Moore for he said that the said demise shall be expounded according to the intent of the partie 〈◊〉 as it is agreed in Hill and Granges Case Commentaries 270. b. Where a man makes a Lease for yeares of a house and all the Lands to that belonging and though it is there agreed that Land cannot be appurtenant to a house yet this word appurtenant shall be taken in the effect and sense of usually occupied with the Messuage or lying to the house by which it appeares that the words are transferred from the proper signification to another to satisfie the intent of the parties for it is the office of the Judges to take and expound the words which the common People use to expresse their intent according to their intent and for that shall be taken not according to the very definition insomuch that it doth not stand with the matter but in such manner as the party used them And for that this grant shall amount to a new grant of Common in the said Moor for as it seems common or feeding for Cattell may be granted and passe by the name of Tenements Hereditaments or at least shall be included and comprised within the words Tenements and Hereditaments and so shall be construed as a thing occupied and injoyed with the said Messuages see Hen. Finches Case 39. Coke And it was an expresse endorsment upon the demise that the said Katherine should not have Common in the said Moore but it was agreed by all that this was vaine and idle and nothing worth but he urged that this shall have a favorable construction for that it was for Joynture which shall have as favorable construction as Dower And so he prayed Judgement for the Plaintiff and of the other part Nicholls Serjeant argued that this shall not amount to a new grant for he said that they are not apt words to receive such construction for he said that this is no Tenement or Hereditament no Common but only a Feeding for the Cattell of the Lessee in the wast of the Lessor see 20. Edw. 2. Fitzherbert admeasurement and it cannot passe as a thing used with the said house for that was not in Esse at the time of the grant and there is not any apt word to make a new grant â—nd he cited 〈◊〉 Iudgement in Action of wast between Arden and Darcy where Ardon was seised of the Mannor of Curball and also of Parkhall and makes a conveyance of the Mannor of Curball to divers uses and at this time parcell of the Mannor of Curball was occupied with Parkhall as parcell of that and after made another conveyance of all his Lands in England except the Mannor of Curball And adjudged that the Parke which is used with Parkhall shall not be within the exception Coke saith that it was only feeding and not Hereditament for the Inheritance of both was in the Lessor but if it be granted of feeding it shall be intended the same like feeding that the Tenant hath as if the King grant such Liberties as the City of London hath and that shall be good and so it was adjourned Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. In the Common Bench. Cannige against Doctor Newman IN an Information upon the Statute of 21 H. 8. chapter 13. Of non-residency it was found by speciall Verdict that Doctor Newman was Incumbent invested in the Rectory of Staplehurst in the County of Kent and that hee was also seised of a house in Staplehurst aforesaid scituate within twenty yards of the said Rectory and that the mansion house of the said Rectory was in good repaire and that Doctor Newman held that in his hands and occupation with his one proper goods and did not let it to any other and that he inhabited in the said Messuage and not in the Parsonage the Statute of 21 H. 8 chapter 13. Provides that every Parson promoted to any Parsonage shall be personally resident and abiding in at and upon his said Benefice and in case any such spirituall Parson keep not residence at his Benefice as aforesaid but absent himself willfully by the space
shall be said conclusion and agreement within the said Provision and for that as it seemes it is so uncertain as going about but admitting that it is good yet it shall be good but to some purpose but not to restraine the Daughter which was Tenant in taile to do lawfull Acts as to suffer a Recovery or to levy a Fine as it is resolved in Mildmayes case 6 Coke 40. By which it appears that she hath as well power to dispose that by Recovery as of Fee simple notwithstanding that the Reversion remaines in the Giver as it appears by 12 Ed. 4. 3. For all lawfull Acts made by Tenant in taile shall binde the Issue as 44 Ed. 3. Octavian Lumbards Case Grant of Rent for Release of right is good and shall binde the Issue for there are foure incidents to an Estate tayle First That he shall not be punished for Waste Secondly That his Wife shall be indowed Thirdly That the Husband of the Wife Tenant in Tayle shall be Tenant by the Courtisie Fourthly That Tenant in Tayle may suffer common recovery So that a Condition which restraines him so that he cannot suffer a common Recovery is void for it is incident to his act and it is a lawful Act and for the benefit of the Issue as it is intended in respect of the intended recompence and he said that a Feoffment to a woman covert or infant shall be conditionall that they shall not make a Feoffment during their disability is good for that the Law hath then made them disable to make a Feoffment so a Lease for life or years upon condition that he shall not alien is good in respect of the confidence that was reposed in them by the Lessor and so concluded that the Condition in this Case which restraines Tenant in Taile generally from alienation First was uncertain in respect of the words conclude and agree Secondly for that it was against Law so void and for that prayed Judgment for the Defendant Hutton Serjeant for the Plaintiff he argued that the verball agreement of the Wife shall bind her notwithstanding the Coverture for that that this is for her benefit for in performance of the said agreement she suffers a recovery to the use of her selfe and her Heires and so Dockes the remainder and he agreed the cases put by the other part which concerne free-hold but he said in cases of Limitation of Estates as if Limitation be if a Ring be tendred by a woman that the Land shall remaine to her and she takes a Husband and after that she and the Husband tender the Ring this shall be sufficient tender and it shall be intended the Act of the wife and 10. H 7. 20. a. A man devises his Lands to a married woman to be sold she may sell them to her Husband And though that it be not any agreement of the Husband only yet here is an act done in a Precipe brought against the Wife and she vouches over for that is not only an agreement but an Act executed upon which the Estate Limited to the eldest Sister shall take effect and the 2. Coke the 27. a. Beckwiths Case If the Husband and the Wife joyne in a Fine of Land of the Wife the Wife only without the Husband may declare the use of that And he intended it was a Limitation and not a condition and so it might be well at this day in case of devise and then the Act shall be that the Estate is Limited to have beginning being made the Estate of the youngest Daughter which made the Act shall be destroyed and determined for if it be a condition then all the Daughters shall take advantage of that and this was not the intent of the Devisor for they are the parties which should be restrained by the devise from Alienation And also he cited Wenlocke and Hamonds Case cited in Bractons Case 3. Coke 20. b. Where a Copy-holder in fee of Lands devisable in Burrough English having three Sons and a Daughter deviseth his Lands to his eldest Son paying to his Daughter and to his other Sons forty shillings within two yeares after his death the Devisor maketh surrender according to the use of his Will and dieth the eldest Son admitted and doth not pay the money within the two yeares and adjudged that though the word paiment makes a condition yet in this case of devise the Law construes that to a Limitation and the reason is there given to be for that that is it shall be a condition then that shall discend upon the eldest Son and then it stands at his pleasure if the Brothers or Sister shall be paid or not and 29. Assis 17. cytes in Nourse and Scholasticas Case Commentaries 412. b. where a man seised of Lands in Fee devisable deviseth them to one for life and that he should be Chapleine and single for his Soule all his life so that after his decease the sayd tenements should remaine to the Commonalty of the same Towne to finde a Chapleine perpetuall for the same Tenements and dyed and adjudged that this shall not be a condition of which the heir shal take advantage but limitation upon which the remainder shall take effect and also he cyted S. E. Clâ—ers Case 6 Coke 18. a. b. 11 H. 7. 17. Pennants Case 3 Coke 65. a. That if a man makes a Lease for years upon a condition to cease that after the condition is broken grantee of reversion may take advantage of that so he said in the case at the Bar when the first Estate is determined and destroyed by the limitation then he to whom the Remainder is limited shall take advantage of that and not the Heire for as he intended an Estate of Inheritance may as well cease by limitation of devise as tearme as in 15 Ed. 4. Lands are given to one so long as he hath heires of his body the remainder over and if he dye without heires of his body the remainder over shall vest without entry and the Free-hold shall vest in him and 2 and 3. Phil. and Mary Dyer 127. and 56. Fisher and Warrens Case If a man devise Lands to one for life the remainder over upon condition that if he do such an act that his estate shal cease and he in remainder may immediately enter there he in remainder shall take advantage though he be a stranger for that that the Estate determines there without re-entry And he saith that the Case of Wellock and Hamond cyted in Barastons Case was a stronger Case then this for there the limitation was upon Fee-simple and here it is upon an Estate tayle and the Law hath favourable respect to devises as in Barastones Case is alteration of words for the better exposition of that for Shall is altered to Should and also see 16 Eliz. Dyer 335. 29. for the marshalling of absurd words in a Will for the expounding of that and 18 Eliz. Cheekes Case he cyted to be adjudged that
if a man devise his Lands to his Wife and after her death to his Son and the remainder to his sayd Wife in Fee-simple the Husband of the Wife having Issue shall not be Tenant by the Curtesie for alwayes the Judges have made such favourable construction of Wills that if Estates devised by Will might be created by act executed in the life of the party then it should be good by devise and to the objection that conclusion and agreement is uncertaine and so for that shall be voyd he saith that it is not so uncertaine as going about or resolve and determine an attempt or procure as in Corbets Case first of Coke 83. b. or as attempt or endeavour as in Germins and Arscotts Case there cyted fol. 285. a. See 6 Coke 40. a. Mildmayes Case and also the words subsequent are repugnant that the Estate tayle shall cease as if the Tenant in tayle were dead and not otherwise which is absurd and repugnant for the Estate tayle doth not determine by his death if he doe not dye without Issue And also he sayd that it is more reasonable that the perpetuity in Scholasticas Case for here the limitation depends upon agreement which is a thing certaine upon which the Issue may be joyned and also the condition doth stand with the nature of the Estate tayle and for the preservation of it and Recovery is against the nature of it for this destroyes the Estate tayle and is onely a consequent of it and not parcell of the nature of the Estate and this is the reason that Littleton saith That an Estate tayle upon condition that he should not alien is good for that preserves the Estate and also preserves Formedon for him in reversion if there be a discontinuance and with that agreed 13 H. 7. 23. 24. and he sayd that there was a Judgement in the point for his Clyent for another part of the Land and he cyted 31 Edw. 5. Fitz. Feoffment placito the last and Fitzherberts Natura brevium Ex gravi querela last Case and so concluded and prayed judgement for the Plaintiff and this Case was argued againe by Shirley Serjeant for the Defendant and he intended that the agreement is voyd to the Wife and shall be intended the agreement of the Husband onely for a marryed Wife cannot countermand Livery 21 Assis 25. and if a Woman makes a Feoffment upon condition to enfeoff upon request made by her and she takes a Husband she cannot make request after coverture 35 Assisarum So that he intended that this shall be intended the agreement of the Husband onely and not of the Wife and yet he argued that Declaration of a use by a marryed Wife shall be good according to Beckwiths Case But he sayd That the reason of that is for that that she is party to the Recovery which is a matter of Record and as long as the Record remaines in force so long the Declaration of the use shall be good and also he argued that if the condition being that if the Wife conclude or agree to any act to make discontinuance that then c. that that shall be intended unlawfull acts and Recovery is no unlawfull act and for that shall not be within the restraint of the Condition as the Earl of Arundels Case 17 Eliz. Dyer 343. and admitting that it is a limitation yet it shall be of the same nature as a condition and as well as a condition that Tenant in tayle shall not suffer Recovery is voyd So also is such Limitation void and so it was intended before the Statute of Donis Conditionalibus and it appeares by the pleading that the parties did not intend to take advantage of the agreement for it is pleaded that at the time of the Recovery suffered the youngest Daughter was seised of an estate tayl the which could not be if her estate were determined and destroyed by the agreement and conclusion so that the last words make the Forfeyture for the first are not unlawfull and before the execution of the Recovery the estate tayl is determined and so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Defendant Barker Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff It shall be intended a Limitation and not a condition for a Will shall have favorable construction according to the intent of the Devisor for a Joyntenant may devise to his Companion 49. Ed. 3. and Fitz. Na. Bre. Ex gravi querela last case A man devises Land to his Wife for life upon condition that if he marry that it should remain over to his Son in tayl and the Wife marries and the Son in remainder sues Ex Gravi querela by which it appeares that it was a Limitation and not a condition and 34 Ed. 3. devise was to one for life upon condition that if his Sonn disturbed him that then it should remaine over in taile upon disturbance he in Remainder in tail brings Formedon by which it appears it was a Limitation and with that agrees all the Justices in 29 Assisarum 17. And Wellock and Hamonds Case cited in Barastons Case before and 18. Eliz. Dyer If Land be limited to no third person by the Devise then the Heir shall enter for breaking the condition and also he said that it appears by Littleton and 13 H. 7 23. and 24 and 20 H. 7. and 17 Eliz. 343. the Earle of Arundells case which conditioneth that Tenant in taile shall not alien standeth with his Estate but not with Fee simple and so it is adjudged in Nowes and Scholasticas Case which is adjudged in the point which as he saith cannot be answered and the Words of the Condition are not that her Estate taile shall cease as if shee had been dead but as if she had not been named which is not so repugnant or absurd as the other and this compared to 34 Ed 3. Where the Estate was limited till it was disturbed And he also argued that the agreement of the Wife shall be a forfeiture notwithstanding the coverture for when the Estate is granted upon such condition he which hath the estate shall take it subject to the condition as if two Lessees are and one Seals the Counterpart onely yet the other shall be bound by the Covenants contained in it and 33 H. 6. 31. a Woman disavows to be Executor notwithstanding that shee was marryed and if Precipe had been brought against the Husband and Wife the default of the Husband shall binde the Wife and so she shall be punished for waste made during the coverture and so concluded and prayed judgement for the Plaintiff Foster Justice that an Estate of Free-hold shall not cease by agreement or conclusion without entry for it is a matter of Inheritance and Free-hold and it is not like to 33 H. 6. 31. which concerns Chattels and Goods and Walmesley Justice accorded with him Warburton Justice it hath been adjudged in Scholasticas Case that the condition was good and therefore he would not deliver his
condition to re-enfeoff and she with her Husband makes the re-enfeoffment it is good so a Woman being Lessee for Life and with her Husband attorn upon a Grant of Reversion is good and shall binde the Wife after the Death of the Husband 3 Ed. 3. 42. 4 Ed. 3. Attornment 12. 15 Ed. 3. Attornment also this Estate was made to the Wife when she was sole and for that it shall be accounted her folly that she would take such a Husband that would forfeit her Estate but with that agreed the reason of the Booke of 20 H. 6. 28. Where a woman Tenant was bound by the ceasing of her Husband and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff and so it was adjourned see another argument of this case in Michaelmas Tearm 9. Jacobi 1611. by Haughton and Nicholls Serjeants Pasch 9. Jacobi 1611. In the Common Bench. Pitts against Dowse IN an Ejectione firme upon not guilty pleaded The Case was this A man makes his Will by these words I bequeath all my Lands to my Son Richard except my Chauntery Lands And I devise all my Chauntery Lands to be devided amongst all my Children men and women alike except my Son Richard And if Richard die without Issue the remainder to A. My second Son the remainder to B. My third Son the remainder to C. My fourth Son the remainder to my next of blood and so from Heire to Heire And so likewise I would to be done upon my Chauntery Lands and Tenements in case all my aforesaid Children die without Issue Then I would the one halfe of my Chauntery Lands to remaine to the next of kin and the other half to the Hospitall of M. And the question was what estate the Heire of the eldest Son shall have in the Chauntery Lands and it was argued by Dodridge the Kings Serjeant that the Heire of the eldest Son shall have estate tayl in the Chauntery Lands the Devisor devises no estate to Richard his eldest Son in the Chauntery Lands nor limitts any estate of that in certaine and for that he seemed that the youngest Sons and Daughters shall be Tenants in Common for life and by this manner of Interpretation every part of the Will shall be for first he excludes Richard himselfe so that he shall have nothing in that and then by the Limitation to the younger Children to be equally divided between them makes them Tenants in Common see 28. H. 8. 25. Dyer 155. And he cited Lewin and Coxes Case to be adjudged Michaelmasse 41. and 42. of Eliz. Pasche 42. Eliz. Rot. 207. Where a man devises Lands to his two Sons to be equally divided and adjudged that they are Tenants in Common so devise to two part and part like and equally divided and equally to be divided is all one and for that there is no other words to make an estate of Inheritance it shall be an estate for life and the remainder shall be directed according to the estates limited of the other Land And he seemed that the words in the last sentence all my aforesaid Children shall extend to Richard his eldest Son as well as to the others and so all the Will shall stand in his force which may be Objected that Richard the eldest Son shall be excluded out of the Possession and for that see 6. Eliz. Dyer 333. 29. Chapmans Case and also he cited one case to be adjudged Trinity 37. Eliz. Rot. 632. betweene Bedford and Vernam where a man deviseth all his lands in Alworth and afterwards purchaseth other Lands in the same Town and afterwards one comes to him to take a Lease of this Land newly purchased which the Testator refused to Let. And said that these Lands newly purchased should goe as his other Lands And upon his Death bed adds a Codycell to his Will but saith nothing of his purchased Lands and adjudged that the purchased Lands shall passe and so concluded and praied Judgement Harris Serjeant that it is a new Sentence and Richard is excluded and it shall be a good Estate tayl to the youngest Children and foresayd Children shall be intended them to which the Chauntery Lands are limited see Ratcliffes case 3. of Coke adjudged that they shall be Tenants in Common by the devise to he equally divided and thall not be surviving but every youngest Children shall have his part in tayl though that the first words do not containe words of Inheritance yet the last words in case all my Children die without Issue declares his intent that they should have an estate tayl see the 16. of Eliz. Dyer 339. 20. Claches Case that when he hath disposed of part devised to Richard then disposeth of the residue and the sentence begins with And so likewise and that shall be intended in the same manner as he had disposed of the Lands devised to Richard for he hath devised the remainder otherwise that is to an Hospitall and so concludes and praies Judgement accordingly Coke cheife Justice saith that it was adjudged between Coke and Petwiches 29. Eliz. that if a man devise a house to his eldest Son in tayl and another house to his second Son in tayl and the third house to the third Son in tayl and if any of them die without Issue the remainder to the other two equally this shall be but for life for this enures to the quantity of the Land and not to the quality of the Estate And he said that Richard is excepted without question for it is but a Will and every of the youngest Sons therein shall have the Chauntery Land one after another and Richard shall have no part and the Chauntery shall have nothing till they all are dead and he likened that to Frenchams Case where Lands were given to one and to his Heires Males and if he died without Issue the remainder over the Issues Females shall not take though that it be if they die without Issue for expresse it makes to cease only and so it was adjourned Petoes Case PEto suffers a common Recovery to the use of himselfe for life the remainder to his eldest Son in tayl with diverse remainders over to the intent that such Annuities should be paid as he by his last Will or by grant declares so that they did not exceed the summ of sixty pound and if any of the said Rents be behind then to the use of him to whom the Rent shall be behind till the Rent be satisfied with clause of distresse Rent of twenty pound was granted to his youngest Son for his life the grantee distraines for the Rent and in Replevin avowes the Plaintiffe replâ—es that by the non-paiment the use riseth to the youngest Son by which it was objected that the Rent shall be suspended Quere if without demand or if the distresse shall be demanded or that the use shall not rise till after the distresse and to the distresse well taken and agreed by all that the Plaintiff shall take nothing by
Mannor held in cheife and of other Mannors and Lands held of a Common person in socage and had Issue foure Sonns Thomas William Humphrey Richard And by his Deed 12 Eliz. covenants to convey these Mannors and Lands to the use of himself for his life without impeachment of wast and after his desease to the use of such Farmors and Tenants and for such Estates as shall be contained in such Grants as he shall make them and after that to the use of his last will and after that to the use of VVilliam his second sonn in tayle the Remainder to Humphrey his third Son in tayle the Remainder to Richard the fourth Sonn in tayle the Remainder to his own right Heires with power of Revocation and after makes a Feoflment according to the covenant and after that purchases eight other acres held of another common person in socage and after makes revocation of the said Estates of some of the Mannors and Lands which were not held by Knights service and after that makes his Will and devises the Land that he had purchased as before and all the other Land whereof he had made the Revocation to Thomas his eldest son the Heirs Males of his body for 500. years provided that if he alien and dye without Issue that then it shall remaine to William his second sonne in tayle with the like proviso as before and after dyed and the Jury found that the Lands whereof no revocation is made exceeds two parts of all his Lands Thomas the eldest sonne enters the 8. Acres purchased as before and dyes without Issue male having Issue a Daughter of whom this Defendant claimes these eight Acres and the Plaintiff claims them by William the second Son And Dodridge the Kings Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff intending that the sole question is for the 8. acres purchased and if the devise of that be good or not by the Statute of 34. H. 8. And to that the point is only a man which hath Lands held in cheife by Knights service and other Lands held of a common person in Socage conveys by act executed in his life time more then two parts and after purchases other Lands and devises those if the devise be good or not And it seems to him that the devise is good and he saith that it hath been adjudged in the selfe same case and between the same parties And this Judgment hath been affirmed by writ of Error and the devise to Thomas and the Heirs males of his body for 500. years was a good estate tayle and for that he would not dispute it against these two Judgments But to the other question hee intended that the devise was good and that the Devisor was not well able to doe it by the Statute of 34. H. 8. And hee intended that the statute authoriseth two things 1. To execute estates in the life time of the party for advancement of his Wife or Children or payment of his debts and for that see 14. Eliz. Dyer and that may be done also by the common Law before the making of this statute But this statute restrains to two parts and for the third part makes the Conveyance voyd as touching the Lord But the statute enables to dispose by Will a parts where he cannot dispose any part by the Common Law if it be not by special Custome but the use only was deviseable by the common Law this was altered into possession by the statute of 27 H. 8. and then cometh the statute of 32. and 34. H. 8. and enables to devise the Land which he had at the time of the devise or which he purchased afterwards for a third part of this Land should remain which hee had at the time of the devise made and if a third part of the Land did not remain at the time of the devise made sufficient should be taken out of that but if the Devisor purchase other Lands after hee may those wholly dispose And for that it was adjudged Trin. 26. Eliz. between Ive and Stacye That a man cannot convey two parts of his Lands by act executed in his life time and devise the third part or any part so held by Knights service and also he relyed upon the words of the statute that is having Lands held by Knights service that this shall be intended at the time of the devise as it was resolved in Butler Bakers Case That is that the statute implies two things that is property and time of property which ought to be at the time of the devise But here at the time of the devise the Devisor was not having of Lands held by Knights service for of those he was only Tenant for life and the having intended by the statute ought to be reall enjoying and perfect having by taking and not by retaining though that in Carrs Case cited in Butler and Bakers Case rent extinct be sufficient to make Wardship yet this is no sufficient having to make a devise void for any part Also if the Statute extend to all Lands to be after purchased the party shall never be in quiet and for that the Statute doth not intend Lands which shall be purchased afterwards for the Statute is having which is in the Present tence and not which he shall have which is in the Future tence and 4. and 5 P. and M. 158. Dyer 35. A man seised of Socage Lands assures that to his Wife in joynture and 8. years after purchases Lands held in cheife by Knights service and devises two parts of that and agreed that the Queen shall not have any part of the land conveyed for Joynture for this was conveyed before the purchase of the other which agrees with the principall case and though to the Question what had the Devisor It was having of Lands held in Capite insomuch that he had Fee-simple expectant upon all the estates tayl he intended that this is no having within the Statute but that the Statute intend such having of which profit ariseth and out of which the K. or other Lord may be answered by the receipt of the profits which cannot be by him which hath fee-simple expectant upon an estate tayle of which no Rent is reserved and also the estate tayle by intendment shall have continuance till the end of the world and 40. Edw 3. 37. b. in rationabili parte bonorum it was pleaded that the Plaintiff had reversion discended from his Father and so hath received advancement And it seems that was no plea in so much that the reversion depends upon an estate tayle and upon which no Rent was reserved and so no advancement So of a conveyance within this Statute ought such advancement to the youngest sonne which continues as it is agreed in Binghams Case 2 Coke that if a man convey lands to his youngest sonne and he convey that over to a stranger in the life time of his father for good consideration and after the Father dies this
is now out of the Statute for the advancement ought to be continuing until the death of the Father And so he saith also it was adjudged in Butler and Bakers Case that if a man devise Socage Lands and after sell to a stranger for good consideration his Lands held by Knights service this devise is now good for all for hee hath not any Land held by Knights service at the time of his death and so he concluded that the devise was good and prayed Judgement for the Plaintiff Houghton Serjeant for the Defendant he thought the contrary and hee argued that before the statutes of 32. and 34. of H. 8. men were disabled to devise any Land and for that they cannot provide for their Wives Children or for payment of their Debts and for remedy to that Feoffments to uses were invented and then to dispose the use by their Wills and then experience finds that to be inconvenient and then the statute of 27. H. 8. transfers the use into possession and then neither use nor land was deviseable without speciall Custome and then this was found to be mischeivous after five years experience and then was the statute of 32. H. 8. made and where by the statute of Marlebridg of those which did enfeoff their begotten sons a Feoffment by the Father to his son and Heir was void for all Now by this statute this is good for 2. parts and void only for the 3d part that for the good of the Lord but as to the party that is good for all as it is agreed in Mightes case 8 Coke Then to consider in the case here if all things concur that the statute requires and to that here is a person which was actually seised of Land held by Knights service in 12. Eliz. So that it is a person which then was having within the statute 2. If here be such conveyance for advancement of his children as is intended within the statute and to that he seemed that so notwithstanding that it may be objected that here is no execution to the youngest children insomuch that it is first limited to such Farmers and Tenants c. But he intended that this is no impediment Secondly also there is a limitation to the use of his last Will. Thirdly also there is a limitation to the use of such persons to whom he devises any estate by his Will But these are no impediments for the last is no other but a devise to himselfe and his heirs and there is not any other person knowne but meerely contingent and it is not like to a remainder limited to the right heirs of I. S. for there the remainder is in Abeiance but here it is only in contingency and nothing executed in Interest till the contingency happen and the not having of a son at the time shall not make difference as in 38. Edw. 3. 26. in formedon in Remainder where the gift was in one for life the remainder to another in tayle remainder in fee to another stranger and he in remainder in tayle dyes without Issue in the life time of the Tenant for life he in remainder in fee may have formedon in remainder without mentioning the remainder in tayle But here he intends that the devise shall be void in respect of the Lands first conveyed which were held in cheife by Knight service for the words of the statute are by act executed either by devise or by any of them and they are conjoyned and it is not of necessity that the time of the Conveyance shall be respected but the time of the value And notwithstanding that the Testator doth not mention any time But in so much as the provision of the statute is to save primor seisin and livery to the King as if the man had 20 l. by year in Socage and one acre in cheife and makes a conveyance of all that it shall be void first to the livery and priâ—or seisin to the third part So if he make conveyance of the 20 l. by yeare and leave the said acre held in cheife to discend and after that purchase other Lands to the value of the third part of all the conveyance of the 20 l. land notwithstanding which for the advancement of his Wife Children or payment of his Debts for he had a full third part at the time of his death which discended And he supposed that the having of a dry reversion depending upon the estate tall is sufficient having within the words and letter of the Statute and yet he agreed the ease put in Butler and Bakers case that if a man devise his Socage Lands and after alien his Lands held in cheife by Knight service to a stranger bonafide this is good So if he had made a reservation of his Lands held in chiefe to himselfe for his life in so much that his estate in that ended with his life and hee remembred the case cyted in Bret and case Comment That if a man devise a Mannor in which he hath nothing and after hee purchaseth it and dyes the devise is good if it be by expresse name But when a man hath disposed of two parts of his Land the Statute doth not inable him to devise the Residue but he hath done all and executed all the authority which the Statute hath given to him But he agreed also that the reversion is not such a thing of value which might make the third part discend to the Heir but it is uncertaine as a hundred and the other things of uncertain value contained in Butler and Bakers Case And also he intended that the remainder could not take effect insomuch that the condition is precedent and it is not found that the eldest Sonne hath aliened and then dead without Heir male and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Defendant In Replevin the Defendant avows for 9 s. Rent the Plaintiff pleads a Deed of feoffment of the same Land made before the Statute of quia emptores terrarum by which 6 s. 8 d. is only reserved and demands Judgment if he shall be received to demand more then is reserved by the Deed See 4 Ed. 2. Avowry 202. 10. H. 7. 20. Ed. 4. 7. Edw. 4. Lung 5 Ed. 4. 22 H. 6. 50. This Deed was without date and it was averred that it was made before the Statute of quia emptores terrarum which was made in the 18. of Edw. 1. And also it ought to be averred to be made after the beginning of the Reign of Richard 1. For a writing after the beginning of his Reign checks prescription But if a man hath a thing by grant before that he may claim by prescription for hee cannot plead the grant insomuch it is before time of memory and a Jury cannot take notice of that and for that the pleading before with the said averments was good If debt be due by Obligation and another debt be due by the same Debtor to the same Debtee of
Prerogative of a Prince and is part of Law and stands with it and this is reasonable custome and so it hath been adjudged in the Kings Bench the reason is insomuch that the custome is the life of the Copy-hold upon which that depends and the party is but a Conduit to nominate the Tenant and when he is nominated and admitted then he takes by the Lord and that stands with the rules and reasons of the Common Law that is that a man devises that a marryed wife shall sell his Land and she may sell notwithstanding the Coverture for she upon the matter nominates the party and he takes by the Devise and by this reason she may sell to her Husband as it is agreed by the 8 of Assises And also by devise that Executor shall sell Executor of Executor may sell notwithstanding that he is not in Esse at the time of the Devise and so a Lease for life to one Remainder to him that J. S. shall nominate is good after nomination and then he takes by the first Livery as it is agreed in 10 H. 7. and J. S. Only hath the nomination and nothing passes to him and with this also agrees 43 Ed. 3. 19 H. 7. So if a man makes a Feoffment to the use of himself for life with diverse Remainders over and power to himself to make Leases for three lives this is good as it is agreed in Mildmayes Case and Whitlocks Case 8 Coke and yet the Estate doth not passe from him but out of all the Estates and he upon the matter hath only the nomination of the Lessee and of the lives for all the estates apply their forces to make that good and the 2 El. Dyer 192. 23. Custome that the Wife of the Copy-holder for life shall have her Widdows Estate is allowed to be a good custome and there an Estate for life upon the matter is raised out of the estate for life and annexed to it and this is by the Custome and the reason he conceived to be for that that Women should be incouraged to marry with their Tenants and by that the marriage with the Tenant and the custome in this Case doth bind the Lord and so 4 Coke there are divers customes by which the Lord is bound and the 8 Coke Swaines Case where the Copy-holder by custome hath the Trees in Case where the Lord himself hath them not so if the Lord sell the Waste yet the Copy-holder shall not loose his Common in that notwithstanding that the Estate of the Copy-holder be granted after the Wast is severed from the Mannor and it is agreed in Waggoners Case 8 Coke that custome is more available then the Common Law And for that this cnse hath been adjudged in this point between Crab and Varney by three or four Judges he would not further question it And for the second custome he agreed that one bare Tenant for life could not meddle with the Sale or falling of the Trees but here is a Copy-holder for life which hath Aut ority given by the Lord and the Custome to dispose the Trees and he saith that Bracton and the old Laws of England calls Copy-holders Falkland and saith they cannot be moved but in the hands of the Lord they ought to surrender and agreed that this is within the Rules of the Common Law for Consuetudo privat communem legem and the Law doth nor give reason of that for this is as a ground and need not to be proved for the reason of every custome cannot be shewed as it was sayd in Knightly and Spencers Case and he sayd that Mannors are divided into three sorts of Tenures The first holds by Knights Service and this is for the defence of the Lord and they have a great number of Acres of Land and pay less Services The second holds by Socage and this for to plow and manure the Demesnes of the Lord and they shall pay no Rent nor do other services and this was at the first to draw such Tenants to inhabit there and for that they have Authority to dispose and sell the Trees growing upon theit Tenements The third holds by base Tenure and these were at the Will of the Lord and these were to do Services and then these in many Cases have liberty for their Wives in some cases to dispose that for another life and to dispose the Trees and so it is in Ireland at this day where some give more and greater priviledge then others to induce Tenants to inhabite and manure their Land for there every day is a complaint made to the Councell for inticing the Tenants of the Lord and 14 Ed. 3. Bar 277. The Tenant preseribes to have the Windfalls and if the Lord cut the Trees that he may have the Lops and 11 H. 6. 2. The Keeper of the Wood prescribes to have Fee and 46 Ed. 3. is prescription to stint the Lord in his own Soyl and all these are for the Incouragement of Tenants to inhabit upon the Land and time of Ed. 1. Prescription 75. A stranger prescribed to have all the profit of the Land of another for a great part of the yeare and to exclude the giver of the Soyl 6 Ja. It was adjudged in the Kings Bench between Henrick and Pargiter that the Lord may be stinsted for Common in his own Laud and in the Book of Entries 563. It appears that by Custome Copy-hold granted Sibi suis was a good Fee-simple and the reason of all this is shewed in the 4. Coke amongst his Copy-hold Cases where it is agreed that the Life of a Copy-hold Estate is the customes and then if the Custome gives life to the Estate this gives life also to all the Priviledges which are incident to the Estate and the Lord is but the means to convey the Estate from one to another and as in 38 Ed. 3. A man hath a House as Heir to his Mother and after a stranger grants Estovers to him and his Heirs to be burnt in the same House these Estovers shall go to the Heirs of the Mother insomuch that they are incident to the House so of Priviledg incident to a Copy-hold Estate by the Custome and at the Common Law if Tenant for life hath cut the Trees he hath not forfeited his Estate for he was trusted with the Land and was not punishable till the Statute of Glocester and at this day if there be a mesne Remainder for life which remains in Contingency and that shall prevent that the Tenant shal be punished for this waste and to make innovation of this custome will be dangerous and for that he concluded that the Plaintiff shall be barred Warburton Justice agreed And the first Custome that is for the nomination of the Successor he conceived that it is good and that it is good by the Common Law and good by Custome by the Common Law as a Lease for life remainder to him which the Tenant for life shall
Chancellor and University of Oxford commanding them that they should remove the University to such a place till the Parliament should be ended And after he sent his Writ to them againe which was directed to the Chancellor and University by which he wild that they should returne againe the Parliament being ended by which Writ he conceived that it appeares that the University was not Locall And this for two reasons First insomuch that this Writ was directed to the Chancellor and University and every Writ is directed to a person and not to a place Secondly the Writ that he should move and remove the University which is a thing impossible to do if it should be a place The other Record was 49. Ed. 3. And this declares that there was contention between the Schollers of Cambridge and the Townesmen there and the Schollers went to Northampton and there they made a Petition to the King that they might erect a University and the King sent his Writ to the Maior commanding him that he would not suffer the Schollers to remaine there and that he would there erect a University which proves that a University may be erected at the Kings pleasure and so cannot a place then admitting that a Corporation may consist upon a place yet the University not being a place that shall not be any prejudice to omit it And he cited a case which was adjudged as he said in the 26. of Eliz. which was thus The Deane and Canons of Winsor made a Lease for years by the name of Deane and Canons of new Winsor And this was adjudged no variance and the case of 5. Ed. 4. 5. of the Abbot of Saint Maries in York which see there and he said the Lord Norths Case was thus That Christ Church in Oxford was incorporate by the name of Deane and Canons of Christ Church in Oxford And they made a Feoffment by the name of the Deane and Canons of Christ Church in the University of Oxford and adjudged a good Feoffment And he said that in the argument of this case it was said by Gaudy that if a corporation were made of Dale and after Dale is made into a City they may make a Lease by the name of a City of Dale and the Lord Popham as he said put these cases That is that if a Corporation be founded of Oxford And that they made a Lease by the name of c. In the Precincts of Oxford this shall be a good Lease yet a thing may be within the Precincts of another place and not in the place and in the 32. Eliz. was the case of one Jermin and Wylles that if a Corporation be made by the name of Deane and Chapter of Saint Maries in Exceter is good But they agreed in this case as he said that if it appeare that they cannot be intended allone otherwise it should be and he conceived in the principall case that it is not necessarily that it should be intended the same place and for that he conceived in all those cases that the Lease shall be good and he said that there were neer two hundred Leases upon the same Title for which c. And after this it was argued in Michaelmasse Tearme 1609. 7. Jacobi by the Justices And the opinion of Crook and Williams Justices was that the Lease was good But Fenner and Yelverton to the contrary and Flemming cheif Justice argued that the Lease was not good but he said this should not be absolutely his opinion but moved a composition betwixt the parties But insomuch that the matter was not compounded in the same Michaelmasse Tearme Judgement was praied And Williams Justice brought into the Court a decree out of the Court of Wards concerning the Case which is put in 7. Eliz. Dyer and 1. Coke Porters Case And upon the decree appeares that an Information being exhibited there against the Master and fellows of Trinity Colledge in Cambridge concerning certain Land they made Title to by a Devise made to them by the name of Masters Fellows and Schollers of Trinity Colledge in Cambridge and this Devise was made four and five of Phil. and Mary and the Decree recyted that upon this were two great Doubts and Questions conceived First If this Devise were good and also by the Statute of 1. and 2. Phil. and Mary which inabled to devise to spirituall Corporations And the second point was That where they were incorporated by the name of Master Fellows and Schollars De sancta and Individua Trinitate in the University and Town of Cambridge if this devise made to them by the name of Master Fellowes and Schollers of Trinity Colledge in Cambridge was good and the Decree rehearsed that the opinion of all the Justices in England was First That it was a good Devise within the Statute of one and two Phillip and Mary as it is reported in the Booke before cited Secondly That this was not such a mis-naming of the Corporation which made the Devise voyd and Williams Justice produced this Record as he sayd to fortify his opinion And he conceived no difference between a Grant and a Devise nor no difference when an Estate or conveyance made unto them and conveiance made by them and for that he cited the Case in the 19 H. 8. in Dyer where if a man devise Land to the Abbey of Saint Peters where the foundation is Saint Paul this is a voyd devise and so in a grant And Crooke Justice to the same Intent Yelverton Justice to that Decree shewed by my Brother Williams I conceive a great Difference First a Will and a grant for in case of a Will it sufficeth if they be described by a name by which the Intent of the Devisor may be sufficiently known and a man is intended to be Inops consilij at the time of the Devise made and for that that he hath not any to instruct him oâ— the precise name of the Corporation for which c. And Fenner Justice to the same intent and if a man devise to one and his Assignes as it is a Fee-simple in case of a Devise so it is not in grant and so devise to one and his Children is an Estate Tayl in case of Devise but not in a grant Flemming cheife Justice to the same intent and to the Decree he sayd that this is as good Law as ever he heard in his life but yet he conceived also that there is a great difference between a Grant and a Devise as if a man devise to a Monke the Remainder over this is a good remainder so devise to one the Remainder over and the particular Tenant refuse this is good in a Devise contrary in grant and to the case which is put by my Brother Williams out of the 19 H. 8. Dyer there is a great difference where there is not any such person at all to take there the Devise shall be void as where the Devise to the Abbot of Saint Peter where
against three Executors two of them are out lawed and the third pleads and Verdict against him and it was resolved that the Judgement shall be against all by the Statute of 9. Ed. 3. for they all are but one Executor and the Cost shall be against him which pleades if the others confesse or suffer Judgement by default And there shall be but one Judgement and not diverse see 17 Ed. 3. 45. b. 11 H. 6. Upon a Venire Facias awarded the Sheriff returnes but 21. and the Habeas Corpora was against 21. only and this was also returned and upon that ten appeared and upon this Tales was awarded and triall had and but ten of the principall Pannell sworne And this was Error but if twelve of the principall Pannell had appeared and served it seemes that it shall not be error for so it was resolved in Graduers case where twenty three were returned but twelve appeared and tryed the Issue and this was resolved to be good and no error Michaelmasse 7 Jacobi 1609. In the common Bench. Buckmer against Sawyer A Man seised of Land in Gaelvelkind hath Issue three Daughters that is A. B. and C. deviseth all his Land to A. in tayl the remainder of one halfe to B. in tayl the remainder of the other halfe to C. in tayl and if B. died without Issue the remainder of her Moytie to C. and her Heires and if C. died without Issue the remainder of her Moytie to B. and her Heires the Devisor dies A. and B. dies And the question was if C. shall have a Formedon in remainder only or severall Formedons for this Land And it seemed to all the Justices that one Formedon lieth well for all for that that it was by one selfe same conveiance though that the Estate come by severall deaths and this Action was to be brought by the Heire of C. after the death of C. See the three and four Phil. and Mary Dyer Note that after appearance of a Jury and after that divers of them were sworn others were challenged so that it could not be taken by reason of default of Jurors But a new Distringas awarded and at the day of the returne of that these which were sworn before appeared and then were challenged But no challenge shall be allowed for that that they were sworn before if it be not of after time to the first appearance Michaelmasse 7. Jacobi 1609 In the Common Bench. Baylie against Sir Henry Clare BAYLIE against Sir Henry Clare the Writ was of two parts without saying in three parts to be divided And it seemed to Nicholls Serjeant which moved this that it was not good but error But the opinion of the Court was that it was good See 17. Ed. 3. 44. 19. Ed. 3 breife 244. 17. Assise with this difference that if there are but three parts and two are demanded there it is good without saying in three parts to be devided for when parts are demanded it is intended all the parts but one and that it is only one which remaines see the Register fol. 16. 12. Assise And it was adjudged in the Kings Bench in the case of one Jordan that demand of two parts where there are but three parts is good see 39. H. 6. Salford against Hurlston in Formedon which demanded two parts where there is but three and so of three parts where there is but four it is good without saying in three or four parts to be divided But if a man grant his part this shall be intended the halfe for Appellatio partis dimidium partis contenetur and a Writ of Covenant ought to be of two parts without saying in three parts to be divided for so is the forme and if in such case in three parts to be divided be incerted the Writ shall abate see Thelwell in his digest of Writs 146. and by Coke if a man bring Ejectione Firme for ten Acres and by evidence it appeares that he hath but the halfe Ex vigore Juris it shall not be good but he said he would submit his opinion to the Judgement of ancient Judges of the Law which have often time used the contrary Note that the Husband may avoid his Deed that he hath Sealed by the duresse of Imprisonment of his Wife or Son But not of his Servant and so Mayor and Commonalty may avoid a Deed sealed by duresse of Imprisonment of the Mayor for it is Idemptity of person between the Husband and the Wife See 21. Ed. 4. and 7. Ed. 4. A man may avoid Seâ—sin for payment of Rent by coersion of distresse but not his Deed. Michaelmasse 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Payn and Mutton IN an Action upon the case by Payne against Mutton the Plaintif counts that the Defendant called him Sorcerer and Inchantor And agreed by all the Justices that Action doth not lie for Sorcerer and Inchantor are those which deale with charmes or turning of Bookes as Virgill saith Carminibus Circes socios mutavit ulissis which is intended Charmes and Inchantments and Conjuration is of Con et nico that is to compell the Divell to appeare as it seemes to them against his will but which is that to which the Devill appeares voluntarily and that is a more greater offence then Sorcery or Inchantment which was adjudged that Action doth not lie for calling a man Witch and said that he bewitched his Weare that he could not take any Fishes Dodridge the Kings Serjeant saith that an Action lieth for calling a woman gouty pockye Whore and said that the Pox had eaten the bottome of her Belly out and so it was adjudged that it lieth well for these words get thee home to thy pokey Wife the Pox hath eaten off her Nose But for the Pox generally Action doth not lie But if he saiâ—h that he was laid of the Pox then Action well lieth for then it shall be intended the great Pox. Note that in Prohibition and Replevin the Defendant may have nisi prius by Proviso without default of the Defendant for he himselfe is re vera Defendant and there are two Actors that is the Plaintiff and Defendant But the Court appointed that Presidents should be searched the Plaintiff is not bound to prosecute Cum Effectu in this Court as he is in the Kings Bench And it was agreed that the manner of Pleading was agreement as for Returno Habendo in the Replevin and Pro consultatione habenda in the Prohibition Michaelmas 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench Miller and Francis MYLLER Plaintiff in Replevin against Thomas Francis the case was Richard Francis was seised of Land held in Socage and deviseth that to John his eldest Son for a hundred yeares the Remainder to Thomas his second Sonn for his life and made his four other youngest Sonns his Executors and after made a Feoffment to the sayd uses the Remainder to the sayd John his eldest Son in tayl
to viewers and searchers this doth not abridge the power of the Alneger for this is but an addition of greater care and diligence and by the statute of 39. and 43. Eliz. If upon a search they find any forfeyture they shall have it but if they do not find the Alneger may find it and then the King shall have it And to the Second he answered that true it is for every 64. of clothes the Alneger ought to have foure pence for his Fee and though that some peeces of cloth are more broade then others yet the lobour of the Alneger to measure them is all one So he concluded and demanded Judgement for the plaintiff Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Rutlage against Clarke IN Account the Plaintiff declares that the Defendant hath received of his money by the hands of a stranger to give an account The Defendant pleades in Bar that he received to deliver over to a stranger the which he hath done accordingly without that that he received it to make any of account otherwise then in this manner and it was resolved that the Plea in Bar was good without traverse for when he received the money he is to deliver it over or to give an account of it to the Plaintiff so that he is accountable Conditionally but the traverse is repungnant to the Plea though it be otherwise or another way against the Book of 9. Ed. 4. 15 See 41. Ed. 3. 7. 1. Ed. 5. 22. H. 6. 49 21 Ed. 4. 4. 66 1. Ed. 5. 2. that it is a good Bar without traverse But Brooke in abridging the case of 21. Ed. 4. 66 in Title of account saith that it seemes that the traverse ought to be without that that he was his receiver in other manner and there and in the Book at large are that Justices that is Coke Nele and Vavasor against Bryan that it ought to be traversed But here in the principall case it was adjudged that the traverse made the Plea ill Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Dunmole against Glyles THE case was this Grand-Father Father and Son the Grand-Father was possessed of a Tearme for two and twenty yeares to come devised to the Son the Land for one and twenty yeares and that the Father should have it during the Mynority of the Son and makes the Son his Executor and dies the Son being within the age of one and twenty yeares the Father enters into the Land and makes a Lease for seven yeares by Indenture untill the Son came to full age the Father makes his Son his Executor and dies The Son enters by force of the devise made by the Grand-Father And the question was if the Son shall avoid the Lease made by his Father and it was agreed that he might in proofe of which a Judgement was cyted which was in the Kings Bench Mich. 5. of Eliz. Rot. 459. or 499. In the Prioresse of Ankoresse Case where a Tearme was devised to one and if he died within the Tearme then to such of the Daughters of the Devisor which then should not be preferred the Devisor dieth the Tearme was extended for the Debt of the first Devisee and then he died the extent was avoided by the Daughters not preferred and they grounded their Judgement upon the former Judgements in Weltden and Eltingtons case and Paramores and Yardleys case in the Comment and for that the Law intends that a Devisor is Inops consillij and for that his devise shall have favourable construction according to his intent appearing within the devise and it was said by Coke that in many cases a man may make such an Estate by devise that he cannot make by an Act executed in his life time as it was adjudged in Graveners case where a man devises his Lands to his Executors for payment of his Debts that there the Executors have Interest that there the Executor of Executors shal have that and such Estate cannot be executed by Act in the life of the Devisor and so it was concluded by them all that the Son shall avoid the Lease made by the Father for the Devise was Executory and doth not vest till the full age of the Son and then Executor and shall avoid all Acts made by the Father by which Judgement was given accordingly Freeman against Baspoule See 9. Coke 97. b. THE case was this A. was indebted to B. and they both died the Heire of A. for good consideration assumed to the Administrator of B. that he would pay to the said Administrator the said Debt and for the not payment of that according to the Assumption the Administrator after brought an Action and then the said Heire and the Administrator submitted themselves to the award and arbitrement of C. and became bound one to the other to stand to the award accordingly so that the said Arbitrator makes his award of all the matters and controversies between them before such a day C. the Arbitrator before the day recyted the Assumpsit and the debt as aforesaid and agreed that the Heire should pay the Administrator so much money and that published according to their submission And in Action upon the case Nullum fecit Arbitrium was pleaded and upon demurrer it was objected that the award was void First For that it was for one party only and nothing was arbitrated of the other and to prove this the Book of 7. H. 6. 6. was cited and 39. H. 6. 9. see 2 R. 3. 18. b. And this also appeares by the pleading of an award for he which pleades it that he hath performed all things which are to be performed of his part And that the other pleades performance of all thing which are to be performed of his part by which it appeares that there ought to be performance of both parts and by consequence one award to both parties according to 22. H. 6. 52. Secondly that the award was void for that that the submission was of all controversies so that the Arbitrator delivered his award of all controversies c. And there was no award of the said Suit between the parties and for that he hath not made an Arbitrement of all controversies and by that the award was void and to prove that the Bookes in 4 Eliz. Dyer 216. Pumfreies award and 19. Eliz. Dyer 356. 39. and 39. H. 6. 9. Where it is said that if the submission were of all things and the Arbitrement of one only that is a void Arbitrement Thirdly For that it was not limited within the award at what day nor at what place the money should be paid by the Heire to the Administrator and for this cause also it shall be void for it ought to be payd immediatly and if the Heire cannot find the Administrator he forthwith hath forfeyted his Obligation and for that in this point it is uncertain and for that shall be void as it is in Samons case 5. Coke 77. b. Where
for the intent of a Will must be certain and agreeable to Law and there must not an intent out of the words of the will be sought out and the whole Court held that the Plaintiff was barred YOung versus Radford Pasch 10 Jacobi Rotulo 1515. Action upon an Ejectment brought and the Jury found a speciall Verdict and the Case was that Elizabeth Rudford was possessed of a house full thirty years and she took a Husband the Husband and Wife morgage the Term the Wife dies and the Husband redeems the Land and marries another wife and then dies and makes his Wife Executrix and she maries the Lessor The Defendant takes Administration of the Goods of the first Woman and it was held void and Judgement for the Plaintiff PEttison versus Reel Pasch 12 Jacobi Rotulo 2350. An ejectment brought and Triall and Verdict for the Plaintiff and exception taken in arrest of Judgement to the Venire Facias because this word Juratum was omitted for the Writ was posuerunt se in illam and omitted the word Juratum and this was amended by the Court. When a Title is to be tryed upon an Ejectment and a Lease to be executed by Letter of Attorney the course is this that the Lessor do seal the Lease onely and the Letter of Attorney and deliver the Letter of Attorney but not the Lease for the Attorney must deliver that upon the Land and upon an Ejectruent brought of Lands in two villages of a house and forty Acres of Land in A. and B. and a speciall Entry in the Land adjoyning to the house to wit the putting in of a Horse which was drove out of the Land by the Defendant and this was adjudged a good Entry for the Land in both the Villages by the opinion of the whole Court ARden versus Mich. 12 Jacobi The Plaintiff delivers that whereas such a day and year at Curdworth in the said County did demise to the Plaintiff two Acres of Land with the Appurtenances in the Parish of C. and the Venire facias was of the Parish of C. and after a verdict exception was taken because it was not of Curdworth but it was adjudged good by the Court and to prove the Lease made Lanheston an Attorney swear that the Lessor sealed the Lease and subscribed it but did not deliver it and by word gave authority to one W. to enter into the Land and to deliver the Lease upon the Land to the Plaintiff as his Deed and by that authority he entred and delivered the Lease as his Deed to the Plaintiff and it was adjudged good MArsh versus Sparry Hill 14 Jacobi Rotulo 1859. An Ejectment brought ex dimissione G. W. and the Originall was made ex divisione and after a Triall Serjeant Hitchaw moved the Court that the Originall might be amended and make ex dimissione and the Court granted it and the Cursitor was ordered to amend it and also in the end of the Originall it was written Barnabiam and it should have been Barnabas and that also was ordered to be amended by the Court. CRadock versus Jones Trin. 14 Jacobi Rotulo 2284. An Ejectment brought upon a Demise made by Cotton Knight the Defendant pleads not guilty and a Challenge to the Sheriff and prayes a Venire facias to the Coroners because the Sheriff is cozen to the Plaintiff and shews how and because the Defendant did not deny it a Venire facias was awarded to the Coroners and after a verdict it was alledged in arrest of Judgement because it was not a principall Challenge and a Venire facias de novo awarded to the Sheriff PArkin versus Parkin 13 Hill Jacobi Rotulo 979. And Ejectment brought and verdict and after a Triall Exception taken to pleading of a Deed inrolled the Action was brought in the County of York and pleaded thus ut infra sex menses tunc proximos sequent coram milite uno Justic c. in West-Riding Com. Eborum ad pacem c. conservand Assign W. C. Clerico pacis ibidem debito modo de Recor. irrotulat and Exception was because the inrollment was not made according to the Form of the Statute because it did not appear that the Justice before whom the Deed was inrolled was a Justice of the Peace of the County of York but of the West-Riding and it was not alledged that the Land did ly in the West-Riding and note that the Defendants Plea in Barr was insufficient because the Defendant did not confesse nor avoid the Count and the Plaintif by his Replication doth not shew any Title to the Land because it did not passe by the inrollment and so he hath lost his Suit and although the Barr be insufficient yet notwitstanding the Plaintif shall not recover GReenely versus Passy Hill 5 Iacobi Rotulo 808. An Ejectment brought the Defendant pleads not guilty and the Jury found it Specially that one Woodhouse was seised of Land in Fee and did infeof the Husband and Wife to have and to hold to the said Husband and Wife and the Heirs of their bodies between them to be begotten by vertue of which Feofment the Husband and Wife were seised of the whole Land in Fee Tail to wit c. the Husband infeofs the youngest Sonne of the land in Fee and afterwards the Husband dies and the woman survives and afterwards she dies before any Entry by her made into the Land and further find the lessor to be the eldest son of their bodies and that the younger Son infeoffed the Defendant and afterwards the eldest Sonne entred into the Land and made the lease in the Declaration and whether the Entry of the eldest Son was lawfull or no was the question upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. that Fines or Feoffements made by the Husband c. during coverture be or make any discontinuance c. or be hurtfull to the said wife or her Heirs and Sir Edward Cook held that the Heir is not barred of his Entry by the Statute PAcy versus Knollis Trin. 6. Iacobi Rotulo 291. An Ejectment brought the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the Jury found it Specially and the question is upon the words of the Will to wit And I give to Katharine my Wife all the Profits of my Houses and Lands lying and being in the Parish of Billing and L. at a certain street there called Broke-street and the Jury found that there was not any Village or Hamlet in the said County called Billing and that the Land supposed to be devised lieth in Byrling-street no mans verbal Averment shall be taken or admitted to be contrary to the Will which is expresly set out in the Will If I have two Thomas to my Sonnes and I give it to Thomas it shall be intended my youngest Son because my eldest Son should have it by Discent the Will was held by all the Court to be good HEllam versus Ley Trin. 7. Jacobi rotulo 2718.
of the King for the Plaintiff and day given for the argument of that till the next tearm Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Common Bench. Tresham against Lambe LEwes Tresham was Plaintiff in waste against John Lambe the Plaintiff supposed the Defendant had made waste in sowing and plowing ancient meadow the which he had let to the Defendant for years in Rushton in the county of Northampton and sowed it with Woade and prayed Estrepement upon the Statute of Glocester chapter 13. And upon examination it appears that the Lands let was pasture and Meadow the Pasture was Ridge and furrow but had been mowed and used for meadow for diverse years and that the Defendant plowed and sowed that with Woade but this which had been ancient meadow he used that as Meadow and did not convert that to Arable Land but the Judges would not grant any Estrepement to the Pasture for that it was Ridge and furrow and it was no ancient meadow although that had been mowed time out of minde c. But to the ancient Meadow they granted a writ of Esterpement but Foster seemed to be of another opinion for that that it was to sow Woade for that that it is against common Right and the fume and smell of that is offensive and infectious but if it had been to sow Corne he agreed as above and for the executing the Writ of Estrepement they all agreed that the Sheriff ought to take if need be the power of the County against those which made the waste hanging the Action and may commit them if they will not obey him for the words of the Statute are that you shall cause to keep which shall be intended in safety But if Lessee for years trench or draine that is no Wast as it was now of late times adjudged where if the Lessee takes any of the reasonable Bootes that the Law allowes that it shall be no Waste nor Estrepement shall be granted see Fitzherberts Natura Brevium 59. m. If a man devise Land to his Executors for years this is assetts but if he devise that his Executors shall sell his Lands or devise his Lands to his Executors to be sold this shall be no assets untill the Lands are sold and the money for which the land shall be sold shall be assetts A Record of Nisi prius in an Action of Debt upon an obligation with condition to pay such a sum of Money at such a Feast next after the date of the obligation and the day of the date of the obligation was omitted in the Record of the Nisi prius so that it doth not appear which shall be the next Feast at which the mony ought to be paid after the date and by all the Justices that was no perfect Issue and for that the Justices of Nisi prius have no power to proceed upon it and for that it shall not be amended otherwise if it had been a good Issue though that another thing had been mistaken see Dyer 9. Eliz. 260. 24. And see before the same Tearm here The King pardoned a man attaint for giving a false verdict yet he shall not be at another time impannelled upon any Jury for though that the punishment were pardoned yet the Guilt remaines Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. In the Common Bench. James versus Reade THE case was the King was seised of a Mannor where there were diverse Copy-holders for life and was also seised of eight Acres of Land in another Mannor in which the Copy-holders have used time out of minde c. To have common and after the King grants the Mannor to one and the eight Acres to another and a Copy-holder puts in his beasts into the eight Acres of Land and in trespasse brought against him by the Patentee of the eight Acres he prescribes that the Lord of a Mannor and all those whose estate he hath in the Mannor have used time out of minde c. For themselves and their Copy-holders to have Common in the said eight Acres of Land and further pleaded that he was Copy-holder for his life by grant after the said unity of possession in the King and so demanded judgment if action against which the said unity of possession was pleaded upon which the Defendant demurrs and all the Justices seemed that though that prescription was pleaded that the common was extinct but it seems also to them that by speciall pleading he might have beene helped and save his common for this was common Appendant see 4. Coke Tirringhams Case 37. 6. Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. In the Common Bench. Cartwright against Gilbert IN Debt upon an obligation with condition to be and perform an Arbitrement to be made the Arbitrators award that the Defendant should make Submission and should acknowledge himself sorry for all transgressions and words at or before the next Court to be held in the Mannor of P. And for the not performance of that Award the Plaintiff brought this Suit and the Defendant in Barr of this pleads that at the said next Court he went to the Court to make his submission and to acknowledge himself greived according to the Award and was there ready to have performed it but further he saith that the Plaintiff was not there to accept it upon which the Plaintiff demurred and it seemes to Coke and Foster that the Defendant hath done as much as was to be done of his part and for that that the Plaintiff was not there ready to accept the Defendant was discharged for this submission is personall and to the intent to make them freinds and for that both the parties ought to be present But Walmesley and Warburton seemed that it might have been very well made in the absence of the Plaintiff as well as a man may submit himself to an Arbitrement of a man which is absent for this is only to be made to the intent to shew himself sorrowfull for the Trespasses and words which he hath made and spoken and it was not argued but adjourned till the next tearme and the Justices moved the parties to make an end of that for that it was a trifling Suit Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610 In the Common Bench. Sir Edward Ashfeild SIR Edward Ashfeild was bound in an obligation by the name of Sir Edmund and subscribed that with the name of Edward and in Debt brought upon that he pleads it is not his Deed and it seemes to all the Justices that he might well plead that for it appears to them that he is not named Edmund and the originall against him was Command Edward otherwise Edmund and this was not good for a man cannot have two Christian names and if judgment were given against him by the name of Edmund and the Sheriff arrest him by Capias that false imprisonment lies against him But if he have a name given to him when he was christened and another when he was confirmed he shall be called and known by the name given unto him at the time
have an Action upon the Statute of Offenders in Parkes for hunting in two Parkes 13 H. 7â—12 and 8 Ed. 4. 〈◊〉 One Action of Trespasse for Trespasses made at severall times and so one Action of Debt for diverse Contracts 11 H. 6. 24. by Martin 3 H. 6. Trespas 3 H. 4. But he argued that in reall or mixt Actions as ravishment of Ward for severall Wards or one Quare impedit for severall Churches this shall not be good Fitz. Ward 52. 3. H. 6. 52. And also he said that the Statute of 32 H. 8. chapter 34. by expresse words gives the same remedy to Grantees of Reversions that the Grantors themselves had and the Grantor without question may have an Action if he have not granted the Reversion and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff and it was adjourned Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. In the Common Bench. Sturgis against Dean see T. 65. A Man was bound to pay to the Plaintiff ten pound within ten dayes after his return from Jerusalem the Plaintiff proving that he had been there and the Plaintiff after ten dayes brought his Action upon the Obligation without making of any proofe that he had been there and if that were good or that he ought to make proofe of that before he brings his Action this was the question and also he ought to make proofe then what manner of proofe and it was moved by Haughton that when a thing is true and is not referred to any certain and particular manner of proof as before what shall be done or how the proofe shall be made the party may bring his Action and the other party may take his Issue upon the doing of the thing which ought to be proved the triall of that shall be proofe sufficient and in his count he need not to aver that he had been there see 10 Ed. 4. 11. b. c. 15 Ed. 4. 25. 7 R. 2. Barr 241. And here also the proofe if any should it ought to be made within ten dayes the which cannot be made by Jury in so short a time as it is said by Choke in 10 Ed. 4. 11. b. though that he agreed that when a man may speake of proofe generally that shall be intended proofe by Jury for that that this is the most high proofe as it is said in Gregories Case 6 Coke 20. a. and 10 Ed. 4. 11. b. But of the other part it was said by Sherley Serjeant that true it is that proofe ought to be made for the Defendant as the Case is in 10 Ed. 4. 11. That then such proofe should be sufficient for the Plaintiff may bring his Action before that the Defendant may by possibility bring his Action but where the Plaintiff ought to make the proofe there he ought to prove that before that he bring his Action and it shall be accounted his Folly that he would bring his action before he had proved that but all the Justices agreed that the Plaintiff need not to make any other proofe but only by the bringing of his Action but the Lord Coke took exception to the pleading for that that the Plaintiff hath not averred in his replication that he was at Hierusalem but generally that such a day he returned from thence and he said that a man might returne from a place when he was not at the same place as if he had been neere the place or in the skirts of Hierusalem and upon that it was adjourned see the beginning of that Trinity 8. Jacobi 462. a. Mich. 13. 200. and 204. Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Common Bench. Wickenden against Thomas THe Case was this 2. Executors were joyntly made in a Will one of them releases a Debt due to the Testator and after before the Ordinary refuses to Administer and it was agreed by all the Justices that the release was Administration and for that he hath made his Election and then the Refusall comes too late and so is void Bedell against Bedell IN wast the case was this A Man seised of Lands makes his Will and of that makes two Executors and devises his Lands to his Executors for one and twenty yeares after his Death upon trust that they should permit A. To injoy that during and to take all the profits all the Terme if he so long lived and if he â—ied within the Terme then that B. should take the profits and so with others remained in the same manner with the remainder over to a stranger in tayl one of the Executors refuseth to prove the Will or Administer and also to accept the Terme the other executor proves the Will Administers the Goods and enters into the Land according to the Lease and that assignes to A. according to the trust reposed in him and after that he in reversion in tayl brings an Action of wast against the Executors which proved the Will and he proved all the matter aforesaid and that before the assignement and that before that no wast was made and it seemes to all the Judges that this was a good Plea for the waveing of one Executor is good and though that he might after Administer as the book of 21. Ed. 4. Is for that the Interest of his Companion preserves his Authority where are 2 or more But if there be but one Executor and he refuseth and the Ordinary grants Administration to another he cannot then Administer againe and Coke cheife Justice cited that one Rowles made the Lord Chancellor which then was the cheife Justice of England and the Master of the Rolls his Executors and died and they writ their Letters to the Ordinary witnessing that they were Imployed in great businesses and could not intend the performance of the said Will and that for that they desire to be free of that and that the Ordinary would committ the Administration of the goods of the said Testator to the next of blood and this sufficient refusall And upon that the Ordinary committed the Administration accordingly And to the pleading that no wast was made before the assignement they all agreed that this was good and so it was adjourned for this time A man sould his Land upon a condition and after took a Wife and died the Heire entred for the Condition broken yet the Wife shall not be endowed so if the Condition had been broken before the Death of the Husband if he had not entred for he had but title of entery Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Common Bench. As yet Doctor Husseys Case MOore against Doctor Hussey and his Wife and many others in Ravishement of Ward The case was the Ward of Moore was placed at the University of Oxford to be instructed in the liberall Sciences and was married by the Wife of Doctor Hussey to the Daughter of the said Wife which she had by a former Husband And for that Moore brought this Writ against Doctor Hussey and his Wife and the Minister which married them and all
Cletherwoods Case of the Middle Temple but he said that Prescription to have all the Vesture of the Land is good for such a time and at the first day of the Argument of this Case Foster Justice seemed that the prescription was good and might have reasonable beginning that is by Grant as if they have Common together and they agree that one shall have all for one part of the yeare and the other for another part of the year and that shall be good to which Coke answered that that cannot be by Prescription to have that as Common and at another day Coke cited Shirland and Whites Case to be adjudged 26 of Eliz. in the Kings Bench to be prescription to have common in the Waste of the Lord and to exclude the Lord to have common in the place and adjudged to be void prescription and also he cited a case between Chimery and Fist where prescription was to have common in the Soile of the Lord and that the Lord shall have feeding but for so many cattell and adjudged that the Prescription was not good to exclude the Lord but a man may prescribe to have the first Crop or the first Vesture of anothers Land and it is good and with that agrees the resolution in Kiddermisters Case in the Star-Chamber Warburton justice said that this prescription is not for the excluding of the Lord but for their good ordering of their Lands according to the Book of 46 Ed. 3 25. before cited that the great Cattell should have the first feeding and after that the sheep Coke said that if it had appeared by the pleading that all the Demesnes of the Lord ought to be common and in consideration that the Lord had inclosed part and injoyed that in severall the Free-holders and Tenants of the Mannor which have Common over all the Residue and exclude the Lord and this shall be good by prescription and it is adjourned see 15 Ed. 2. Fitzherbert Prescription 51. And afterwards in Trinity Tearme 1612. 10. Jacobi this case was moved againe and all the Justices agreed as this Pleading is Judgment shall be given for the Plaintiff and they moved the parties to replead Pasch 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Portington against Rogers Trin. 8. Jacobi Rot. 3823. MARY Portington brought a Trespasse against Robert Rogers and others Defendants for the breaking of her house and Close upon not guilty pleaded and speciall Verdict found the Case was this A man had Issue three Daughters and made his Will in writing and by that devised certain Land to the youngest Daughter in taile the Remainder to the Eldest Daughter in taile the Remainder to the middlemost daughter in taile with Proviso that if my sayd daughters or any of them or any other Person or persons before enamed to whom any estate of Inheritance in possession or Remainder of in or to the said Lands limited or appointed by this my last Will and Testament or to the Heires before mentioned of them or any of them shall joyntly or severally by themselves or together with any other willingly apparently and advisedly conclude and agree to or for the doing or execution of any Act or Devise whereby or wherewith the said Premises so to them intailed as aforesaid or any part or parcell thereof or any estate or Remainder thereof shall or may by any way or means be discontinued aliened or put away from such person or persons and their Heires or any of them contrary to mine intent and meaning in this my Will otherwise then for a Joynture or shall willingly or advisedly commit or do any act or thing whereby the premises or any part thereof shall not or may not discend remaine or come to such persons and in such sort and order as I have before limited and appointed by this my last Will and Testament then I will limit declare and appoint that then my said Daughter or Daughters or other the said person or persons before named and every of them so concluding and agreeing to or for the doing or execution of any such act or Devise as is aforesaid shall immediately from and after such concluding and agreeing loose and forfeit and be utterly barred and excluded of and from all and every such Estate Remainder and benefit as shee or they or any of them should might or ought justly to have claime Challenge and demand of in or to so much thereof as such conclusion or agreement shall extend unto or concern in such manner and forme as if she or they or any of them had not been named nor mentioned in this my last Will and Testament and that the Estate of such person c. shall cease and determine c. And after that the youngest Daughter tooke a Husband and then shee and her Husband concluded and agreed to suffer a Recovery and so to barr the Remainder and upon that the Plaintiff being the eldest Daughter entred and upon the Entry brought this Action And Harris Serjeant argued for the Defendant that this shall be a condion and not a limitation and he said that Mews and Scholiasticas Case is not adjudged against him see the Commentaries 412. b. And it shall be taken strictly for that that it comes in Defesans of the Estate and then admitting it is a condition it is not broken for this conclusion and agreement is only the agreement of the Husband and though that the Wife be joyned yet be that for her benefit or prejudice that shall be intended only the Act of the Husband and he only shall be charged as in the 48 Ed. 3 18. Husband and Wife joyne in Contract and the Husband only brings Action upon that and 45 Ed. 3. 11. Husband and Wife joyne in Covenant and the Action was brought against them both and it was abated for that shall charge the Husband only 24 Ed. 3. 38 The Husband and the Wife joyne in an Action upon the Statute of Laborers and the Writ abated and so in cases of Free-hold as 15 Ed. 4. 29. b. The Husband and the Wife being Tenants for life joyne in praying aid of a stranger and this shall be no forfeiture of the Estate of the Wife and 48 Ed. 3. 12. a. Statute Merchant was made to the husband and Wife and they joyned in Defeasans that shall not be Defeasans of the Wife and 28 H. 8. Dyer 6. The Husband of the Wife Executrix aliens the Tearme which was let to the Testator upon condition that he or his Executors should not alien and by Baldwin by the alienation of the Husband the Condition was not broken for it was out of the words so here the agreement and conclusion being made by Husband and Wife shall be intended the Act of the Husband only and so out of the Words and by consequence out of the intent of the Condition and shall be taken strictly but he seemed that the Condition shall be void for the Words conclude and agree are words uncertain for what
opinion without argument Coke cheif Justice that the agreement is void to a Woman married for then she was married to a Husband whom in her life she could not contradict and a Devise upon Condition that if she conclude or agree as this Case is is void for it is a bare communication upon which the Inheritance doth not depend and so he said it hath been twice adjudged 6 in Corbets Case and Germins Case and Arscots Case and Richells Case in Littleton it was upon condition that he should not alien and this was adjudged to be void but yet if the condition were if he alien and not if go about or intend or conclude or agree as in the case at the Bar for there is no such case in all our Bookes as this Secondly For that that the Words are if they do any act that then the Estate shall cease and this is repugnant for when the Act is done then the Estate tayle is Barred and cannot cease but if it had been but a Feoffment then the right had remained and he said that such a condition had been void before the Statute of Donis Conditionalibus when it was but Fee simple Conditionall be it a Condition or a Limitation and he said that Scholasticas Case is of Fine which is only discontinuance till the Proclamations are past and if dead before may be avoided by Remitter in Germins and Arscotts Case the Condition was that if he go about or indeavour and this was adjudged to be void though that it be in devise in respect of the uncertainty and he said that the agreement or conclusion is so uncertain and may be well compared to that for here the Estate shall cease by the agreement as well as it may cease by the going about also he seemed that the Freehold cannot cease without entry for if use cannot cease without entry as he intends much lesse a Free-hold cannot though it be by Devise and he seemed that it shall be no limitation but a Condition and Judgment accordingly if cause be not shewed the next Tearm and in Trinity Tearme then next insuing this Case was argued againe by Dodridge Serjeant of the King for the Plaintiff and he said that there are three questions to be disputed First If it be a good limitation Secondly If the recovery be a breach of that Thirdly Admitting that it may be broken if the agreement of the Husband and the wife shall be said to breake it and to the first he seemed that it is a limitation and not a condition and such a Limitation that well might be with the Law and that it is a Limitation it is agreed in Scholasticas Case Commentaries and the reason of the Judgment there is that if the intent of the Devisor appears that another shall take benefit of that and not the Heire that then it shall be but a limitation and not a Condition and he in remainder shall take benefit of that and for that in the principall case Mary the Eldest Daughter to whom the Remainder was limited shall take benefit of that and with this agrees the case of Fitz. Na. Bre. Ex gravi querela last case that if a man devises Lands to his Wife for life upon condition that if she marry that the Land shall remain over and after she marryes and he in Remainder sues by Gravi querela by which it appears that it is a limitation and not a condition and with this agrees 2. and 3. P. and M. 127. Dyer Jasper Warrens Case where a man devises land to his Wife for life upon condition to bring up his Sonn Remainder over and agreed to be a limitation and not a condition and so he concluded this first point that it is a limitation and not a condition Secondly that it is a lawfull limitation for there is not any repugnancy in that as it is in Corebts before cited for there are no words of going about for he agreed that this is absolutely uncertain and void and so is Germin Arscots case where ther is not only a going about but repugnant going about for he ought to go about and before discontinuance and then his Estate shall be void from the time of the going about and before discontinuance but here it is upon conclude and agree plainly and apparently and conclude and agree is issuable and a Jury may try that and it will not invegle any man but the Law will not suffer Issue upon such uncertainty as going about or purposing but Attornements and Surrenders are but agreements and yet are Issuable And so in the principall case and in Mildmayes Case 6 Coke it is agreed that a condition that a Tenant in taile shall not suffer a Recovery is void for Recovery is not restrained by the Statute of Westminster 2. but here it is not so but in generall that he shall not conclude or agree to alien or discontinue but that which cannot be a condition good in the particular may be good in the generall as Littletons Case gift in taile upon condition that he should not alien is good otherwise of Fee simple with which 10 H. 7. 11. and 13 H. 7. 23. 24. accordingly Thirdly That it is a breach of the limitation Condition that alienation and discontinuance be by Recovery which is a lawfull act and it is a priviledge incident to the Estate taile and though that the agreement was made by the Husband and the Wife during the Coverture and so should be if the Husband and the Wife had levied a Fine see 10 H. 7 13. Condition that if the condition had been expressed that they should not levy a Fine had been void and here this verball agreement betwixt the Husband and the Wife and the third person shall be for Forfeiture of their Estates for this is the agreement of the Wife as well as of the Husband as it appears by Becwithes Case 2. Coke before cited where the Husband and the Wife agree to levy a Fine and that the Fine shall be to the use of the Connusee this is good declaration of the use though that it be of the Land of the Wife and during the Coverture and cannot be avoided by the Wife after the death of her Husband for it was the agreement of the Wife though it be not by any Indenture to declare the use of the Fine so many acts in the Country made by the Husband and the Wife shall be intended the act of the Wife as well as of the Husband as in the 17 Ed. 3. 9. The Abbot of Peterboroughs Case the Husband and Wife granted Rent for equality of partition and this shall binde the Wife after the death of the Husband for it is her act as well as the act of the Husband and shall be intended for her benefit and so here by the Recovery the Wife shall be Tenant in Fee simple which was Tenant in taile before and 34 Ed. 3. 42. feoffment to a married Wife upon
against the surviving Donee of houses and Lands to him demised and agreed that the Writ was good but it was a question if the Count shall be generall or of a halfe only notwithstanding that both the parties were Tenants in Common of the reversion Michaelmas 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Ralph Bagnall against John Tucker after 83. TRINITY 9. or Micaelmasse 8. Jacobi Rot 3648. The Case was Copy-holder for life remainder for life purchaseth the Frehold and levies a Fine with Proclamations made five yeares-passe and then he died if the remainder were bound by the Fine or not was the question and it seemes that it shall not be Barr for he is not turned out of possession in right So if a man hath a Lease for remainder for yeares and the first Lessee for yeares purchase the free-hold and levie a Fine with Proclamations and five yeares passe this shall not barr the remainder for yeares insomuch that this was Interest of a Tearme and remaines an Interest as it was without any alteration and it was not turned to a Right And yet it was agreed that the Statute of buying of pretenced rights extends to Copy-holds See Lessures Case 5. Coke 125. See Pasche 1612. for the Judgement Note if an Attorney of this Court be sued here by Bill of Priviledge he ought not to find Bayle But if he be sued by Originall and comes in by Capias then he ought to find Bayle In covenant upon a Lease made by the Dean of Norwich Predecessor to the Dean that now is and the then Chapter of the Foundation of Ed. 6. King for injoying of Land devised to the Plaintiff for three Lives discharged of all incumbrances and also to accept surrender of the same Lease and to make a new and for breaking of covenant the same Dean and Chapter in such a yeare of the Raine of H. 8 had made a lease for years not determined by which the lands devised were incumbred upon which the Defendant demurred And Hutton Serjeant for the Defendant argued that the Lease was by the Statute of 13 of Eliz. as to the successor of the Dean which made it for that it was a Lease for years in being at the time of the making of that as it is resolved in Elmers Case upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. if a Bishop makes a Lease for years and after makes a Lease for life the Lease for life is void to the Successor and so it is in the case of Dean and Chapter and though that the words of the Statute are generally that such a Lease shall be void to all intents purposes and Constructions yet he intended that it shall not be voyd against the Bishop himselfe as it was resolved in the case of the next Advowson by the Bishop in Singletons Case cyted in Lincolne Colledge Case 3. Coke 59. b. And he intended if the Lease be voyd against the Successors that then the covenants also are void as it is agreed in the 28 H. 8. 28. Dyer 189. 190. and he cited one Mills case to be adjudged in the 29 and 30. Eliz. in the Kings Bench that if a Parson make Lease and avoid by non-Residence the Covenants also are void as well as the Lease and also he intended that the Lease for life was void insomuch that it was to be executed by a Letter of Attorney and the Attorney had not made livery till after two Rent dayes were past and for that the Livery was not good for when a man makes a Lease for life rendring Rent with Letter of Attorney to make livery here is an implyed condition that Livery shall be made before any day of payment be incurred and it is as much as if a man had made a Lease for life without any Letter of Attorney to make Livery before such a day there if the Attorney do not make Livery before the day but after the Livery is void insomuch as it is contrary to the Condition so in the case here for if Livery made be after a Rent day it may be made after twenty and so immediately before the end of the Tearme and if the Rent be void for this cause the Covenants also are void and if a man bargain and sell his Mannor and the Trees growing upon it the Trees do not passe without Inrollment insomuch that it was the intent of the parties that it should so passe and for that they do not passe without the Mannor also he intended that the Count is repugnant insomuch that that containes that the last Lease for life was made in the time of Ed. 6. and after by the Dean and Chapter of the foundation of Ed. 6. and after that containes that the same Dean and Chapter have made a former Lease in the time of H. 8. Which cannot be if the Dean and Chapter were of the Foundation of Ed. 6. and for that the Count ought to have contained the alteration of the foundation as in case of prescription as in Tringhams case 4. Coke 38. Wyat Wilds Case 8 Coke 79. 2. and 3. Phil. and Mary Dyer 124. A good Case and he intended that a declaration ought to have precise certainty as in 8. and 9. Eliz. 254. Dyer for a thing which cannot be presumed shall not be intended as it is agreed in Pigotts Case 5 Coke 29. a. otherwise of Plea in Barr for that is sufficient if it be good to common intent also he intended that there is variance between the Count and the Covenant for the declaration is that the Dean and Chapter covenanted with the Plaintiffs the Covenant is generall that is that the Dean and Chapter covenant and doth not say with who and for that the Count also shall not be good and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Defendant Haughton Serjeant for the Plaintiff intended that the Covenants shall not be voyd notwithstanding that the Lease it self be voyd he intended that a lease made by a Parson shal be good against himself but it shall be voyd by his death to the Successor but a Lease made by a Dean and Chapter shall be void to the Dean himself and the Covenant shall be in force notwithstanding that the Lease be void insomuch that the Covenants are collaterall and have not any dependance upon the Lease but to the inherent Covenants which depend upon the Lease and the Estate as for Reparations and such like shall be voyd by the avoidance of the Lease but he intended that Covenant to discharge the Land from incumbrances doth not depend upon the Interest but it is meerly collaterall and for that it shall not be void and with this difference he agreed all the Cases put of the other part as in 45 Ed. 3. 3. Lease was made to the Husband and Wife the Husband dies the wife accepts the Land and shall not be charged with collaterall Covenants notwithstanding that shee agrees to the Estate insomuch that they do not depend
H. 6. 14. b. Also he conceived that the Feoffment in consideration of marriage naturall love to his Son and that the Wife of the Sonne shall be Indowed and that the Son should redemise that to his Father for forty yeares if he so long lived and that the Father should pay the Rent to the Lord these he intended to be good considerations and for that should be within the said Proviso of the Statute of 13. Eliz. otherwise if it had been to defraud Creditors But if it had been to such intent that is to defraud Creditors this shall not be extended to other intent that is to defraud the Lord of his Harriot And in the 28. of Eliz. it was adjudged in the Kings Bench if a man make a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himselfe for life remainder to his Son in tayl with divers Remainders over with power of Revocation and after bargaines and sells to a stranger upon condition and after performes the Condition that yet the first conveiance remaines fraudulent as it was at the time of the making of it But this is only as to the purchasor and not as to any other And in Goodhers Case 3. Coke 60. a. In debt against Heire which pleads nothing by discent day of the Writ purchased the other joynes Issue and gives in Evidence fraudulent conveiance and upon speciall Verdict adjudged that it was very good See also 4. Coke 4. b. c. Vernâ—ns Case the Collusion to have Dower and Joynture also And so he concluded that Judgement should be given for the Plaintiff Warburton Justice agreed that the fraud shall not be intended if it be not found no more then if a man grant an Annuity to another Quam diu se bene gesserit in Annuity for that he need not to averr that he hath behaved himselfe well for this shall be intended if the contrary be not shewed of the other party So here insomuch that it is not found to be fraudulent it shall be intended to be Bona fide And he agreed that if it had been fraudulent at the first If the Son had made a Feoffment over in the life of the Father as it is agreed in Andrew Woodcocks Case 33 H. 6. 14. that then the fraud is determined So here when the Son hath made a Lease to his Father this determines the fraud if any be and so he concluded that Judgment should be given for the Plaintiff Wynch Justice agreed insomuch that it is expresse consideration found by the Verdict and for that other consideration shall not be intended and also that it shall not be intended that the Conveyance was made to defraud or to deceive the Lord of such a Peccadell as Harriot is which is of small consequence but if it be a fraud within the Statute of 27 Eliz. apparent that is if it containe power of revocation which is declared to be apparent fraud by the Statute the Court may take notice of that without any averrment And he saith That in the 2. and 3. Eliz. Dyer Wainsfords Case 193. a. and 9 Eliz. Dyer 267 268. there is no averrment of fraud but expresse Issue joyned upon the Fraud and for that he need not any other averrment And so he concluded also that judgement should be given for the Plaintiffe and so it was Ruled accordingly if the Defendant did not shew other matter to the contrary at such a day which was not done Trinity 10. Jacobi 1612. In the Common Bench. Strobridge against Fortescue and Barret IN a Replevin the case was this A man seised of Lands in Fee devises Rent out of it with clause of Distress and dies his Son and Heire enters and dyes the Rent is behind the Son of the Son dyes and his Son enters and makes a Feoffment to the Plaintiff and the Devisee of the Rent releases all Actions Debts and Demands to the Feoffor and after distraynes the Beasts of the Feoffee for the Rent behinde before the Feoffment and it seemes the Release is not good insomuch that the Devisee had no cause of Action at the time of the Release made against him to whom the Release is made nor Demand against him otherwise if the Release had been made to the Feoffee for he was subject to the distress and this is a demand Trinity 10. Jacobi 1612 In the Common Bench. Case of Cinque Ports NOTE that Coke said that it hath been adjudged by three Judges against one in a Case of Cinque Ports that the Cinque Ports cannot prescribe to take the Body of a Freeman in Withernam as they use for another for this is against the Statute of Magna Charta Quod nullus liber homo Imprisonetâ—r nisi per Legate Judicium and also against the liberty of a Subject but they more inclined that they might take the Goods of one in Withernam when another is arrested and them retain and this seemes the more reasonable Custome and Prescription The Case was Tenant for life the Remainder for life with warranty the first Tenant for life was impleaded and he vouches him in Reversion but he first prays in aid of him in Remainder and if this aid prayer shall be granted this was the question And it seemes by Nicholls Serjeant that it shall not be granted see 11 H. 4. 63. Where it is agreed that if a man makes a Lease for life Remainder for life Remainder in fee and the first Tenant for life hath ayd of him in remainder for life and he in Fee joyntly and 44 Edw. 3. 20. in Trespasse against a Miller which takes Toll where he ought to grind Toll-free the Defendant saith that J. had the Mill for life and that he is his Deputy the reversion to W. in Fee and prays ayde of the Tenant for life and of the Tenant in reversion and had it of the Tenant for life and not of him in reversion and this for default of Privity as it seems to Brooke Ayde 30. Haughton conceived that it should be granted for Tenant for life notwithstanding that he may plead any Plea yet he doth not know what Plea to plead without him in reversion but by the ayde praying al the Estate shall be reduced into one and the warranty shall come and for that he conceived that the first Tenant for life shall have ayde of him in remainder for life Wynch Justice conceived that ayde shall not be granted against the first Tenant for life against him in remainder for life for he conceived that ayde is alwaies to be granted when the defects of him and his Estate which prays it are to be supplyed by him which is prayed that this is the reason that he may have ayde of his Wife and where there are many remainders the first Tenant may have ayde of them all otherwise where he is Tenant for life the remainder for liâ—e and the reversion expectant for the Tenant for life cannot supply his
name So by Custome as the Custome that if a Copy-holder will sell his Copy-hold Estate that he which is next of blood to him shall have the refusall and if none of his blood then he which Inhabits in the neerest part of the part of the ground shall have it before a stranger giving for that as much as a stranger would and the Lord shall have him for his Tenant whether he will or no for it shall be intended that so it was agreed at the first and it is reasonable and if it had not been ruled and adjudged before yet he conceived it might now be a rule and adjudged insomuch that it is so reasonable and good and for the second custome that is for the custome of cutting of Trees by such Copy-holder which hath such priviledge he conceived also that it was good But he agreed that a bare Tenant for life cannot be warranted by custome to do such an Act as it was here adjudged between Powell and Peacock But here he had a greater Estate then for life for he hath power to make another Estate for life and shall have as great priviledge as Tenant after possibility c. which is in respect of Inheritance which once was in him and he may do it for the possibility which he hath to give to another Estate as it is agreed in 2. Ed. 4. that a Lease fo a hundred yeares is Mortmain in respect of the continuance of it so here for the Estate may continue by such power of nomination for many lives in perpetuity and that as when at the Common Law they have in reputation and opinion of Law a greater Estate may cut and sell Trees so here insomuch that the Estate comes so neere to Inheritance he conceived that he might cut the Trees by the custome and that the Custome is good and so he concluded that Judgement should be given that the Plaintiff should be barred in respect of Customes and then to the third that is when a man lets Land and by the same Deed grants the Trees to be cut at the will and pleasure of the grantee there the Lessee hath distinct Interest But if the Lessor by one selfe same clause had demised the Land and the Trees there the Intendment is But notwithstanding that there are severall clauses and that he hath distinct Interests yet he conceiveth that the Trees remaine parcell of the Inheritance and free-hold till they are cut and are severed only in Interest that is that may be felled and devided by the Axe for Tythes shall not be paid for them if they exceed the growth of twenty yeares not it shall not be Felony for to cut those and burn them And it is not like to an Advowson for that may be severed and for that he conceived that if the Custome had not warranted the Cutting and Selling that the Copy-holder had forfeited his Estate and that the Lord might very well have taken advantage of it and 29. assis 29. A man sells Trees to be cut at Michaelmasse insuing and before Michaelmasse Haukes breed in them the seller shall have them by which it appeares that the property is not altered So that though they are not parcell of the Mannor yet they are parcell of the Free-hold insomuch that they are not severed in Facto And he agreed that Lessee for yeares of a Mannor shall take advantage of Forfeiture and need not any presentment by the Homage and Littleton fol. 15 saith that the Lord may enter as in a thing Forfeited unto him and so for attainder of Felony And if a Copy-holder makes a Lease for yeares by which he forfeits his Copy-hold Estate And after the Lord grants the Mannor for yeares the Lessee of the Mannor shal take advantage of this Forfeiture made before he had any Estate in the Mannor without any presentment by the Homage But here in this case the Custome warrants the cutting of the Trees by the Copy-holder and for that he concluded all the matter as above that the Plaintiff should take nothing by his Writ Coke cheife Justice agreed and he said that Fortescue and Littleton and all others agreed that the Common Law consists of three parts First Common Law Secondly Statute Law which corrects abridges and exp'aines the Common Law The third Custome which takes away the Common Law But the Common Law Corrects Allows and Disallows both Statute Law and Custome for if there be repugnancy in Statute or unreasonablenesse in Custome the Common Law Disallowes and rejects it as it appeares by Doctor Bonhams Case and 8 Coke 27. H. 6 Annuity And he conceived that there are five differences between Prescription and a Custome And all those as pertenent to this cause First in the beginning Pugnant ex Diametro for nothing may be good by prescription but that which may have beginning by grant and also prescription is incident to the Person and Custome to some place and holds place in many Cases which cannot be by grant as in 11 H. 4. Lands may be devised by Custome and so discent to all the Sons as in Gavelkind and to the youngest Son in Eurrough English and others like which cannot have their beginning by Grant but prescription and Custome are Brothers and ought to have the same age and reason ought to be the Father and Congruence the Mother and use the Nurse and time out of memory to Fortifie them both Secondly they vary in quality for prescription is for one man only and Custome is for many if all but one be not dead Thirdly they vary in extent and latitude for prescription extends to Fee-simple only but Custome extends to all Interests and Estates whatsoever as appeares by pleading for Tenant in tayl for life or yeares cannot prescribe in what Estate nor against the Lord in his Demesnes but they ought to alledge the Custome and against a stranger they ought to prescribe in the name of the Lord and for that prescription b. Copy-holder of Inheritance may sell the Trees is not good but such Custome is good and 5. Ed. 3. 24. And the old Reports 196. One Tenant being a Free-holder prescribes to have Windfalls and all Trees-which are withered in the Top and if the Lord makes them in Cole to have so much in money And so if they sell and this for Sale and this was not-good insomuch that it is alledged in the person as prescription but if it had been alledged as Custome and to be burnt in his house then it shall be good as appendant and 14. Ed. 3. Barr 227. Wilby saith to be adjudged that prescription to have Turbary to be burnt in his house is good but not to sell and 11. H. 6. 17. accordingly by which it appeares that this may be very well by Custome and cannot be by prescription Thirdly he conceived that where a man may create an Estate without nomination there he may create that by nomination And also that which may be done by the
every Knight and that diverse of those Fees were received and this office being litigious were delivered to be detained in Deposito and to be delivered to him which was Officer and the plaintiff brought an Action by the name of Chester as Officer and recovered those Fees and this was resolved good Seisin and also that Seisin after the grant of the Office and before the investing of the Patentee by the Marshall was good for the Investing was but a ceremony it was also resolved that where an office extends to all the parts of England and that here an Assise doth not lie in any County though that the dissesin were made in one County but the Assise be brough for the profit of the office in one County and not for the office it selfe 43. Ed. 3. Feoffments and Deeds That by Grant of the profits of a Mill and Livery the Mill it selfe passes so that taking of the profits is dissesin of the office also it was objected that the Demandant was no officer for though that he hath a Patent of it yet he was not Invested nor Installed in the office which appeares to the Marshall and for that he was no Officer and so hath no cause to have Action And that this is an office which is incident and annexed to the office of Earle Marshall and though that he be not Earle Marshall yet there are Commissioners have his power and authority and for that the Investing and Instalment of the Plaintiff in the said office appeares to the said Commissioners but it was resolved cleerely by all the Justices that the Demandant was Officer by the Kings Grant without any Installation or Investing and that this without that all the Fees and Profits of the office appertayning to him and that the Investing and Installation was but a ceremony in the same manner as if the King hath a Donative and gives that to another the Donee shall be in actuall possession by the gift without any Induction or other ceremony But admitting that the office were annexed to the office of Earle Marshall then it was agreed that the Commissioners cannot give it as the cheife Justice of the Common â—ench hath divers offices appertaining to his place and he may dispose of them But if he die the King in time of vacancy nor the most ancient Judges cannot give or dispose of any of them being void as it appeares by Serrogates Case Eliz. Dyer And so the cheife Justice is made and allwaies hath been made by Patent and so are the other Justices and for that they cannot be made by Commissioners and so the cheife Justice of England hath all times been made by Writ and for that cannot be made by Patent nor by Commission And so in the case at the Barr though that the Commissioners have the power and authority of the Earle Marshall yet they are not Earle Marshall it was also objected that the Fees were not due to the Plaintiff for that he did not attend But to that it was answered and resolved that the Fees were due to the office and for that non attendance of the office was no forfeyture of the Fees And upon these resolutions the Recognitors found for the Demandant according to the direction of the Court. Trinity 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench. Godsall GODS ALL and his Wife The Proclamations of the Fyne were well and duly entred in the Originall remaining with the Chirographer But in the Transcript with the Custos brevium was error and it seemeth that this notwithstanding the Fyne was good but the Transcript was amended Trinity 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench The Town of Barwicke THE King which now is by his Letters Patents Incorporated the Mayor Bayliffs and Burgesses of Barwicke and granted to them the execution of the Returne of all Writs And after a Writ of Extendi facias was directed to them and they made no returne of that and upon this was the question if that shall be executed by them or by the Sheriff of Northumberland And it seemed to Nicholls Serjeant that argued for the Plaintiff in the extent that desired execution and the returne of that that they ought to make execution and returne for it seemes to him that this was English and that this appeares by the Act of Parliament by which the Incorporation was confirmed and so it appeares also by the Letters Patents of the King by which the Incorporation is made for if it were not English neither the Letters Patents nor the Act of Parliament are sufficient to make Incorporation of that and also they certified Burgesses to the Parliament of England And the Kings Bench sent Habeas Corpus to it and for the not returne of that inflicted a Fyne upon the Corporation See 21. Ed. 3. 49 and 1. Ed. 4 10. But Hutton Serjeant seemed to the contrary and that they ought not to make execution for he said it is a part of Scotland and not part of England and it was conquered from that and it was a Sherifwicke and hath the same priviledges of ancient times which they now have by their new Grant See 24 Ed. 1. and 2. Ed. 2. Obligation c. That one Obligation dated there shall not be tryed in England and also that it is not within the County of Northumberland nor part of it nor the Sheriff of Northumberland cannot meddle in it see 2. H. 7. 31. 26. H. 6. 23. and it is adjourned It seemes that Jacob and James are all one name for Jacobus is-Latine for them both but Walmesley conceived that if he be Christened Jacob otherwise it is as if one be Christened Jacob and another James then they are not one selfe same name Note that Coke cheife Justices said that if Commissioners by force of Dedimus potestatem take a Fine of an Infant that they are Fynable and ransomable to the value of their Lands and that this shall be sued in the Star chamber Trinity 7. Jacobi 1609 In the Common Bench. Robinson RObinsons Case A man devises Lands to his Wife for life the remainder to his Son and if his Son dies without Issue not having a Son that then it should remaine over and it seemed that this it a good Estate tayl and it was adjudged accordingly If a man makes a Lease for three yeares or such a small Tearme to his Son or Servant to try an Ejectione Firme or if it be made to another Inferion by a Superior which cannot countenance the Suit it shall not be intended Maintenance nor buying of Tytles which shall be punished Trinity 7 Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. NOte an Attorney of the Common Bench was cited before the High Commission and committed to the Fleet for that he would not swear upon Articles by the Commissioners ministred and Habeas Corpus was awarded to deliver him and a Prohibition to the Court of high Commission see 1. and 2. Eliz. Scroggs case
Plaintiff SMith versus Bolles Sheriff of London Pasc 9. Jac. rotulo 1353. In case for that the name of the Sheriffs were omitted on the venire fac And for that cause one Judgement given for the said Smith was reversed by Writ of Error And for that Misprision Smith brought such Action of the Case HArris versus Adams If thou hadst had thy Right thou hadst been hanged for breaking of Paches House the words not actionable Thou art a Thief thou hast stollen the Town-beam meaning the Town of Wickham Serjeant Hutton of opinion the Action would lie STephens Attourney versus Battyn for words Thou hast cozened M. Windsor of his Fee and I will sue thee for it in the Star-chamber for that thou didst not come for Windsor Judgement for the Plaintiff Trin. 11. Jac. BRadley versus Jones Trin. 11. Jac. rotulo 3390. The Plaintiff brings his Action upon the Case for unjust vexation The Defendant had exhibited Articles against the Plaintiff to have the good Behaviour against him and took his Oath before Doctor Cary one of the Masters of the Chancery and afterwards the Defendant ceased prosecution there and obtained from the Kings Bench a Supplicavit to have the good Behaviour there And the Court was of opinon that the Action would lie because he prosecuted in the Kings Bench and not in the Chancery But the Court said that if he had prosecuted in the Chancery though the Articles had been scandalous yet no Action would have lyen for a man shall not be punished for mistaking the Law for he may be misadvised by his Counsel BRooks versus Clerk Pasch 11. Jac. rotulo 307. Action brought for these words His Son Brooks hath deceived me in a Reckoning for Wares And his Debt-book which he keepeth for Sale of Wares in his Shop is a false Debt-book and I will make him ashamed of his Calling Hubbart and Nichols against the Plaintiff and Warburton for the Plaintiff Pasch 11. Jac. rotulo 2147. Action of the Case brought for a Nusance for building the Defendants House so near the Plaintiffs that a great part of it superpends And the Plaintiff in the conveying his Title shews a Lease for years made to him if the Lessor should so long live and doth not aver the Life of the Lessor but saith that by vertue of the Demise the Plaintiff hath been and then was thereof possessed and adjudged sufficient MOrton versus Leedell Hill 10. Jac. rotulo 1783. Action of the Case for these words He meaning the Plaintiff is a lying dissembling Fellow and a mainsworn and forsworn Fellow And Judgement for the Plaintiff after divers motions THomas Attourney versus Axworth Pasch 11. Eliz. rotulo 352. Action of the Case for these words This is John Thomas his writing and he hath forged this Warrant meaning a Warrant made by Buller Sheriff of that County upon a Capias prosecuted out of the Court of Common Pleas by M. H. against the Defendant and directed to the Sheriff ROw versus Alport Mich. 11. Jac. rotulo 1527. Action upon the Case brought for suing in the Admiral Court for a thing done upon the Land and not upon the high Sea BRay versus Ham Trin. 13. Jac. rotulo 1994. Action of the Case for these words Thou art a cozening Knave and thou hast cozened me in selling false Measure in my Barley and the Countrey is bound to curse thee for selling with false Measure and I will prove it and thou hast changed my Barley which I bought of thee And the Plaintiff sets forth in his Declaration that he was Bayliff to W. C. and H. C. of certain Lands in P. for three years and during the said time had the care and selling of divers Corn and Grain growing upon the same Land and after Triall and Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Action would not lie but the Court were of a contrary opinion and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff BRown versus Hook Pasch 13. Jac. rotulo 234. Action of the Case for these words Brown is a good Attourney but that he will play on both sides And it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that those words would not bear an Action but the Court held they were actionable but did not give Judgement because the Plaintiff did not shew in his Declaration that the words were spoken of himself STober versus Green Mich. 11. Jac. rotulo 1â—91 Action of the Case for these words Thou didst keep and sell by false Weights and in 24. s. bestowing thy Weights were false two Ounces and thy Man will be a Witness against thee and I will prove it The Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff occupied one Shop and kept unlawfull Weights and by such Weights sold by reason whereof he said these words Videlicet Thou didst keep and sell by unlawfull Weights and in 24. s. bestowing thy Weights were false an Ounce and three quarters and thy Man c. And traversed the words in the Declaration and it was adjudged a naughty Traverse for that the words in the Bar and justified by the Defendant are actionable AGar versus Lisle Mich. 11. Jac. rot 318. Action of Trover brought in York-shire the Defendant justifies for Toll at Darnton in Durham and traverse c. The Court doubts of his Traverse being onely for the County of York whereas it ought to be any where else generally And Hobart said the Bar was nought because in the justification no conversion was sufficiently alleadged And note that if a man doth a thing which is allowable by the Law as to distrain Cattle and impound them that is no conversion but if he work them it is a conversion AVstin versus Austin Trin. 10. Jac. rotulo 3558. In Troyer the Defendant pleads that before the time that the Plaintiff supposes the Goods to come to the Defendants hands one S. A. was possessed of the Goods and amongst other Goods sold them to the Defendant but kept them in his own hands and afterwards sold them to the Plaintiff by reason whereof the Plaintiff was possessed and afterwards looses them and they came to the Defendants hands who converts them as it was lawfull for him to do The Plaintiff demurs and it was held a naughty Bar for it amounts to a Non cul And Cook doubted whether the Court should compell the Defendant to plead Non cul or award a Writ of Injury And a Writ of Inquire was awarded ALlyns versus Sparkes al. Trin. 8. Jac. rotulo 1606 Action of the Case brought for stopping up the Plaintiffs way and the Plaintiff declares that one H. B. was seised of the Mannour of M. of which two Acres were customary Land and that the Lord of the Mannour had for himself and his customary Tenants for the said two Acres a certain high-way in by and thorow c. And that the Lord of the Mannour granted the said two
Berwick Gaol for stealing of a Mare and other Beasts and after a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that the words were not actionable and so it was adjudged for that he did not directly say the Plaintiff was a Thief but onely implied Hill 15. Iac. rotulo An Exception taken to a Declaration in Trover brought by an Administrator because he declares that whereas he was possessed of divers Goods and Chattels as of his own proper Goods and should have said as was pretended as of the Goods and Chattels of the intestate at the time of his Death but the Exception was over-ruled by the Court. Exception to an Action of the case brought and the Plaintiff declares that whereas the Plaintiff had delivered the Defendant unum statum salis Anglicae a Bushel of Salt pretending that statum had another proper signification but because it was shewed to the Court that statum by one Dictionary was Latine for a Bushel Judgement was given for the Plaintiff In Trover it is usual to prove no more but that you requested the Goods and the Defendant refused to deliver them this is a Conversion When a Justification arises upon a Sale then I need traverse no more but the place alleadged and not go to the whole County but where it is a transitory Trespass as for Battery taking of Goods and the like then the whole County must be traversed CAtford versus Osmond Mich. 16. Jac. rotulo 1063. Action of Trover brought for two Steers the Defendant being an Attourney of the Common-pleas justifies the taking as Under-sheriff by reason of Process from the Exchequer to levy of the Occupiers of the Lands of divers persons in a Schedule in the said Writ named the Debts therein specified and doth not recite the Schedule and he being Under-sheriff took the Steers in the Land of the Plaintiff which was lately one Stones who was Debtor to the King in 59. s. being behinde upon the Land and Exception was taken for that it was not directly alledged that the Land such a Day was the Land of the said S. The Writ commanded to levy the summs in the said Schedule mentioned and if they could not to take their Bodies and it was adjudged a good Warrant to levy of the Occupiers of the Lands that were the said S. 59. s. COles versus Flaxman Hill 14. Jac. rotulo 2175. Action of the case brought for disturbing the Plaintiffs Common The Defendant pretends Title to the Common by reason of Common appurtenant to certain customary Land of part of which he conveys a Title to himself but not of the whole and the Question was whether it were Common appurtenant or appendant and if appurtenant it could not be divided KEymes versus Moxham Trin. 15. Jac. rotulo 559. Action of the case brought for a promise made at C. for the Delivery of a Mare which the Plaintiff delivered the Defendant to plow his ground in P. And shews the Defendant did so excessively and immoderately labor and work the said Mare that the Mare died The Defendant confesses the promise and that the Mare at the time of the Delivery was infirm and that he worked her moderately and traverses the excessive labouring of the Mare and after a Verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that it was mis-tried because the Venn was of C. which was naught and there was no place alleadged where the excessive labouring was for the Venn ought to come from that place where the laboring was HArbin and his Wife versus Green Trin. 14. Jac. rotulo 2263. Action upon the case brought for not grinding his Corn at the Plaintiffs Mill and shews that the Bishop of Salisbury was seised of four customary Mils called A. in his Demesne as of Fee in right of his Bishoprick and prescribes that all Inhabitants and Residents within the City of Salisbury holding any ancient Mesuages of the said Bishop in right of his Bishoprick were time out of minde used and ought to grinde all their Corn whatsoever spent in their houses or exposed to sale in the said City at the said Mils of the said Bishop and no where else without the licence of the said Bishop and to pay Toll therefore to the said Bishop his Successors Bishops or their Farmors for the time being and in consideration thereof the Bishop his Successors or Farmors for the time being of the said Mils time out of minde have been used and accustomed at their own charges from time to time to keep and maintain a Servant expert in grinding as well by night as day there attending to grinde their Corn as soon as conveniently might be and the Plaintiff shews that such a Day the Defendant was and yet is an Inhabitant in one ancient Mesuage in the said City held of the Bishop and so possessed intending to deprive the Plaintiff of the profit of his Mill did such a day grinde divers sorts of Corn in other Mils without the Bishops leave to his damage of c. The Defendant pleads Non cul The Jury finde the Defendant guilty for a longer time then the Plaintiff had interest in the Mill and gave Damages intire and upon a Motion in arrest of Judgement adjudged naught GResley versus Lother and his Wife Executrix of R. B. and declares that communication was had between the Testator in his life and the Plaintiff concerning a Marriage to be had and solemnized between one T. B. son and heir apparent of the said R. B. and Jane Daughter of the Plaintiff and heir apparent of John F. deceased the said Testator such a Day and Year in consideration that the Plaintiff at the special instance and request of the said R. B. then and there would agree that the said T. B. should marry the said J. promised to pay 20. l. and adjudged a good consideration GOwland versus Mason Hill 17. Jac. rotulo Action of the case for these words I charge him with Felony for taking of money out of the pocket of Henry Sparry and I will prove it and the Court was divided in opinion whether the words would maintain an Action or no. SMith and his Wife versus Stafford Executor of Stafford Hill 15 Jac. rotulo 906. Action of the case brought upon a promise made to the Woman when she was sole in consideration the Woman would marry the Testator he promises that if the Woman should over-live the Testator that then he would leave her worth 100. l. and they averr that she did marry him and after the Husband died and did not leave her worth 100. l. and the Defendant pleads Non assumpsit and found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that by the Inter-marriage the Promise was drowned and released Three Judgeâ—…r the Plaintiff and one for the Defendant The like Observations in Actions of Covenant DRury versus Allen al. Mich. 6. Jac. rotulo 926. Action of Covenant
agreement was not by him performed CRockhay versus Woodward Hill 15. Jac. rotulo 2001. An Action of Covenant brought upon this Writing Videlicet Memorandum that I John Woodward do promise and assume unto B. C. to pay to him such Moneys or other Goods as Josias my son shall imbessell mispend or wrongfully detain of his during the time of his being Apprentice with him within three Moneths next after request to me in that behalf made and due proof made of such imbesselling or wrongfull detaining in witness c. and the Plaintiff shews that the Defendants son did imbessell Goods of his Masters and shewed what Goods and left out in his Declaration these words Videlicet and due proof likewise made of such imbesselling or wrongfull detaining The Defendant demands Oyer of the Writing and pleads that he did not imbessell and it was tried for the Plaintiff and after Triall Exception taken because the Plaintiff did not alleadge any proof made and for that reason Judgement was arrested BRagg Assignee of Bragg versus Wiseman Executor of Fitch Mich. 12. Jac. rotulo 538. Action of Covenant brought and the case was this that Fitch and his Lady were seised of Land in right of his Wife for terme of her life and joyn together in a Lease by Deed indented in which were these words demise and grant and afterwards Fitch dieth the Lady enters and avoids the Lease and maketh a new Lease to a stranger whereupon an Electione firme is brought against the first Lessee and Judgement thereupon and the first Lessee put out of Possession whereupon the first Lessee brings his Action of Covenant against the Executors of Fitch upon the words demise and grant The Defendant demurrs The words were have demised granted and to farm letten for years if the Wife should so long live and Judgement for the Difendant A Covenant in Law shall not be extended to make one do more then he can which was to warrant it as long as he lived and no longer The Law doth not binde a man to an inconvenience If Tenant for Life make a Lease for twenty years and covenant that the Defendant shall injoy it during the terme that shall be during his Life for the terme endeth by his Death but otherwise it is if the Covenant be during the terme of twenty years by the word Demise an Action of Covenant lieth although he never enter and this word Demise implieth as much as Dedi concessi An Action of Covenant brought for that the Defendant covenants to bring again a Ship Perils and Damages of Sea onely excepted and he to excuse himself saith that the Hollander in a warlike manner by force and armes took the Ship and much doubt was where the Issue should be tried and the opinion of the Court was that the Action should be tried where it was laid COwling versus Drury Action of Covenant brought for that the Defendant did not pay a Rent with which the Land was charged the Defendant replies he was to injoy the Land sufficiently saved harmless and answers not the Breach and adjudged a naughty Bar by the whole Court SElby versus Chute Trin. 11. Jac. rotulo 3804. Action of Covenant brought and the Breach was alleadged that the Plaintiff should quietly injoy the Land demised to him and he shews that Chute exhibited a Bill in Chancery against him pretending the Lease was made in trust and it was decreed to be otherwise and whether the exhibiting this Bill was a Breach of Covenant there being no Disturbance at Common Law was the Question and the Court were of opinion that it was no Breach of Covenant for it was no Disturbance at Common Law nor Entry and the Law could not take notice of it and Judgement for the Defendant HOlder versus Tailor Pasch 11. Jac. rotulo 1358. An Action of Covenant brought upon this Covenant that the Lessee should repair the House provided alwayes and it was agreed that the Lessee should have such necessary Timber to be allowed and delivered by the Lessor and the Breach was that the House wanted Reparations and that so many Loads of Timber were necessary and that the Lessor allowed them according to the form and effect of the Indenture and a general Request laid and Exception was taken to the Declaration for that the Plaintiff did not alleadge a special request to the Defendant and that it was laid in the Declaration that a stranger brought the Timber which was held to be naught by the whole Court for it amounted to an Entry upon the Lessees Possession Exception taken to a Breach laid in Covenant for Repairs because it was generally alleadged and not shewed in what but being after a Verdict it was helped by the opinion of the whole Court TIsdale versus Essex Trin. 12. Jac. rotulo 2131. Action of Covenant brought upon these words covenant promise and agree that the Lessee should quietly occupy and injoy the Lands demised for and during the terme of seven years and the Plaintiff shews that an Estranger entred upon the Land and shews not that he entred by Title and the Court was of opinion that it was naught because it did not appear that he had a good Title to enter Dedit concessit imply a Warranty for Life and Judgement was given for the Defendant because the Breach was naught HIcks versus Action of Covenant brought and the Land alleadged to be in Weston alias Weston Vnderwood and the Venn was de visu de VVeston Vnderwood and it was alleadged by the Defendant that the Venn was mis-awarded because it was not of VVeston onely but the Court was of a contrary opinion that it was well awarded and Judgement for the Plaintiff CAstilion al. versus Smith Exec. Smith Trin. 17. Jac. rotulo 1849. Action of Covenant brought against the Defendant and the breach of Covenant alleadged to be in the time of the Executor and the Judgement was entred of the Goods of the Testators the Breach was for plowing of Land contrary to Covenant RIdent versus Took Hill 13. Jac. rotulo 3516. Action of Covenant brought to discharge the Plaintiff of a single Bill in which he was bound for the Debt of the Defendant and he alleadges for Breach non-payment and a Suit and recovery at Law for the Money which remained in force The Defendant pleaded that he paid the Money at the Day and thereof gave the Plaintiff notice before the purchasing his Writ the Plaintiff demurs and the Court held the Plea naught and Judgement for the Plaintiff Actions upon Account WIlloughby against Small An Action of Account brought against the Defendant as Receiver of the Plaintiffs Money The Defendant pleads that he never was Receiver where he hath a Release from the Plaintiff whereby he shall lose the benefit of his Release for that he cannot give that in Evidence upon such Issue The Process herein is Summons Pone Distress and upon a Nichil returned
the Rent is gone If I make a Lease for Life reserving a Rent to me and my Executor neither the Executor nor the Heir shall have the Rent Justice Walmsley held this difference in making a Lease to two during their Lives if one die the other shall have it otherwise it is if it be made to one during the Life of two and one of them die in this case the Lease is ended and there is difference between a reservation of Rent and Lease for Reservation is according to the will and pleasure of the Lessor and Justice Walmsley said if a Lessee for years granteth a Rent to A. during the Life of B. and C. this Reservation is good although one should die which Sir Edward Cook denied and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff in Hills case If I make a Lease for years reserving a Rent and then I grant demise and to farm let Reversionem domus for years and the Rent to have and to hold the Reversion and the Rent from a time past if the Lessee cannot get an Attornement yet it is a good Lease in Reversion and shall take effect after the end of the first Lease habendum terram habendum reversionem est terra revertens and no difference If the Husband with his own money purchaseth for his Wives Joynture Land to them and the Heirs of their two Bodies the Remainder in Fee to the Wife and they have Issue two Sons and the Husband dieth and the Wife suffereth a Recovery to the use of the youngest Son the eldest Son notwithstanding shall have the Land by the Statute of Joyntures Hill 6. Jac. If I set-out my Corn and after take it away the Parson may sue me in the Spiritual Court or bring an Action of Trespass against me but if the Parson sue in the Spiritual Court a stranger for taking away the Tithes which were set out this is a Praemunire in the Parson Tenant at will shall pay his Rent when he holdeth over his terme but Tenant at sufferance shall not pay any Rent if a man hold over his terme and pay his old Rent he shall be accounted Tenant at will For one joynt Debt for one Contract you cannot plead Nil debet for part and demur for the rest for he pleads Nil debet and the matter in Law is reserved Licet saepius requisit is a sufficient Request upon a Bond because it is a Debt Unto an Action brought against a man upon a Bond pleads Denis age the case was this that when the Obligation was sealed and delivered the Defendant was of full age but at the time when the Bond bore Date he was under age and at the Assises the Judge there ruled that at the time of making the Bond was when the Bond was sealed and not when it bore Date The Court were of opinion that where a Bishop holds Land discharged of Tithes and he makes a Feofment of the Land the Feoffee shall be discharged of Tithes and the like if the King hath ancient Forest-land discharged of Tithes and the King grants this Land the Grantee is discharged of Tithes and it is a general Rule that he which may have Tithes may be discharged of Tithes If I let Land for years reserving Rent if I command one to put his Cattle into the Land I cannot distrain them for my commandement is a wrong and an Action of case will lie against the commandor If I make a Lease and bid the Tenants cut down the Trees yet I may have an Action of waste against my Lessee In Sir Cheydens case the commandment to take Possession was void unless he had commanded him to expell the Tenant and then he might joyn either to distrain or bring an Action of Debt for the Lease was made by him and two more 28 H. 8. If I make a Lease to the Husband and Wife covenant to do no waste or repair Houses and the Husband dieth and the Wife surviveth and holdeth in if the Wife commit waste or not repair the House no Action lieth against the Wife but to such a Lease the Wife is tied to pay the Rent or to perform a condition made by the part of the Lessor but not observe or perform Covenants of the Lessee Pasch 10. Jacobi The Court much doubted whether one that had a Park and was used to pay one Shoulder of Deer for all manner of Tithes and the Park is dis-parked should now pay Tithes in kinde or not For Wooll and Lamb no Action upon the Statute for not setting out of Tithes for they are no predial Tithes and no Action lies upon this Statute for small Tithes An Administration granted durand minori aetate execut is not within the Statute of 21 H. 8. And by the Civil Law the Judge may after Administration by him granted revoke it and grant it to another And if an Administration be granted to a Feme Covert yet she shall sue in their Court as a Feme sole One Briefly married an Administratrix and entred into Bonds for the Intestates Debts and afterwards the Wife leaveth her Husband and refuseth the Administration and it was granted to another and now B. prayeth a Prohibition for that he may be sued for Debts and denied by the Court untill he be sued This Administration was first granted by Doctor B. and after by him revoked and a new granted by him to the Wives Brother and afterwards he revoked that and established the first Administration and the Appeal A Feofment in Fee by Deed indented Rent reserved it is good but without Deed cannot reserve Rent If Land be devised by three upon condition to pay them 100. l. equally to be divided and one of them dieth his Executor or Administrator shall have the Money and so it is if one were bound to pay Money The Commissary granted Administration of the Intestates Goods to the Wife and did make a Divident of his Estate to some of the rest of his Kindred and this was-held not to be warranted by Law and more then the Ordinary could do because the Administratrix is chargeable to pay all Debts and Promises of the Intestate and to bring up his Children which she cannot do if the Goods be taken away Vbi delinquit ibi punietur If a Copy-holder of Inheritance accept a Lease for years of his Copy-hold the Copy-hold is gone by the opinion of the whole Court If a Legacy be granted of Land this shall not be sued for in the Spiritual Court but if one by Will devise Land to be sold for payment of Legacies this shall be sued for in the Spiritual Court by the opinion of the whole Court If two Fulling-mils be under one Roof and a rate-tithe paid for the Mils and after you alter these Mils and make one a Corn-mill your Rate is gone and you must pay Tithes in kinde or if you have but one
pair of Stones in your Mill and pay a Rate for them then if you put on another pair of Stones new Tithes must be paid in kinde If one in Fee make a Lease for Life and after granteth a Rent-charge if the Grantors Cattle come upon the Ground I may distrain them although I cannot distrain the Tenant in Possession but the Grantor cannot avoid it If the condition of a Bond be to discharge a Messuage of all Incumberances then one may plead generally that he did discharge it of all Incumberances but if it be to discharge it of such a Lease then I must shew how If a man devise his Trees to his Executors to pay his Debts the Executor must in convenient time cut down the Wood. And so if a man sell his Trees the Vendee must sell them in a convenient time If I grant you out of my Mannour 10. l. per ann and recite but five pounds the Recitall shall not diminish the Grant And so if I grant you ten pounds out of my Mannor and recite 20. l. this shall not inlarge it If I infeoff two of Land habendum to me in Fee and habendum to the other in Fee they are Tenants in common In the Court of Wards one Dymack was a Purchasor by Bargain and Sale and before inrolment D. dies and after his Death the Indenture was inrolled the Question was whether his Son shall be in Ward for the Land and it was adjudged that he is Heir to the Land and is in by the Statute of 27 Eliz. of Bargains and Sales and not by the Statute of Uses My Lord Hobard held that if an Executor pay a Bond made upon a usurious Contract it shall be a Devastavit in the Executor and if he be bound to present one to a Church and he present one upon a Simonaical Contract the Bond is broken Hill 10. Jac. Resolved if one make a Lease of a Mannour reserving Rent and afterwards the Lessor grants the Reversion of forty acres thereof now if an Action of Debt be brought by the Grantee he may aver the rate of the Acre and if the Defendant plead Nil debet per patriam the Jury shall rate the value and although the value be found less by the Jury then the Plaintiff surmiseth yet the Plaintiff shall recover after the proportion For Acts in Law no Attornement is necessary as if a Lease made for years reserving a Rent which is assigned to a Woman for Dower she shall have the Rent without Attornement In Cambels case upon an Elegit returned that the Lessor was seised in Fee and that by vertue of the Judgement the moity was delivered to the Plaintiff and for the Rent reserved upon the Lease for years before Judgement If a man top a Tree under the growth of 21. years and suffer the body to grow and afterwards when the boughes are grown out again he doth lop and top it again I shall pay no Tithes although the Tree was not priviledged at the first cutting by the opinion of the whole Court If a Debt be recovered in a Court of Record that Debt cannot be assigned over to any man by the opinion of the whole Court Mich. 10. Jac. Pasch 14. If Money be to be paid upon proof made there the triall shall be the proof to be made before but if it be to pay Money within 3. Moneths after proof there proof must be made first but if it be upon proof before A. then proof being made before A. this extending proof shall tie the party but Warburton held the contrary and he resembled this to a surmise to have a prohibition which is no binding proof for the Jury may pass against the proof in the surmise when a Bond is to pay Money upon proof this is a legal proof by Law if it be laid generally to be paid by proof if it were by proof before two Justices or two Aldermen this shall be intended a sufficient proof when the Action shall be brought upon the Bond and if the Defendant say that due proof was not made then they shall say that before the two Justices c. it was proved by testimony before them and then the Judges shall judge whether it be a sufficient proof or not If I devise Lands to my Executors for three years for the payment of my Debts this is Assetts in the Executors hands but if I devise my Land to be sold for the payment of my Debts it is no Assets before it be sold Mich. 9. Jacobi It was held in the Common Pleas by the whole Court that in the Kings case the consideration of the Money paid is never to be proved Likewise in a common case of Bargain and Sale in consideration of Money paid where in truth none was paid yet it is good and the Bargainee is not tied to prove the Payment for the Bargainer may have an Action of Debt If a Legacy be granted out of Leases and a Suit in the Spiritual Court for this shall not be prohibited but otherwise it is if it were out of Fee Simple Lands HE le versus Frettenden Resolution upon two Cases upon the Statute of E. 6. for not setting forth of Tithes Videlicet A man possessed of Corn sels it and before two Witnesses sets out his Tithes and afterwards privately takes away his Tithes and the Parson sues him upon the Statute of treble Damages for not setting forth of Tithes and the Defendant proves by Witnesses that he set forth his Tithes yet this Fraud is helped for the words are without fraud or deceit In the second case one secretly sels his Corn to one who was not known and afterwards the Vendee commands the Vendor to cut the Corn which he doth and takes away the whole Corn without setting forth his Tithes and the Question was who should be sued for the Tithes and the Court held the first Vendor should be sued for it was fraudulent If a man be found guilty of Felony and after receives his Pardon he shall not be Legalis home to pass upon a Jury If a Venire facias be against an Arch-bishop the Venire facias shall be Tam milites quam alios liberos c. because he is a Lord of the Parliament If a man be obliged in a Statute staple his Copy-hold Land is not extendable but it is upon a Statute of Bankrupt If a man have Common in three Acres and purchase one of the three Acres his Common is extinct If a man of the Cinque Ports shall come to London he may be there arrested and shall not have the Priviledge of the Cinque Ports Difference between those things which are in the Prender and such things that are in the Render for if I take not such things as are in Prender according to my Prescription it is void If I have Estovers in Woods to be taken every other year if I
omit to take them every other year I cannot take them in the third year But for Rent and such other things that are in the Render I ought to have it when ever I demand it as it best pleases me And note that in such case one prescribed for eight Loads of Wood to be cut and taken as appertaining to a Messuage which was held naught by the whole Court for the Prescription should be laid for Estovers to be imployed upon Repairs of the said Messuage or to be spent in it for a man cannot prescribe to have a Prescription to come and cut down my Wood which is as much as I that have the Free-hold can do For the claim to take and sell my Wood cannot be good And the Court held it a good Prescription to prescribe to have Common every other year although you shew not the Commencement as to shew what time of the year when it begins If a man hath Common of Pasture in divers Closes and parcels of Ground where he hath some Land of his own there and in all other cases where one is to prescribe he need not to make his Title to every peice but to say he hath Common in loco in quo c. in t alia and need not to speak of the rest of the Land in the residue of the Feild because he hath Land of his own Common appendant belongeth to arrable Land not to Pasture Land If two Issues be joyned and in the awarding the Venire facias these words Videlicet Quoad triandum tam exit istum quam praedictum alium exit superius junct were omitted and after a Verdict such Default was moved in Arrest of Judgement and the Exception over-ruled and held good notwithstanding that omission The whole Court were of opinion that local things shall not be made transitory by laying the Action in a forrain Shire as for Corn growing in one Shire and an Action of Trover brought in another COmes Cumbr. versus Comitem Dorset It was moved by the Defendant that whereas the Plaintiff had prosecuted a Distring Jur. and onely eleven of the Jury appeared and the Inquest remained to be taken for want of Jurors and that at such time neither Plaintiff nor Defendant desired a Tales and afterwards the Defendant in another Terme prayed a Tales of that Writ which the Plaintiff had prosecuted and the Court denied to grant it because he prayed not a Tales when the Distress was retorned and if he would have a Tales he must purchase anew a Plur. distring and if then the Jury fill not the Defendant may pray a Tales and the Court ought to grant it And note upon the first Habeas Corpus the Defendant shall not have a Tales but in Default of the Plaintiff IF the Chamberlain of the County Palatine of Chester make an insufficient Return to the Court of Common Pleas upon a Writ issued out of that Court the Sheriff shall be amerced because the Sheriff is the Officer responsible to the Court. The King hath power to make and create a Leet anew where none was before A Distress is incident of Right but in a Court Baron a Prescription must be laid to distrain J. Rogers versus Powell My Lord Cook held that the Surrender of a Copy-hold in Tail is not any Discontinuance and Justice Foster of the same opinion In Doctor Husseys case in a Ravishment de gard wherein the Judgement is penal the Habeas Corpus was denied by the Court to be amended being a blank Writ after a Verdict but was adjudged Error For the Proviso in the Statute of Jeofailes 18 Eliz. excepts Actions upon penal Statutes One Jury was impannelled of the Town of Southampton and called to the Bar and made Default and the men of that Town shewed to the Court a Grant made to the Inhabitants of that Town that no Return should be made of the men of that Town to be of any Jury and prayed the Allowance of their Charter and the Court appointed them to plead their Charter and it was done accordingly TRier versus Littleton A special Verdict was found whether Fraud or not Fraud and the Jury did not finde the Fraud expresly but they found Circumstances that the Deed might seem thereby to be fraudulent but the Court will not adjudge it Fraud where the Jury do not expresly finde the Fraud for the Judges have nothing to do with matter of Fact and so by the whole Court no Fraud Tenant for Life Remainder for Life Remainder in Tail Remainder in Fee the first Tenant for Life suffereth a Recovery the Remainder in Tail is barred although the second Estate for Life be no party Baron Feme seised of the Wives Land for Life of the Wife Remainder to the Husband and Wife in Tail and afterwards the Husband doth bargain and sell the Land by Deed inrolled and a Precipe is brought against the Bargainee and he voucheth them in Remainder this is a good Recovery to barr the Estate Tail If an Information be brought against three upon the Statute of Maintenance and two of them appear and the third doth not appear the Plaintiff may declare against the two that do appear before the other appears for it is but a Trespass and Contempt as in Trespass and Conspiracy but it is otherwise in Debt upon a joynt Contract for there the Plaintiff cannot declare against one untill the Process be determined against the other by the opinion of the whole Court If Judgement be entred in Trespass of Oct. Hillarii the Writ to inquire of Damages may bear teste of any other Return of that Terme besides of Octab. Hillarii for the Terme is as one Day and so hath been adjudged upon a Writ of Error in the upper Bench but it is otherwise held in the Common Pleas. If a Bargain and Sale be void in part it is void in all If an Officer or priviledged person of the Court of Common Pleas sue another priviledged man of any other Court whatsoever yet he of the Common Pleas that first sued shall force the other priviledged person to answer in the Common Pleas but if a priviledged man be sued with another as Executor no Priviledge lies Summons and Severance lies between Executors Plaintiffs and if one of the Executors be outlawed or excommunicated he may be demanded and if he comes not shall be severed by an award without Process after he hath appeared and the other shall proceed without him but if he had not appeared then Summons and Severance shall issue out against him FLetcher versus Robson An Extent upon a Statute Merchant issued out against Robson the Cognisor and the Sheriff returned that the Cognisor was possessed of divers Goods and seised of Lands which he delivered to the Cognisee and that the Cognisee accepted of the Land and because the Sheriff did not return that he had not any other Lands Goods or Chattels it was
adjudged insufficient and a new Writ awarded but many held that in the case of a Cognisor it was well enough but not in the case of a Purchasor If one knowledge a Statute and after a Judgement is had against the Cognisor now against the Cognisor the Statute shall be preferred but not against an Executor If a man plead a Bond knowledged to the King in the Exchequer it must be averred to be a true Debt If a Debt be assigned to the King in this case no priority of Execution If one staul a Debt by 20. s. a year this shall not stay my Execution the Court were of opinion that an Extent would not be good at Barwick for the Writ runs not there If a Judgement be given in a Court of Record it shall be preferred in case of an Executor before a Statute But if a man acknowledge a Statute and afterwards confess a Judgement and if the Land be extended upon the Judgement the Cognisee shall have a Scire facias to avoid the Extent upon the Judgement otherwise in case of Goods for therein first come first served for if I have a Judgement against one and afterwards he acknowledgeth a Statute and by vertue of the Statute the Goods of him being dead were taken in the Executors hands then upon the Judgement a Scire facias was sued and afterwards a Fieri facias of the Testators Goods it was held that the Goods first extended were lawfully extended and shall be good A Judgement was had against Sir Fr. Freeman and an Extent came to the Sheriff and afterwards and before any thing was thereupon done one Fieri facias against the Executor upon a Judgement given before the acknowledging the Statute was delivered to the Sheriff and the Question was whether the Extent or Fieri facias shall be first executed And note if the Land be first extended upon the Statute and afterwards an Elegit upon a Judgement obtained before the acknowledging the Statute come also to the Sheriff the moity of the Land extended shall be delivered to the Plaintiff upon the Judgement HIll 15. Jac. The case of Villainage is within the Statute of Limitation and in the case of M. Corbet it was held that the Prescription of the Seisin of the Plaintiff and his Ancestors as Villain was more then needeth and the Issue thereupon taken was good by the whole Court after Exception taken thereupon and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff In every Elegit the Sheriff must return and set out the moity distinctly unless they be Tenants in common and in that case he must return the special matter An Extent issued out against one Greisley by the name of Greisley Esquire who was at the time of suing out the Writ made Knight and Baronet and it was naught and the Plaintiff prosecuted a new Writ MIch 10. Jacobi A Tenant by Statute Staple or Elegit that hath extended an Abbots Lease or a Lease made out of an Abbots Lease is not bound to shew it because he cometh in by Act of Law but any other that cometh in under the Lease must shew it by the opinion of the whole Court And note that in Hillary 10. Jac. two Inquisitions taken at several Dayes by several Juries upon one Statute Merchant were adjudged naught one was taken of the Land and the other for Land and Goods and Extent of the whole fourth part was naught for it should be of the moity of the fourth part and mark it was of a Lease which was but a Chattell and the Sheriff might have sold it as Goods but seeing he had extended it in this case he should receive benefit but as in a common Extent COmyrrs versus Brandling A Lessee that had a Lease of the value of 100. l. and after the Teste of the Elegit and before the Sheriff had executed the Elegit assignes his terme to one who assignes it over to the Plaintiff in the Scire facias and afterwards and before the last Assignement the Sheriff executes the Elegit and delivers the Lease to the Plaintiff tenend c. for satisfaction of the Debt which came to but 43. l. 6. s. 8. d. it was held by all the Judges that the Sheriff could not deliver the Lease at another value then what the Jury had found it at and the Sale made by the Sheriff is as strong as if it had been made in open Market and that all the Goods and Chattels are bound after the Teste of the Elegit and cannot be sold by the Owner after the Teste of the Writ If a later Extent be avoided by an ancient Extent after the ancient Extent is satisfied the later Extent shall have the Land according to his first Extent without any re-extent by the opinion of Serjeant Hutton if the Husband charge the Lease of the Wife and dieth the Wife shall hold the Land discharged HIll 12. Jac. The Earl of Lincoln against Wood the Earl of Lincoln did arrest Wood upon a Capias upon a Statute Merchant Wood being in Execution obtained in the Chancery an Audita Quaerela and did put in Bail there and had a Supersedeas and was discharged of his Imprisonment and the Audita Quaerela and Bail sent into the Common Pleas to be proceeded on The cause of the Audita Quaerela was grounded upon the performance of the Defeasons of a Statute and after this case was debated for the Bailment of Wood and held by the Court to be good it was allowed of If the Act for Dissolution of Monasteries had not given the Land to the King the Founders ought to have had them And if an Hospital or religious House is impeached upon the Statute of Superstitious uses it must be proved to be regular for they must be religious that are dissolved by E. 6. JOules versus Joules Alderman purchased Land of one against whom a Judgement was given long before the Purchase and the Vendor afterwards became unable to pay the Judgement and long after the Plaintiff in the Judgement purchased a Scire facias against the Defendant and had Judgement against the Defendant by Default and afterwards had an Elegit and by vertue of that the Sheriff extends the Land of Joules the Purchasor who prayes the aid of the Court because the whole Land was not extended but he was forced to bring his Audita Quaerela If I make a Lease for years reserving a Rent during my Life and my Wives Life if I die the Rent is gone because she is a stranger she shall never have the Rent because she hath no Interest in the Land if one of them die nothing can survive to the other and a Limitation must be taken strictly otherwise it is by way of Grant that shall be taken strongly against the Grantor If 2. Tenants in common joyn in a Lease for years to bring an Ejectment and count Quod cum dimisissent c.
that is naught for it is a several Lease of their Moities and you must declare Quod cum one of them demised one moity and the other the other moity and good If a Tenant in Socage hath Issue and die his Issue being under the age of 14. years the next Freind of the Heir to whom the Inheritance cannot descend shall have the Guard of the Land untill the Heir come to the age of 14. years and he is called Guardion in Socage and in pleading a Lease for Life you are never to alleadge the place where the Lease was made because it passeth by Livery which was executed upon the Land He that pleads a Demise ought to shew that the Lessee entred and he that pleads a Descent ought to shew that he entred and an Exchange is a good Plea in Bar but it shall never be adjudged a good Exchange except this word Escambium be used in the Charter of Exchange HOpkins versus Radford A Defendant shall take no benefit of his own wrong In Sir James Harringtons case the Original was returned Quinque Pasch and the issue joyned that day and the Venire facias returned that day and held naught by the Court upon the first motion A future Lease cannot be surrendred but drowned For things in Action a Deed of Gift is void as Debts without Specialty although he say Goods Chattels and Specialties but for other Debts by Specialty and Goods it is good and for the Debts in Action after the Death of the Party Administration is to be granted and the Administrator is to have the Goods RAiner versus Mortimer One had Judgement upon a Scire facias to have Execution and a Capias ad satisfaciendum returnable 15. Martini and that Writ was returned Album Breve and a Testatum thereupon and the Defendant taken and this matter was moved to the Court and a Supersedeas prayed that the Testatum issued out erroneously because the Capias was not returned and it was granted by the whole Court because the Capias was not returned One seised in Fee may bargain and sell grant and demise Land to others and their Heirs to the use of one for years because he hath a Fee-simple but Lessee for years cannot bargain and sell his Lease to the use of one for years If a Marriage is intended between two men and one of them in consideration that the other hath upon the Marriage assured Land to his Son he doth assume to pay to my Son such a Summ immediately after the Marriage if the Money be not paid the Son must have the Action and not the Father MIch 5. Jacobi 61. One Jury-man appear in Court and when he came to the Barr to be sworn he informed the Court that he was eighty years old and prayed to be dischargâ—d and the Court could not grant it nor pass him by and swear others without committing Error except the Parties would consent for it is Error to skip a Juror who is returned if he appear and therefore the Juror was drawn by the consent of the Parties TRin. 6. Jacobi Upon a Levari facias out of a Court Baron Goods cannot be sold without a Custome to sell the Goods and if Goods be attached by Pone out of a Court Baron the Defendant shall not lose his Cattle otherwise it is if it be a Process out of the Common Pleas then the Defendant loseth his Cattle for not appearing if you lay that you have a Court time out of minde to be held before a Steward you must shew what Pleas you have used to have Conusance of A Sheriff returned but 21. onely upon a Venire facias and at the Triall ten onely appeared and a Decem tales was awarded and tried and Verdict for the Plaintiff and this matter was moved in Arrest of Judgement for that the Sheriff had returned but 21. and the Court were of opinion that if 12. of them had appeared that it had been good notwithstanding but because 10. onely appeared of the principal therefore it was naught and Judgement arrested for that cause If a Juror be sworn of the principal and the Jury remain when the Jury comes again he shall be sworn again TRin. 6. Jac. rotulo 251. Dunnall versus Giles A special Verdict and the Question was a man being possessed of a terme devises the whole terme to A. for Life and if he dies within the terme to B. during the minority of C. and that C. when he comes to full age shall have the Remainder of the terme and held a good Devise To devise Land or Terme or Lease all one it is an Executory Devise If one surrender Land to the use of an Estranger that is to resty the use in Reversion for the Land is in him immediately If a man hath a Rent in esse you cannot grant that in Reversion after your Death but if I surrender to the use of one after my Decease is not good by his opinion of Warburton and Daniel If the Sheriff shall by vertue of a Fieri facias levy the Debt and Damages of a man and make a Return that the said Goods remain in his hands for want of Buyers the Property remains still in the Defendant although the Sheriff hath Possession of the Goods A Sheriff may sell Goods levied upon a Fieri facias out of his County In Watermans case the Issue was whether a Copy-holder in one Town had Common in Land lying in another Town and the Plaintiff shews that he is Lord of the Hundred of C. within which Hundred one of the Villages lie and prayes a Venire facias of the Town next adjoyning to the said Hundred and it was granted and tried and Exception to the Triall for that the Venire was not of both Villages An Alien born being no free Denizen may defend and bring a Writ of Error and it is no Plea to say that he is an Alien born Note by the Common Law the Lord of the Mannour may come and take away a Tree cut down upon the Copy-hold Land by his Copy-holder without laying a special Custome for it If there be an unlawfull Marriage as the Brother doth marry his Sister and they have Issue and one of them dieth before any Divorce had between them now after the Death of one of them the Issue cannot be bastarded as in Cordies case 39 E. 43. 22 E. 4. After a general Imparlance one cannot plead an Outlary in Barr to an Action of Trespass or Case but it must be pleaded in abatement except he be outlawed after the last Continuance for you shall plead nothing in Barr but what goeth to the pit of the Action now the Damages in Trespass or Case are not forfeited by Outlary as Debt because of the incertainty To the Owner of the Soil on both sides of the way of common right belong the Trees that grow in the Lane whether
he be Lord or Free-holder The best badge of truth is the usage of taking the profit of the Trees 11 H. 4. rot 80. Where the Court ex officio should inquire and that omitted the Court may supply it but where an Attaint lyeth that is not to be supplied as in a Valore Maritagii the value is the point of the Writ and if that be omitted by the Jury never to be supplied by Writ Cheyneys case Valore Maritagii and intrusion were at the Common Law before the Statute and the Statute doth but inlarge the Common Law for by the Statute the Judgement is otherwise then at the Common Law It is vain to plead the Execution of a Writ of Seisin upon a Recovery but to plead that he did enter MIch 10. Jac. If I purchase Land by a name and alleadge it to be in a wrong Parish or Shire it is good notwithstanding the mistake by the Court. A stranger shall be bound by a Law made for the publique good but he must come within the place where it was made The King cannot grant precedency in publique things as to go by Water or by passage on the Land as by Coach if a Bond bear Date Super altum mare then it must-be sued onely in the Admiral Court otherwise it cannot be sued there Every Bishop hath his Cathedral and Councel and the Councel and Bishop there decide matters of Controversie the Prebends have their names from their affording of help to the Bishop and in time of the vacancy of the Bishop the Arch-bishop is Guardian of the Spiritualties and not the Dean and Chapter TRin. 14. Jac. rotulo 1810. Birtbrook versus Battersby Exception raken after Triall The Action was laid in Westmerland and the Jurata written at the end of the Record was Ebor. ss ura Inter c. and recites the Day of Triall in the County of York and the place where the Triall was at York and prayed that it might be amended and it was granted to be amended by the whole Court INt. Bullen Jarvis The Venire facias was made in this Form Videlicet Liberos legales homines de B. and it should have been De vicineto de B. and it was notwithstanding held good and amendable by the Roll for it shall be intended that the Jurors are inhabiting in the Town of B. although the Sheriff returns the Jurors of other places and none of them be named of B. and the Venire facias was returned by A. B. Ar. without naming him Vic. and it was amended by the Court. GRiffin versus Palmer Trin. 15. Jac. rotulo 924. Issue taken whether the Lands contained in the Fine were ancient Demesne or not pretending they were parcell of the Mannour of Bowden in the County of Northampton which was pretended to be ancient Demesne and the Doomesday Book was brought into the Court and by that Book it appeared that the Mannour of Bowden was in the County of Leicester and not in the County of Northampton but the Councel affirmed that the Mannour was both in the County of Leicester and Northampton but it valued not for the Doomsday Book was against the Plaintiff The Court was moved to amend a Venire facias which was Album Breve but the Court would not grant it although the Sheriffs name was put to the Pannell but if the Sheriff upon the Venire facias had returned that the Execution of that Writ did appear in a certain Pannell annexed to that Writ and had not put his name to the Writ of Venire facias but to the Pannell in such case the Court would have amended the Venire facias Lessee at will cannot grant one his Estate if one occupy with Tenant at will this is no Disseisin to the Lessor If a Tenant for seven years suffer Trees to grow above the age of 21. years they are Timber and it is waste to cut them Tenant at will shall pay his Rent when he holdeth over his terme but Tenant at sufferance shall not pay any Rent If a man holdeth over his terme and pay his old Rent he shall be accounted Tenant at will If one being sick giveth Notes to make his Will and after by infirmity of sickness he becometh so weak that his memory faileth him and these Notes are made into a Will this is a good Will otherwise it is if he become lunatique after the Notes given MIch 15. Jacobi One Warter was committed to the Fleet by the Lord Treasurer of England and the Prisoner was brought to the Common Pleas by Habeas Corpus which was returned and no cause of the Commitment expressed and for that cause the Prisoner was set at liberty and bailed TRinity Terme 15. Jacobi Hanson one of the Attorneys of the Common Pleas delivers a Note to the Sheriffs Clerk of the names of divers Jurors that were to be returned and of divers others that were not to be returned in a case concerning one Butler and for this Offence he was put out of the Roll of Attorneys In Spilmans case if I have Estovers in Land and cut down Estovers and a stranger taketh away the Estovers I shall have an Action against him that taketh them away although he have there Common of Estovers also If the Husband sow the Ground and die the Executors and not the Heir shall have the Corn but if the Father sow the Land and dieth or the Heir sow the Land and the Wife recover Seisin in Dower she shall have the Corn. The setting open a Shop on the Sabbath day is punishable by Statute Law and so is a House of Bawdry and not to be dealt with by the high Commissioners So long as the Land is occupied by him that hath the Fee-simple which did formerly belong to the Order of the Cistercians it shall pay no Tithes but if he let it for years or life the Tenant shall pay Tithes HIll 11. Jac. rotulo 90. A Recovery was had upon a Writ of Entry in le post for a common Recovery between Hartley and Towers in the County of Bucks the Attorney who prosecuted the Recovery by negligence did not file the Writ of Entry which was prosecuted orderly and all Fees paid when the Recovery was passed And in Easter Terme 14. Jac. it was moved that the Writ of Entry might be filed and it was granted although the Tenant was dead the Writ of Entry was returnable Octabis Purificationis MIch 14. Jacobi My Lord Hubbard Justice Warburton and Winch held that when there were but three Judges of the Common-Pleas they might argue Demurrs and if two of them were of one minde and one of the other the Judgement should be given according to their opinions My Lord Cook said that for the Body of the Church the Ordinary is to place and displace in the Chancell the Freehold is in the Parson and it is parcell of his Gleab Tpespass will
lie by the Heir for pulling down the Coat-Armor c. of his Ancestors set up in the Church A Pew cannot belong to a House Fraud shall never be intended except it be apparent and found and that conveyance which at the time of the making was good shall never by matter ex post facto be adjudged to be fraudulently made for before primo Eliz. at the Common Law A conveyance made for natural affection without valuable consideration is not to be avoided none shall avoid it but such as come in upon valuable considerations Lands devised to one in Tail upon condition that he shall not alien and for Default of such the Remainder to R. in Tail this is a Condition and no Limitation by the whole Court and the Heir at the Common Law may enter for the Alienation Matters of instance which are between party and party as for Tithes and Matrimony are not to be dealt withall by the high Commissioners if they proceed inverso ordine that cannot be holpen in the Common Pleas but by superior Magistrate if they be Judges of the cause If one in Norfolk come within another Dioces and commit Adultery in another Dioces during the time of his residence he may be cited in the Dioces where he committed the Offence although he dwell out of the Dioces by Cook Warburton and Winch. If the King grant Lands to A. and his Heirs Males and doth not say of his Body he is but Tenant at will Tamen quaere A Deputy of an Office for Bribery cannot make his Master be punished corporally but pecuniarily equity shall not barr me of the benefit of Law Note the Probate of Wils and Administrations did not belong to the Ordinary originally but to the Common Law If two Aliens be at Issue the Inquest shall be all English but if between an Alien and Denizen that Inquest shall be de medietate Linguae 21 H. 6. 4. A Judgement given against a dead person is not void but Error 28. Ass 17. A Juror was committed to the Fleet For making his Companions stay a whole Day and a Night having no reason for it and without the Assent of any of the rest of his Fellows and after was bailed but not untill the Court was advised 8 E. 3. 75. In a Writ of Estate Probanda every Juror ought to be of the Age of 42. years If I grant Land to one and his Heirs in the Premises of the Deed Habendum to him and the Heirs of his Body he shall have the Land in Tail and the Fee-simple after the State in Tail when the Estate is certain in the Premises the Habendum shall not controll it If one make two Executors one of seventeen years of Age and the other under Administration during the minority is void because he of seventeen years old may execute the Will of Administration during the minority in such case be granted and the Administrator brings his Action the Executor may well release the Debt Pigot and Gascoins case If a Record go once to Triall and warning given if the first Attorney be alive the Plaintiff is not tied to give warning again but if the Attorney be dead he is If no place of Payment be in a Will which appointeth Money to be paid there must be a Request to pay the Money for he is not bound to seek all England over for him otherwise it is if it were by Bond. In every case where the Plaintiff might have Judgement against the Defendant there if the Plaintiff be non-suit the Defendant shall have his Costs if the Plaintiff be non-suit TRin. 11. Jac. In cases of remitting causes from the inferior Judge the Arch-deacon cannot remit the cause to the Arch-bishop but he must remit it to his Bishop and he to the Arch-bishop It was held by the Court that one might distrain for a Legacy In a special Verdict the Plaintiff must begin to argue first OLive versus Hanmer A Writ of Error was brought upon a Judgement by Nil dicit for want of a Warrant of Attorney and the Record certified and a Certior are to the Clerk of the Warrants and Error assigned for want of a Warrant And the Court was moved that a Warrant might be filed and it was granted and a Warrant filed accordingly Pasch 12. Jac. An Action was brought against Baron feme and an Attorney appeared for the Husband alone and the Court held it was the Appearance of Baron feme in Law PAsch 12. Jacobi Sheriff versus Whitsander One Judgement was confessed in Trin. 42. Eliz. rotulo 504. And afterwards in Trinity Terme 43. Eliz. the Defendant brought a Writ of Error bearing Date the 12. of May Anno 43. and upon that Writ the Record was certified 25. May and afterwards Error was assigned in the upper Bench for want of a Warrant of Attorney by the Defendant And Mich. 43. 44. Eliz. the Warrant of Attorney was received and entred upon Record by Order of Court of Common Pleas. And the like was Pasch 2. Jac. rotulo 1956. Int. Bathgrone and Smith and the like Mich. 1. Jac. rotulo 1306. Inter Smith Kent CRane versus Colpit Question was whether the Attornement of an Infant be good or not and by the whole Court it was held good by three Reasons First he gives no Interest Secondly it is to perfect a thing Thirdly he is a Free-holder IT was held in the case of Gage an Attorney who as an Administrator brought an Action of Priviledge that his Priviledge ought not to be allowed And after a Bill was filed against Drury an Attorney as Executor and held that the Bill would not lie but in both cases the Suit should be by Original BEarbrook versus Read The name of Confirmation must stand for Sir Francis Gawdy was christened Thomas and confirmed Francis by that name he must be called SIr Henry Compton was sued for Cloathes of his Wife bought without his command or privity and the whole Court were of opinion that if the Wife should buy Merchandises and thereof make Cloathes and wear those Cloathes although the Husband know nothing of them yet he shall pay for them PAsch 10. Jac. The Court was moved to know whether the Wife of a Bankrupt can be examined by the Commissioners upon the Statute of Bankrupt and they were of opinion she could not be examined For the Wife is not bound in case of high Treason to discover her Husbands Treason although the Son be bound to reveal it therefore by the Common Law she shall not be examined An Infant shall not be examined If an Administration be granted to one during the minority of two Infants and one of them dieth the Administration continueth still Actions of Debt LOvelace versus Cocket Mich. 6. Jac. rotulo 1001. Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation for the Paiment of Money at a
Indenture the Covenant was for quiet injoying without let trouble interruption c. The Plaintiff assigned his Breach that he forbad his Tenant to pay his Rent this was held by the Court to be no Breach unlesse there were some other Act and the Defendant pleaded that after the time the Plaintiff said that he forbad the Tenant to pay the Rent the Tenant did pay the Rent to the Plaintiff LEvel versus Hall Pasch 9. Jac. rotulo 805. An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation to which the Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff brought another Action upon the same Bond in London to which the Defendant there had pleaded Non est factum and it was there found that it was not the Defendants Deed and in London the Entry is upon such a Verdict that the Defendant shall recover Damages against the Plaintiff and that the Defendant should be without day c. but no Judgement that the Plaintiffe should take nothing by his Writ and therefore no Judgement to be barred in another Suit but barr the Plaintiffe for it is onely a triall and no Judgement and the Plea was adjudged naught by the whole Court MIch 15. Jac. Rotulo 2215. One made another his Executor and that Executor died and made another his Executor and the last Executor refused to own his first Will as to his goods and this matter was pleaded in his Action of Debt brought by an Administrator of the Goods of the first Executor pretending the Administration was void although the Executor refused to be Executor as to the Goods and the Court held the Administration void for the Executor cannot be Executor for part at his own Election and not for part and the Defendant pleaded that the Executor should not bring his Action as Administrator but as Executor WHerwood versus Shaw Mich. 44. and 45 Eliz. Shaw Executor of A. brought an Action of Debt against Wherwood Administrator of Feild upon a Bill made by Field to A. by which Feild doth acknowledge himself to have received of one P. forty l. to be equally divided between the said A. and B. to their use and upon a Judgement given in the Common Pleas Wherwood brings a Writ of Error and the Judgement was affirmed the matters moved were i. because the forty pounds was given to be equally divided between A and B. therefore they were Tenants in common of it and Shaw should have joyned B. in the Action with himself as Tenants in common are to joyn in personall action but over-ruled that in this case there were severall Debts to wit twenty pound to one and twenty pounds to the other as in case of ten pounds rent reserved upon a Lease to wit five pounds at the Feast of Michaelmas and five pounds at the Feast of the Annunciation yet it is but one Rent and this case is not to be resembled to the Cases of Interest as in the 20 Eliz. where Land or Lease be giuen to two equally to be divided for there they are Tenants in common The second thing moved was whether Debt or account did ly and adjudged that although no contract was between the parties yet when either money or goods are delivered upon consideration to the use of A. A. may have an Action of Debt and of that opinion was Mountain 28 H. 8. in Core and Woods Case and also there is a President of such Actions of Debt in the Book of Entries BRoad versus Owen Mich. 44 and 45 Eliz. The Plaintiffe brought an Action of Debt upon the Statute of 5 Eliz for Perjury against the Defendant the case was thus one Low was Plaintiffe against Brode in the high Court of Chancery and upon Bill and Answer such matter appeared to the Lord Keeper that he ordered that one Labourer should become party to the Bill against Brode and afterwards one Commission issued out of Chancery between Labourer and Brode to examine Witnesses by which Commission Owen the now Defendant was examined on the behalf of Labourer and did depose directly for Labourer against Brode by reason whereof one Order and Decree was made in the Chancery against Brode and for that cause Brode brought his Action of Debt against Owen upon the Statute of Perjury 5 Eliz. for one party grieved by the Oath and Deposition of another and Owen demurrs in Law and by the opinion of Gaudy and Yelverton Justices the Action would not lie for the words of the Statute are where a man is grieved and damnified by a Deposition in one Suit between party and party and in this Case it appeared that Labourer was no party to the Suit but came in by an Order and no Bill depending either against him or brought by him and so out of the Statute for it is penall and to be taken strictly and quaere if he in the Reversion joyn in aid and is grieved and prejudiced by an Oath and Deposition may maintain an Action of Debt upon this Statute for he may undoubtedly by the Common Law have an Attaint GReen versus Gascoin Pasch 1. Jacobi An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation for an hundred pounds to which the Defendant pleads in Barr to the Action an Outlary against the Plaintiff and shews it incertain the Plaintiff replies Nul tiel record and the Defendant had Day till the next Term to bring in the Record and in the mean time the Plaintiff reverses the Outlary by which it is become in Law no Record according to the 4 H. 7. 12. And Yelverton moved the Court for the Defendant that although in Law there was a Failer of the Record yet the Defendant ought not to be condemned but shall answer over according to the 6. of Eliz. Dier fol. 228. where it is adjudged that Failer of the Record is not peremptory and so adjudged for it was no Default in the Defendant his Plea being true at such time as it was pleaded with mark WEaver versus Clifford Action of Debt brought for an Escape the Case was thus upon the Nichils returned against a Conusor in Chancery a Capias was awarded out of the Chancery against him by vertue of which he was taken by the Sheriff and suffered to escape and adjudged that no Action would lie against the Sheriff in this Case for a Capias lies not upon a Recognisance but onely a Scire facias and therefore when a man is taken upon the Capias he is not a Prisoner by the course of Law for the Law hath not ordained any means to arrest him and is therefore in Custody without Warrant and no Escape and it is an illegal Commitment and so is the â—ratuâ—e of Westminster the 2. to bâ— constâ—ued which gâ—… Action against the the Gaolor to wit where the party is in Execution by course of Law and although the Chancery doth award a Capias upon a Recognisance and that there are divers Preâ—â—lents of it et it is bâ—t the use of that
and determined for he prosecuted the Suit in anothers Right and is but a Minister of the Ordinary and then when the Ground of the Suit is over-thrown to wit his Commission he hath no Authority to proceed further and the Execution issued without Warrant And the like Law upon a Judgement had upon an Administrator the second Administrator shall not have Execution by it for he hath no privity to the Record which mark ANdrews versus Robbins Trin. 4. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought Debt upon an Obligation made to him as Sheriff with a Condition that the Defendant should appear and Crook said that the Defendant had pleaded his Appearance and had omitted to say as it appears by the Court and it was held a grosse Fault but the Record being perused it appeared to be otherwise for the Case was that the Defendant was obliged to make an Obligation to appear in the Kings Bench at a day prefixed in the Writ and that the Defendant pleaded there was no day prefixed in the writ for his Appearance and Crook moved that it was no Plea for the Defendant was estopped to which the Court agreed that he was estopped and Williams said that if a man be bound to pay a hundred pounds that I. S. owes to him he cannot plead that I. S. doth not owe him a hundred pounds and Tanfield said if it were to pay all sums that I. S. owed him he isconcluded so it is held 3 Eliz. Dyer And the Court commanded Judgement to be entred for the Plaintif if no cause shewed tothe contrary such a day JAckson versus Kirton Trin. 4. Jacobi In Common Pleas an Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation the Condition was that if A. would render himself to an Arrest in such a place c. The Defendant pleads that by Priviledge of Parliament those of the Parliament and their necessary Servants ought not to be arrested by the space of forty Dayes before the Parliament nor sitting the Parliament nor forty Dayes after and sets forth that A. was a Servant to such a man of the Parliament at such a time so that he could not render himself to be arrested to which the Plaintiff demurrs and the opinion of the Court was for the Plaintiff for A. might render himself and let it be at their perill if they will arrest him MArkham versus Jerux Hill 4. Jac. Action of Debt brought upon a Bond with a Condition to stand to the Award Arbitrement c. of Master Porley of Grays Inn about the Title of one Copy-hold Tenement M. P. awarded c. that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff six pounds upon the 21 May 3 Jac. at such a place to wit in the Church Porch of C. and further awards that the Plaintiff by his Deed should release to the Defendant his whole Right c. upon the said 〈◊〉 Day of May at the same place upon the payment of the Money and in another Clause of the Award he awarded that the Plaintiff should make further Assurance to the Defendant for the extinguishing of his Title as should be advised c. And Yelverton moved that this Arbitrement was void and is in a manner no Award for it is repugnant and insensible for although it be certain at what Day the Defendant should pay the six pounds yet it doth not appear when nor upon what Day the Plaintiff should release to the Defendant for there is no such first Day of May in the whole Award and it is not bound or tied to any year of the King so that it is altogether incertain and although it may be collected that the Arbitrator did intend the 21. Day of May because it is appointed to be made upon the payment of the six pounds which was the 21. May yet it is not expressed but onely by way of inference and implication and it was objected that admit the Award to be void in that part yet it is good in the residue which is to be performed by the Plaintiff to wit the making of better assurance to which Yelverton answered that all the Clauses in one Award are material and the Clause of further assurance depends upon the repugnant Clause of the Release to be made for the Award appoints that the Release is to be made upon the said first Day of May whereas no such Day in the whole Award shall be the first assurance and the assurances which were to be made by the following Clause were in the intention of the Arbitrator to be for the strengthning of the first Release which was granted and the Court said there was much difference between Wills and Deeds and between Arbitrements for Deeds c. shall be construed according to the intent of the parties and upon the words to be collected out of the Deeds but an Award is of the nature of a Judgement and Sentence in which ought to be plainnesse and no collection of the intent and meaning of the Arbitrators for how it ought to be his Judgement and not the Judgement of another upon the words of the Arbitrator and Tanfeild said it had been adjudged that where the Arbitrator did award that one of the parties should become bound to the other in the summ of and no summ in certain but a space left for the summ that it was void and if an Arbitrement be void in one Clause although it be good in all Clauses yet it is in Law no Award for a Judgement ought to be plain certain and perfect in all things but if the Arbitrators award that one of the parties and J. S. an Estranger shall do such a thing that is good as to the party who is within the Submission and void onely to I. S. the Estranger 19 E. 4. ATkins versus Gardiner Pasch 5. Jac. The Plaintiff being President of the Colledge of Phisicians in London brought an Action of Debt against the Defendant for practising Phisick upon the Charter made to them by H. 8. that none should practise Phisick in London nor within seven Miles thereof except such as were authorised by them and gives them Authority to impose Fines upon such as shall practise Phisick which Charter was confirmed by Act of Parliament in 14 H. 8. and he obtained Judgement upon the Statute to recover a summ for himself and the Colledge and before Execution the President died and whether the Successor should have Execution and 8 E. 1. was cited and divers other Books to that purpose STamford versus Cooks Pasch 5. Jacobi An Action of Debt brought upon an Obligation with a Condition that the Defendant should seal such Assurances as should be devised by the Plaintiff and that the Assurance should be of Copy-hold Land and the Plaintiff devised that the Defendant should seal a Letter of Attorney made to one to surrender the Copy-hold for him and also seal one Bond for the injoying thereof and the Plaintiff offered these Writings to the Defendant
whole Court for they said that the Demand must be made at the place of payment although it be of the Land FIeld versus Hunt Mich. 5. Jacobi Hunt in VVorcester Court obtained a Judgement after a Verdict in Debt upon a Contract for twenty Sheep and after it was removed by a Writ of Error into the Kings Bench and generall Errors assigned but upon opening the Errors it was shewed the Court that there was no Declaration in VVorcester Court for the Declaration was thus Raphael Hunt complains against H. Field of a Plea that he render to him twenty pounds which he owes unto him and unjustly detains and whereof the same Plaintift by M. his Attorney whereas the said Defendant c. and by Fennor VVillams and Cook it is no Declaration for Default of this word Dicit and the sense is imperfect and although Yelverton objected that a Declaration is sufficient if it be good to a common intent and Quer. being writ short it may be Queritur and then it is and whereof the same complaines but the Court held that would not help for it is not certain to whom the word Idem should refer whether to the Plaintiff or Defendant and of the two it should rather refer to the Defendant which is the next Antecedent and the Court held it matter of substance which is wanting and therefore naught but if it had been 4. and whereof the same Raphael quer being writ short it had been good for because the party Plaintiff is certainly named and then Quer. could have no other sense then Queritur and Judgement reversed which mark HArrison versus Fulstow Mich. 5. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought Action of Debt for fourscore and six pounds in the Common Pleas against T. Harrison and the Capias was continued accordingly against T. Harrison but the Plur. capias was against William Harrison which was the very name of the Defendant and that was but for fourscore and five pounds which varied from the first Entry and William Harrison appeared upon the Exigent and the Plaintiff declares against William and he pleads and they are at Issue by the name of William and a Verdict for the Plaintiff and Judgement accordingly against William and upon a Writ of Error it was assigned for Error that the Original did not maintain the Proceedings for the Original is against Tho. and the Proceedings against William and the Plaintiffs Counsel would have excused it because the Judgement being against William and the Original against Tho. as it is certified it cannot be the Original against William and so the Judgement against William being without Original it is aided by the Statute after a Verdict but the Court held it to be Error for there is great Difference between no Original and a naughty Original for the want of an Original is helped but not a vitious Original and Judgement was reversed for upon Diminution alleadged that this Original was certified as the Original in that Suit or else there was no Obtulit at all LOthbury versus Humfrey Mich. 5. Jacobi Lothbury and his Wife Administratrix of VV. R. brought an Action of Debt as Administrator upon an Obligation of forty Marks dated 4. April 38 Eliz. made by the Defendant to the Intestate 1. the Defendant pleades that Ridge the Intestate October the first Jacobi made his Will and made the Defendant his Executor and devised the Obligation and the Money therein contained to one H. Son of the Defendant and died after whose Death the Defendant takes upon him the burthen of the Executorship and administers divers Goods of Ridges and that he is ready to aver this to which Plea the Plaintiff demurrs generally and adjudged for the Plaintiff for the Defendants Plea is not good without a Traverse that Ridge died intestate For the Action is brought as Administrator and they count upon a dying intestate and that being the ground of the Action ought to be traversed as it is 9 H. 6. 7. Debt brought against one as Administrator of J. and counts that J. died intestate the Defendant pleads that J. made his Will and made him Executor and held no Plea without a Traverse and the same Law 7 H. 6. 13. Debt brought against one R. Executor of R the Defendant pleads that R. died intestate at such a place and held no Plea for if the Plaintiff maintain that R. made the Defendant Executor and the other say that R. died intestate at such a place this makes no Issue and therefore the Defendant ought to traverse that R. died intestate without that that he made him Executor and 4 H. 7. 13. the very Case in question is adjudged that such a Plea in Barr is not good without a Traverse to wit to say without that that R. died intestate according to the 3 H 7. 14. and this was agreed by the whole Court without Argument CHeyney versus Sell Mich. 5. Jac. Cheyney as Executor of Cheyny brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation against Sell the case was that the Testator had put himself as an Apprentice to Sell for seven years and Sell bound himself to pay to his Apprentice his Executors or Assignes 10 l. at the time of the end or determination of his Apprentiship the Apprentice serves six years and then dies and it was moved by Towse that the Money was due at the time of his Death because then his Apprentiship ended for he said if a man make a Lease for one and twenty years to another and oblige himself to pay to the Lessee ten pounds at the end and expiration of his Term and within those years the Lessor infeoffes the Lessee so the term expires and the ten pounds should be paid instantly but Cook denied that Case because the Lessee hastened the end of his terme but he said that if a man lease Land to another for seven years if the Lessee should so long live and the Lessor oblige himself to pay ten pounds at the end of his terme and he die within seven years there he was of opinion the Money was presently due upon his Death but in the principal case the whole Court held the chief Justice being absent that the Obligation was discharged and that the Money should notbe paid WIllot versus Spencer Mich. 9. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt for Tithes of Wood upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. and Forster argued that Judgement ought not to be given for the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff did not shew in his Plaint that he was Parson for he ought to bring his Action according to that name that he claimed the Tithes by and this ought to be expressed in the Queritur and therefore if a man bring his Action to recover any thing as Heir Executor or Sheriff he ought to name himself so in the Queritur 30 H. 6. 9 H. 4. but Towse said the same Exception was taken between Merrick and Peters and disallowed Fleming Justice said
forth divers payments by him made and amongst other payments shews that he had payed to M. Fawn named in the Condition sixty pounds for a Legacy due by the Will of the said Ed. A. the payment of which sixty pounds was disallowed by that Court and by the Order of the Chancery sixty five pounds paid for not allowing the first sixty pounds to Ed. A. the Son which sixty and five pounds the Defendant had not repaid though thereunto requested and so he was damnified to which Replication the Defendant demurrs and the opinion of the whole Court after a great Debate was against the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff in his Replication had alleadged two Causes to inforce his Damage the first was that the Plaintiff in his Answer in the Chancery had alleadged the payment of sixty pounds to M. F. for a Legacy due to her by the Will and that such Allegation was rejected by the Court of Chancery and neither of those matters are certainly alleadged but by way of Implication and not expresly for he ought to have shewn that a Legacy of sixty pounds was given to M. F. by the Will of E. A. for although the Will of E. A. is recited in the Condition in the Date against which Recitall the Defendant may not be admitted to say that he made no such Will yet the Legacy given to M. F. is not recited in the Condition if not in the General against which the Defendant may take a Traverse that Eáw. A. did not bequeath such a Legacy of sixty pounds and upon that a good Issue may be taken And secondly the Plaintiff sayes that the payment of the said sixty pounds was disallowed by the Court of Chancery and doth not appear in the Replication where the Chancery was at that time to wit whether at Westminster or at any other place and it is issuable and triable by a Jury whether any such Order of Chancery were made or not for the Orders there are but in Paper and are not upon Record to be tried by Record but by a Jury and the Plaintiff perceiving the opinion of the Court against him prayed that he might discontinue his Suit which was granted by the whole Court but Quaere of this it being after a Demurrer WEaver versus Clifford Pasch 44. Eliz. rotulo 453. The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon an Escape against Clifford and declares that one A. was bound to the Plaintiff in one Recognisance of a hundred pounds to be paid at a Day at which Day A. made Default of Payment and the Plaintiff sued out two Scire fac and upon the second Scire fac a Nihil was returned and the Plaintiff had Judgement to recover and afterwards he sued out a Levari fac and a Nihil being returned the Plaintiff prosecuted a Capias ad satisfaciend by vertue of which Writ the Defendant being then Sheriff took the said A. and afterwards at D. in the County of S. permitted him to go at large to which the Declaration the Defendant demurred Damport for the Defendant and he shewed the cause of the Demurrer to be because a Capias upon the Recognisance did not lie and he divided the Case into two parts first whether a Capias would lie in the Case and secondly whether the Sheriff would take the Advantage of such a naughty Processe and as to the first it seemed to him that a Capias would not lie because it appeared by Herberts 5. Repub. fol. 12. And Garnons Case 5. Rep. fol. 88. that the Body of the Defendant was not liable to Execution for Debt by the Common Law but onely in Trespasse where a Fine was due to the King or that he was accountant to the King and the Plaintiff could have no other Processe but a Fieri facias within the year and if the year were passed then he might have a new Original in Debt But now by the Statute of Marlbrig cap. 23. And Westm. 2. cap. 11. a Capias is given in Account and by the 25 E. 3. c. 17. Capias is given in Debt and Detinue and by the 19 H. 7. c. 9. the like Processe is given in Case as in Debt and Trespasse and the 23 H. 8. c. 14. a Capias is given in a Writ of Annuity and Covenant but Statute gives a Capias in this Case and therefore it remaines as it was at Common and by that it would not lie which is also apparent by the Recognisance for that is that if the Debt shall be levied of the Goods and Chattels Lands and Tenements c. and doth not meddle with the Body and by an expresse Authority 13 14 Eliz. Dier 306. Puttenhams Case it is held that the Chancery hath no Authority to commit the Defendant to the Fleet upon a Recovery in a Scire facias upon a Recognisance because the Body is not liable And for the second point it seemed to him that the Sheriff should take Advantage of this which should be as void and as null whereof a stranger may take benefit and to prove this he took this Difference when a Processe will not lie and where it is disorderly awarded as if an Exigent be sued out before a Capias or an Execution before Judgement for if that Processe be originally supposed there the Processe is but erroneous in Druries Case 8. Rep. 142. 34 H. 6. 2. b. But if the Action it self will not maintain the Processe as a Capias in Formedon there that Processe is as void and null and he took another Diversity when the Capias is taken by the Award of the Court when Judgement is given that he shall recover for in that Case it shall remain good untill it be reversed because it is the Act of the Court and so is Druries Case to be intended but if the party himself take it it is at his own peril as here it is for the Plaintiff hath onely pleaded that he prosecuted c. which is as void to the party who sued it out and he shall have no benefit of it but the Sheriff shall not be punished for false Imprisonment because he is not to examine the illegality or validity of the Processe for the 11 H. 4. 36. If a Capias issue out without any Original and the party be taken the Sheriff shall not be punished and for these Reasons he prayed Judgement for the Defendant Noy was for the Plaintiff and he agreed that at the Common Law no Action did lie in this Case as it hath been said but he was of opinion that this Case is within 25 E. 3. cap. 17. for the intention and drift of the Statute was to give speedy remedy to recover Debts and the Action is all one in the eye of the Law as if it had been done by Original which in the equity of the Statute And a Capias lies upon a Recognisance against a Surety for the Peace and upon a Scire facias against the Bail in the Upper Bench. As to
Puttenhams Case the Reason because he was not in Execution before And for the second Objection although the Capias did not lie yet it is but Error for if the Court had Jurisdiction to hold plea of the Cause although the Process be naughtily awarded it is but Error of which the Sheriff shall not take benefit and therefore if a Woman have recovered in Dower and hath Damages in the Common Pleas and thereupon the party takes a Capias for the Damages and the party be taken and suffered to go at large it is an Escape 10 Hen. 7. 23. and if a Capias be awarded in the Common Pleas after the Record removed it is but Error and so ruled 13 E. 3. Title Barr 253. But if the Court hath no Jurisdiction in the cause as a Formedon brought in the upper Bench as it is 1 R. 3. 4. or an Appeal in the Common Pleas or where a Writ is awarded out of the Chancery returnable in Chester these are void and coram non Judice and there ought not to be any arrest upon such a Writ and he cited a Case Trin. 31. and 37. Eliz. in the Exchequer Woodhouse and Ognells Case ruled accordingy and as concerning the difference taken there is no other form of pleading but only quod prosecutus fuit quoddam c. without saying that it was by the award of the Court and the Court at that time did strongly incline that it was but Error at the most but Mich. 11 Ja. It was adjudged by the whole Court that the Capias could not ly and that it was onely Error of which the Sheriffe shall not take the benefit KKetleys Case Pasch 11 Jac. An Action of Debt brought for arrearages of Rent brought against R. upon a Lease for years the Defend pleads in Barr that the time of the Lease made he was within age to which the Plaintiff demurres and upon the first reading of the Record the question was whether a Lease made to an Infant be void and it was said it should be void otherwise it might be very prejudiciall to Infants whom the Law intends not to be of sufficient discretion for the mannaging of Land and also the Rent may be greater then the value of the Land to the great impoverishing of the Infant and took this difference where it is for the apparant benefit of the Infant a sa Lease made by an Infant rendring Rent and the like and when it is but an implied benefit as here for the Law intends that every Lease is made for the benefit of the Lessee although prima facie it seems to be but tail and trouble but the Court held it onely voidable as Election for if it be to the Infants benefit be that benefit apparant or implied it shall be void in no Case prima facie as 21 H. 6. 31. b. but the Infant may at his Election make it void for he shall before the Rent day come refuse and waive the Land an Action of Debt will not ly against him for otherwise such a Lease shall be more strong then any Fine or Record and great mischeif would insue and as to the prejudice it well be answered for if more Rent be reserved then the value of the Land he ought to have set it forth that it might have appeared to the Court which is not done for then clearly he should not have been bound for there had been no profit to the Infant as Russells Case is 5 Rep. 27. for if an Infant release it is not good except he hath received the money and it also appears by 21 H. 6. that if he did not enter and manure the Land that an Action of Debt would not ly against him but the principall Case was without colour for the Rent and taking the profits were Land as one day of the Reservation and secondly it was not shewed that the Rent was of greater value and thirdly the Defendant was of full age before the Rent day came HIggins Case Pasch 11 Jac. Action of Debt brought by Higgins against Yelverton was of an opinion at the Barr that if one be arrested upon a Processe in that Court and he puts in Bail and afterwards the Plaintiff recovers that he might at his Election take out his Execution either against the principall or Bail but if he took the Bail or arrested him or had him in Execution for the Debt although he had not full satisfaction he could not meddle with the Plaintiff but if two be Bail although one bee in Execution yet he may take the other also and Coderidge Justice was of the same opinion and Man the secondary said it was the daily practice there and so if the principall be in Execution he cannot take the Bail HAukinson versus Sandilands 11 Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation for forty pounds against the Defendant who demanded Oyer of the Condition and afterwards pleads that the Obligation was made and delivered by him and one M. who is still living at D and demands Judgement of the Writ to which the Plaintiff demnrres the words of the Obligation were Noverint universi c. adquam solucionem bene fideliter faciend Obligamus nos vel quemlibet nostrum And whether this was should be accounted a Writ Obligation or Severall at the Election of the Plaintiffe was the question and Ger. Cook was of opinion that it should be brought against both and his onely reason was that at most the Plaintiffe had but an Election for the word vel could not be taken for et as it is 11 H. 7. 13. a Grant made to J. S. at J. D. is void and 20 H. 6. grant to two to them or to the Heires of one of them is not good and then if he had only an Election he hath made that already for the Defendant hath pleaded and averred that is was made by two joyntly by the appearance whereof he hath agreed to take it accordingly but Yelverton argued in this manner that although the words in an Obligation be not proper and apt yet if they be substantiall it is enough and therefore 28 H. 8. 19. utrumque nostrum is adjudged good and the 21 R. 2. 939. ad quam quidem solucionem obligamus nos singulos nostrum is adjudged severall and joint and for a direct authority he cited 7 H. 4. 66. where an Obligation was nos vel alterum nostrum and the Plaintiff brought severall Precipes and adjudged good that he might make it severall or joynt and all the Judges were clearly of an opinion that the Action was well brought for as it hath been said the Plaintiff had his Election and that Election would be said to be executed by the joynt Delivery for there was no cause to make Election untill the Bond was perfected and therefore though one delivers it at one time and the other at another yet the Plaintiff may have a caput Precipe if he
will for the Election is in bringing the Action and the words vel and are but Synonimaes and Champions Case Plowden 286. is taken for vel and the 21 E. 3. 29. in Mallories Case u is taken for and therefore they gave Judgement that the Defendant should answer over FReeman versus Shield Trin. 11 Jacobi and adjudged Pasch 12 Jacobi Freeman brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation against Shield and proved Oyer of the Condition which was that if the Defendant should stand to the Award and Arbitrement of J. S. that then c. the Defendant pleads that the Arbitrators awarded that whereas there was no suit in the Chancery depending against the Plaintiff for divers matters that the Plaintiff should be acquitted of that suit and of all the matters contained in the same Bill and the Defendant further alledges that he did not make any prosecution of the said Bill but that the Plaintiff stands acquitted thereof the Plaintiff replies that the Defendant after the said Award such a year and day did exhibit a new Bill which did contain the same matter which the first Bill had and set forth at large both the Bills by which it appeared to the Court that it was so to which Plea the Defendant Demurres and the cause of the Demurrer onely was because the Plaintiff had pleaded that the Defendant had exhibited a new Bill but had not alledged any Processe taken forth upon the same Bill and if this be a breach of the award is the question Govin was for the Plaintiff and he was of opinion that it was a breach for the words were quod staret acquietatus and to be acquitted is not onely to be intended of an actuall disturbance or molestation but if the party be put in fright or is liable to any Processe it is a breach 8 Ed. 4. 27. a Condition to save one harmlesse if a Capias be awarded against him although it be not executed yet it is a forfeiture of the Bond nay though it was never delivered to the Sheriff for otherwise the Plaintiff should be in continuall care trouble for fear lest the Defendant should do it and so the Defendant may dally with him a long time which shal be mischievous therefore it may be resembled to 9 H. 7. where if a man sell a thing with warranty to pay for it at a day to come if the thing sold be corrupt the party may have his Action of deceit before the day of payment because it is in the others power to bring his Action and so it is in the Defendants power to serve the Plaintiff with Processe when he pleases and therefore it is a breach Coventry for the Defendant first because it is no such Process as can prejudice for neither goods nor Body shall be taken and therefore is not like the Cases before cited And secondly it is not such a process as our law respects or regards for a Bill is but as a Petition Haughton Justice was of the same opinion with the rest of the Judges but adjourned untill Hill 11. Jac. and an Exception taken because the Defendant had not answered the Declaration for the Condition is that he should be acquitted the Defendant pleaded that he hath been acquitted and Cook was of opinion that it was good and Pasch 12. Jac. Judgement was given for the Defendant by the whole Court KIpping versus Swain Trin. 11. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt against Swain upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. for not setting forth of Tithes and declares whereas the Plaintiff being Proprietor of the Rectory of B. in the County of c. for the term of seven years and that the Defendant was Occupier of Lands within the same Parish for six moneths by a Devise made the tenth of March Anno decimo Jacobi And that the Defendant 27. Aug. the year aforesaid did cut his Corn there growing and that the tenth of September then next following the Defendant being Subdit dicti Domini Regis carried away the said Corn not setting out the Tenth according to the Statute and upon a Nil debet pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in Arrest of Judgement first because of the Plaintiffs own shewing he had no cause of Action against the Defendant for the interest of the Defendant in the Land was determined before the Tithes were carried away but the Court were of opinion that it was no Exception for although his interest in the Land was gone yet he remained Owner of the Corn for if Corn is cut although a stranger take them away before severance yet an Action will lie against him upon this Statute for otherwise the intent of the Statute may easily be defeated Another Exception was taken because the Plaintiff said he was Subdit dicti Domini Regis which is a Fault incurable for the Statute referrs Subdit to his politick capacity but Dicti goes to his natural and sole capacity and so the force of the Statute shall be determined by his Death and for this cause an Indictment upon the 8 H. 6. Contra pacem dicti Domini had been severall times reversed and of this opinion were three Judges but Haughton doubted of it and so it was adjourned PEnniworth versus Blawe Trin. 11. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation and prayed Oyer of the Condition which was that he should stand to the Arbitrement of J. S. of all Suites Quarrels Controversies and Debates from the beginning of the World untill the making the Obligation so that the Award be made in writing under the hand and seal of N. S. and should be delivered to the parties before such a Day c. and observe that the Sealing and Delivery of the Obligation was at twelve a clock the first of May the Defendant pleads in Barr that the Arbitrators made an Award and did deliver that to the parties above-said but said further that in the morning and before twelve a clock the first of May aforesaid one Debate and Controversie did arise between the parties concerning a Trespasse committed by the Plaintiff the same morning of which the Defendant gave notice to the Arbitrator before twelve a clock of the said first of May concerning which Trespasse the Arbitrator made no Award and therefore pretends the Award to be void and demands Judgement to which the Plaintiff demurrs and Yelverton being for the Plaintiff that the Plea was not any Answer to the Plaintiff and therefore Judgement ought to be given for the Plaintiffs Action is grounded upon an Obligation as single and the thing which helps the Defendant is the Condition indorsed to stand to the Award of S. the which is restrained so that it be delivered under the hand and seal and if the Defendant will plead the Condition against the Plaintiff he must plead it to be performed and executed according to the Submission by the
Carr. The Tenant in Dower before the value inquired of and Damages found brought a Writ of Error and by the opinion of the whole Court a Writ of Error would not lie for the Judgement is not perfect untill the value be inquired upon The Demand in Dower was of the third part of two Messuages in three parts to be divided and the Judgement was to recover Seisin of the third part of the Tenements aforesaid with the Appurtenances to hold to him in severally by Meets and Bounds and adjudged naught because they are Tenants in common and the Judgement ought to be to hold to him together and in common but if it had been in three parts divided it had been good Actions in Ejectment ALlen versus Nash Hill 5. Jacobi rotulo 719. The Plaintiff brought an Ejectione firme and a special Verdict upon a Surrender of Copy-hold Land which was to the use of the second Son for Life after the Death of the Tenant and his Heirs and it was adjudged not to be good in a Surrender for though it be good in a Will yet Implication is not good in a Surrender and in Copy-hold Cases a Surrender to the use c. this no use but an Explanation how the Land shall go if the Lord grant the Land in other manner then I appoint it is void if there be found Joynt-tenants and one Surrender to the use of his Will it was a Breach of the Joinder and the Will good EYer versus Bannaster Trîn 16. Jacobi rotulo 719. The Plaintiff brought an Ejectione firme and declared upon a Lease made by Ed. Kynaston to which the Defendant pleads not guilty and the Plaintiff alleadges a Challenge that the Wife of the Sheriff is Cosin to the Plaintiff and desires a Venire facias to the Coroners and the Defendant denied it and so a Venire was made to the Sheriff and at the Assises the Defendant challenges the Array because the Pannell was arrayed by the Sheriff who married the Daughter of the Wife of the Lessor and note the first Challenge was made after the Issue joyned and at the Assises the Defendant challenged as above and a demurrer to it and Hutton held that a Challenge could not be after a challenge except it were for some cause that did arise after the challenge made and that the party ought to rely upon one cause of challenge though he had many causes observe the Defendant could not challenge the Array untill the Assises but Husband held that a Challenge might be upon a Challenge but this challenge was adjudged naught by all the Judges HIll versus Scale Trin. 16 Jacobi rotulo 5. 18. the Plaintiff brought an Ejectione firmae and declares upon a Demise made to the Plaintiff by J. C. bearing date the first of January anno 15. and sealed and delivered the twelfth of January following to hold from Christmasse then last past for two years the Jury found a speciall Verdict and found the Lease and a Letter of Atturney to execute the Lease in this manner that the Lessor was seised of the Land in Fee and being so seised he made signed and sealed an Indenture of a Demise of the said Tenements and found it in haec verba this Indenture c. and they further found that the Lessor the said fifth day of January did not deliver the said Indenture of Demise to the Plaintiff as his Deed but that the Lessor the said fifth day of January by his writing bearing Date the same Day gave full power and authority to one C. to enter into all the premises and to take possession thereof in the name of the Lessor and after possession so taken to deliver the said Indenture of Demise to the Plaintiff upon any part of the premises in the name of the Lessor and find the Letter of Atturney in haec verba To all c. whereas I the said J. C. by my Indenture of Lease bearing date with these Presents have demised granted and to Farm let c. for and during the Term of two years c. and they further find that the said C. such a day as Atturney to the Lessor by vertue of that writing did enter into the Tenements aforesaid and took possession thereof to the use of the Lessor and immediately after possession so taken the said C. did deliver the said Indenture of Demise upon the Tenements as the Lessors Deed to the Plaintiff to have c. and the doubt was because the Lessor in the Letter of Attorney and said that whereas he had demised and if it were a Demise then the Letter of Attorney was idle but notwithstanding the Court gave Judgement for the Plaintiff WEeks versus Mesey An Ejectione firmae brought against two and one of them was an estranger and was in the house and the principall would not appear and the other appeared and pleaded non informat and the Court was acquainted with the proceedings and the Plaintiff prayed an habere facias possessionem and the Court told the Plaintiff that by that Writ and recovery he could not remove him that had Right when a Lease is made to bring an Ejectment of Land in divers mens hands then they must enter into one of the parcells and leave one in that place and then must he go unto another and leave one there and so of the rest and then after he hath made the last Entry there he sealeth and delivereth the Lease and then those men that were left there must come out of the Land and this is a good executing of the Lease and Pasch the ninth of James the Court held that an Ejectment would not ly of Common pasture or of Sheep-gate BEamont versus Cook Trin. 13 Jacobi An exception taken in Ejectment because the Originall was teste the very same day that the Ejectment was made and adjudged good by the whole Court and one Goodhall brought an originall in Ejectment against Hill and three others and the Plaintiff counts against three of the Defendants and no simulcum against the fourth and this matter was moved in arrest of Judgement And the Judgement was stayed by the whole Court COronder versus Clerk Hill 10 Jacobi rotulo 3315. Action upon an Ejectment brought the Jury found it specially upon a Devise the words of the Will were to my right Heires Males and posterity of my name part and part like the question was who should have the Land and the Court held the Land must go to the Heire at the Common Law and not according to the words of the Will because they cannot consist with the grounds of Law a Will must be construed in all parts the brother cannot have it by the Devise because he is not Heir and the Daughters cannot for they are not Heirs and posterity and therefore neither of them could have it because they are not Heirs and posterity because they that take it must be Heir and posterity
A special Verdict in an Ejectione firme the Question was upon the words of the Will which were that her Husband had given all to her and nothing from her and whether these words imply a consent and so an Agreement to the Devise of the Husband or no. And Foster Warburton and Walmsley that it was an Assent but Sir Edward Cook was of a contrary opinion and note she was made sole Executrix and she proved the Will and Justice Foster held it to be an Assent in Law The property of Goods cannot be in obayance they must be in the Executor Administrator or Ordinary and Warburton held that the words made an Assent and said that when the Bond is delivered to one to the use of another untill he dis-assent it is his Deed but when he dis-assenteth then it is not his Deed Ab initio if a Lease be given by Will to divers and made one of them his Executor in this Case the Executor must make his special Claime else he must have it as Executor and Sir Edward Cook held that the general Entry and proof of the Will is no Assent she must first have it as an Executor before she can have it as a Legatee a Legacy is waiveable but if the Law work it in me whether I will or no then I cannot waive it and therefore he held she should enter specially ROlles versus Mason Hill 6. Jacobi rotulo 2613. An Ejectment brought and the Question grew upon two Customes one was that the Copy-holder for Life may name to the Lord of the Mannour who should be his Successor in the Copy-hold and the other that the Copy-holder for Life may cut down all the Trees of wrong upon the customary Land and the third Question was whether the second Lessee of the Mannour may take advantage of the pretended Forfeiture for cutting down the Trees by the Law a Copy-holder shall have house-boot free-boot and hedge-boot and common of Turbary to burn in his house but he cannot sell them A Copy-holder by Custome may name his Successor and if the Lord refuse to admit him the Homage may set a reasonable Fine and so he shall be admitted The Lessee of the Mannour may take advantage of the Forfeiture but in this Case it is no Forfeiture and the Copy-holder may cut downe Trees for he hath a greater Estate then a sole Tenant for Life because he shall name his Successor APrescription goeth to one man and a Custome to many and Judgement for the Defendant MAson versus Strecher alios Pasch 7. Jacobi rotulo 606. An Ejectment brought for the Mannour of P. it was held by the Court that the consent of a Servant in the absence of him who is possessed of the Terme shall not out his Master of the Possession because the Servant hath no interest in the Land CRamporne versus Freshwater Pach 8 Jacobi rotulo 2742. An action of Debt brought upon an Ejectment the Plaintiff was non-suit upon his own Evidence because he declared upon a Devise made for three years and it was confessed by the Plaintiff that the Lands were Copy-hold Land and that the Plaintiff had not license to demise them for three years neither could he prove that by any custome he could demise them for three years without a license and so the Lessor was taken for a Disseisor by the opinion of the Court. CAffe versus Randall Trin. 9. Jac. rotulo 3299. An Ejectment brought against Randall and his Wife the Ejectment made by the Wife and not guilty pleaded and tried and it was moved in Arrest of Judgment because the Issue was pleaded in this manner Et dicunt quod ipsi in nullo sunt culpabiles c. And the Ejectment was made by the woman alone and ought to have been that she was not guilty and upon examination of the Plea Rol and Record of Nisi prius it appeared to the Court that the Plea Roll was right but the Record of Nisi prius mistaken but Serjeant Barker said that at the time when the Record of Nisi prius was tried the Plea roll agreed with the Record and was afterwards amended and Waller the prothonotary confessed that he amended the plea rol as upon his private examination of the roll but without notice that there was a Record sent down to try that Issue and therefore the Court ordered that the Record of Nisi prius should be amended according to the Plea roll which was done accordingly PAts versus Chitty Trin. 9. Iac. rotulo 2151. vel 2151. An Action of ejectment brought the Defendant pleads a concord with satisfaction in Bar the Plaintiff demurs and it was held by Winch and Foster a good Plea because the Action is not only in the realty for he recovers damages and possession which are meer Chattells Secondly Because the Defendant pleads the satisfaction as in discharge of that Action and all others and ten shillings for rests Warburton of the same opinion and he vouched the like case satisfaction is good Plea in a Quare impedit wherein a man recovers the presentation And Cook said that in all Actions wherein money or Damages are recoverable as well wherein the Defendant might wage his Law as wherein he might not it is a good Plea Pasc 3. Jacobi rotulo 1033. Eden and Blake but in matters where one Free-hold or Inheritance is recoverable concord is no Barr and in dower recompence in other Lands or Rent is no Barr. But by petition in Chancery but Rent Issuing out of the same Land demanded is a good Barr and in all Actions Quare vi armis wherein process of Outlary lies by the common Law concord or an Award is a good Barr 38 H. 6. title Barr satisfaction in trespass by an Estranger is a good Barr although it be without notice of the trespassor by the opinion of the whole Court CRaddock versus Iones Trin. Iacobi rotulo 2284. An Ejectment brought and declares upon a Lease made by W. Cotton Knight the Defendant pleads not guilty and makes a challenge and praies a venire facias to the Coroners because the Sheriff is Cozen to the Lessors Wife which is not a principle challenge but by favour and after a Triall and Verdict it was amended in arrest of the Judgment because it was mistried and Barker vouched a case in the Exchequer Chamber in 43 El. upon a Writ of Error between Higgins and Spicer upon a Venire facias awarded in the like manner and it was adjudged to be mistryed and it was then agreed that misconveyance of process is where one Writ is awarded in place of another to an Officer which of right ought to execute that process and he returns it this is helped after a Verdict by the Statute But if a writ be awarded to an Officer who ought not to execute that process and he returns it this is a mistriall and not helped by the Statute and Warburton said that Dyer
folio 367. To the contrary is not Law two Tenements in Common joyne in a Lease for years to bring an Ejectment and declare that whereas they did demise the Tenements and it was held nought for it is a severall Lease of moities and if they had declared that one of them had demised one moity and the other another moity it had been good WIlson versus Rich Pasch 44. Eliz. The Husband and Wife joyn in a Lease by Indenture to A. rendring Rent and this is for years and make a Letter of Attorney to seal and deliver the Lease upon the Land which is done accordingly A. brings an Ejectmentand declares upon a Demise made by the Husband and Wife and upon Evidence to the Jury ruled by Popham Fenner and Yelverton that the Lease did not maintain the Declaration for a Woman covert could not make a Letter of Attorney to deliver a Lease upon the Land although Rent was reserved by the Lease and so the Warrant of Attorney is meerly void and the Lease is onely the Lease of the Husband which is not made good by the Declaration by the opinion of the Court. STretton versus Cush Pasch 1. Jacobi J. L. leased a House for fourscore years in which Lease there is one Condition that the Lessee his Executors and Assignes should keep and maintain the House in reparation and if upon lawfull warning given by the Lessor his Heires and Assignes c. to enter the Lessee for fourscore years leases the House to A. for thirty years and A. leases it to Wilmore for fifteen years the Assignee of the Reversion came to the House and seeing it in decay gave warning to Wilmore then possessed of that House to repair it which was not done within six Moneths by reason whereof the Assignee entred for the Condition broken and upon a Not guilty pleaded the matter before recited was found by a special Verdict and adjudged against Sir William Wade the Assignee of the Reversion for the warning given to Wilmore to repair who was but an under tenant was not good for he was not Assignee of the terme nor had but a pety interest under the grand Lease upon whom no Attorney could be made for the Rent nor any Action of Waste brought against him for there wanted the immediate privity and in this Case there is a difference to be taken between a rent and a Condition for reparations for the Condition is meerly collateral to the Land and meerly personal and therfore warning is not of necessity to be given at the House but notice of Reparations ought to be given to the person of the Lessee who had the grand interest And a Difference is to be taken between a time certain in which a thing is to be done and a time incertain for in the Case of Rent reserved at a Day certain Demand thereof must be made upon the Land onely because the Land is the Debtor for Popham said that if the Lessor should come and demand his Rent and there should meet with J. S. a stranger and should say to J. S. Pay me my Rent this is no good Demand of the Rent having mistaken the person who is chargeable with it but in this Case one general Demand of Rent without reference to any person who is not chargeable is good And he was of opinion that if a man lease Land rendring Rent for a year whensoever the Lessor should demand it in this Case the Lessor come and demand it before the end of the year his Demand upon the Land is not good except the Lessee be there also for the time being incertain when the Lessor will demand it he ought to give notice to the Lessee of it And if the Lessor come to the Lessee in person and demands the Rent yet it is not sufficient for although notice is to be given the Lessee in person yet the Land is the Debtor and therefore the Law ties the Lessee to the Land as to the place in which he shall be paid but if the Lessor stay nntill the eud of the year then the Lessee at his peril ought to attend upon the Land to pay it for the end of the year is time of payment prescribed by the Law which was granted and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff CLerk versus Sydenham Pasch 4. Jacobi An Ejectment brought by the Plaintiff of a Lease made of Land by P. and B. and Not guilty pleaded and the Evidence of the Defendants part was by reason of a Lease of the Land in Question made by the Abbot of Cleeve before the Dissolution to W. D. and Jo. his Wife and F. their Daughter for their Lives by Indenture and by the same Indenture the Abbot covenants grants and confirmes to the three Lessees that the land should remain to the Assignee of the Survivor of them for ninety years Fr. survived and took to Husband one Hill who the 20 Eliz. grant their Estate for life to J. S. and all their interest in the Remainder and all their power for all the term and this by mean Assignements came to the Defendant and whether any interest passed in Remaindor by the Lease of the Abbot was the Question and by all the five Judges it was held to be a good interest in possibility and to be reduced into a certainty in the person of the Survivor as where Land is given to three and the right Heirs of the Survivor this is a good limitation of the Inheritance presently but it is in expectancy untill the Survivor be known for then the Fee is executed in him And Popham vouched a Case in his experience 17 Eliz. in which Serjeant Baker was of Counsel and it was a Lease was made to Husband and Wife for life and for forty years to the Survivor of them the Husband and Wife joyn in Grant of this Interest and although it be certain one of them shall survive yet the Grant is void because at the time of the Grant there was not any interest but onely a possibility in either of them and although in the Case in Question the Remainder is not limited to any of the three Lessees but to the Assignee of the survivor yet the Court was of opinion that this was not a bare nomination in the survivor to appoint what person he pleased but a terme and an interest and Popham took this difference if a Lease be made to J. S. for life and after his death to the Executors and Assignes of J. S. this is an interest in J. S. to dispose of it but if it had been limited to J. S. for life and afterwards to the Executors and Assignes of J. D. here this is a bare power in J. D. and his Executors because they are not parties or privies to the first interest which was agreed and it was also agreed that whether it was an interest or a word of nomination it was all saved to the party by the Statute of
31 H. 8. of Monasteries which gives the Houses dissolved to the King but in the same degree and qualitie as the Abbot had them And the Abbot was charged with the power given by himself and so was the King Which mark VVAnto versus Willingsby Pasch 5. Jacobi The Bishop of Exceter in the time of H. 8. by his Deed gives Land c. to Nicho Turner and by Bill his Cousin in consideration of service done by Turner and for other considerations him moving to them and the Heirs of their bodies and dyes They have Issue Jo. and William N. T. dies and Sybill marries Clap. and they alien the Land to Iohn in Fee Sybill and Iohn leavie a Fine to Walther in Fee of the Land And afterwards Sybill infeoffes William her younger Son who infeoffes Willinghby Io enters and leaseth to Walther and Willingby for the tryall of his title seals a Lease to ward who declares of so many Acres in Sutton Cofeild And the Jury upon a not guilty pleaded foundby the Verdict that the Bishop gave the Tenements aforesaid by his Deed the tenor of which Deed follows c. And by the Deed it appeared that the Lands did lye in Little Sutton within the Lordship of Sutton Cofeild And notwithstanding the Plaintiffe shall recover For first it was held not to be any Joynture within the Statute of 11 H. 7. for it is not any such gift as is intended by the Statute for the Bishop was not any Ancestor of the Husband and the Husband took nothing by that but it was a voluntary recompence given by the Bishop in reward of the service passed And the Statute intended a valuable confideration And also the Bishop might well intend it for the Advancement of the woman who appeared to be Cozen to the Bishop And Tanfeild held if the woman were a Doneâ— within the Statute of 11 H. 7 she could be but for a moyetie for the gift was before the marriage and then they took by moyeties And the Baron dying first the woman came not to any part by the husband but by the course of Law as survivour But quaere of this conceit for the other Judges did not allow it And secondly they held that the Fine of Io. the elder Son of Sybill levied to Walther destroyed the entry of Io. and of Walther For although in truth the Fine passed nothing but by conclusion yet Io. the Son and Walther his Conusee shall be estopped to claim any thing by way of forfeiture against that Fine on the womans part then any title accruing after the Fine For they shall not have any new right but Io the Son upon whom the Land was intayled is barred by the Fine Thirdly although upon view of the Deed made by the Bishop the Land which by the Declaration is layed to be in Sutton Cofeild by the Deed appears to be in Little Sutton yet this is helped by the Verdict by which it is found expresly that the Bishop gave the Lands within written and therefore being so precisely found the Deed is not materiall Which mark KNap versus Peir Iewelch Pasc 5. Jacobi An Ejectment brought for Lands in Wiccombe which were the Deans and Chapters of Chichester And in this case it was agreed by the whole Court that if it be a Corporation by prescription it is sufficient to name them by that name they are called And the Court held that if a man demands Rent upon the Land to avoid a Lease upon a condition the Demand ought to be made in the most open place upon the Land The Dean and Chapter of Chichester made a Lease to one Raunce the Lessee of the Defendant of Lands in Wiccombe rendring Rent payable at the Cathedrall Church of Chichester upon such a condition it was agreed by the whole Court that the Demand ought to be made in the Cathedrall Church of Chichester although it was of the Land Leased And the Demand ought to be made at the setting of the Sun the last instant of that day and when he made his Demand he ought to stand still and not walk up and down for the Law did not allow of walking Demands As Pipham said and he ought to make a formall demand And because those whom the Dean and Chapter did send to make the demand of Rent said bear witnesse we are come hither to demand and receive such Rent it was held by the Court that such a demand was not good And they held the demand ought to be made at that part of the Church where the greatest and most common going in is And in this case it was said by Popham that if a man make a Lease to one for yeers to commence at a day to come and then he lease to another for yeers rendring Rent upon a condition to commence presently And he enter And the first Lease commence and he enter the Rent and Condition reserved upon the second Lease is suspended A man leases for years rendring Rent after he leaseth to another to commence at a day to come and the first Lessee attorns the second shall not have the Rent reserved upon the first Lease by Popham but he doubted of it And Popham and Tanfeild held none contradicting that the Letter of Attorney made by the Dean and Chapter to demand their Rent was not good because the Letter of Attorney was to make a general demand on any part of the Land which the Dean and Chapter had leased And that ought to have been speciall onely for that Land And secondly it was to demand Rent of any person to whom they had made a Lease And the Letter of Attorney ought to be particular and not generall of any person TOmpson versus Collier Mich. 5. Jacobi The Plaintiffe declares upon a Lease of Ejectment made by Robinson and Stone of one Messuage and fourty Acres of Land in the Parish of Stone in the Countie of Stafford The Defendant imparled tryall another Terme and then pleads that within the Parish of Stone there were three Villages A. B. and C. And because the Plaintiffe hath not shewed in which of the Villages the Land he demanded Judgement of the Bill c. And the Plaintiffe demurred upon this Plea And adjudged for the Plaintiffe For first after an Imparlance the Defendant cannot plead in abatement of the Bill for he hath admitted of it to be good by his entring into defence and by his Imparlance And secondly the matter of his Plea is not good because the Defendant hath not shewed in which of the Villages the House and fourty Acres of Land did lye And that he ought to have done For where a man pleads in abatement he alwayes ought to give to the Plaintiffe a letter writ with mark And the whole Court held that this Plea was not in barr but that he should answer over And Williams Justice took this difference that when a man demurrs upon a Plea in abatement And when he
goes to issue upon it for if they discend to issue upon such a Plea and it be found against the Defendant it is peremptory and he shall loose the Land but upon demurrer it is not peremptory but onely to answer over Which mark VVOrkley versus Granger Mic. 5. Jacobi An Ejectment brought for two Houses and certain Lands c. And upon a speciall Verdict The case was one Heâ— Wels and his wife nere seised of a parcel of Land to them and the Heirs of their bodies begotten as for the joynture of the wife the remainder to the Heirs of the Husband in Fee the Husband bargains and sels the Land to Stamp and his Heirs in Fee And afterwards the Husband and one Winter leavie a Fine of that Land to another who grants that Land back again to Winter for one month the remainder to the husband and wife and the heire of their bodies to be begotten the remainder to the husband and his heirs The Husband dyes the Wife survives and makes a Lease to the Defendant for ninety nine yeers if she should so long live the woman dyes and the Plaintiffe claims under the bargainee and in this Case two points were debated First what Estate passed to the bargainee and Digges of Lincolnes Inne who argued for the Plaintiffe that the bargainee had a Fee simple determinable which issued out of both the Estates as it was held by Periam in Alton Woods Case And he said that the Proclamations upon the Fine are but a repetition of the Fine as it is held in Bendlones Rep put in the Case of Fines in Cooks 3. Rep. And see Pinslees Case for then for the same cause the Issue in tayl is bound although the Fine be levied by the Husband alone by the Statute of the 4. H. 7. and 32 H. 8. because he cannot claim but as Heir to the Father as well as to the Mother and therefore his Conveyance is bound and see 16. E Dyd 332. Husband and Wife Tenants in speciall tayl The husband is attainted of Treason and executed having Issue the woman dyes the Issue shall never have the Land And if husband and wife Tenants in speciall tayl And the Husband levies a Fine to his own use and devises the Land to his wife for life which remainded over rendring Rent the husband dyes the woman enters pays the Rent and dyes the Issue is barred for two causes first by the Fine which had barred his Conveyance of the intayl secondly by the Remitter waived by the Mother 18 Eli Dyer 531. See 5 H. 7. Assise Thorp and Tirrels Case Secondly the Lease made by the woman was determined by her death and it was said that the woman had not any qualitie of an Estate tayl but onely she might take the profits during her life within the Statute of 11 H. 7. And when she dyes the Estate is denised See Austens Case Doctor Wyat Tenant in tail leased for yeers And dyed without Issue the Lease was determined See first of Eliz title Executors And 31 H. 8. Dyer Where a Bishop made a Lease for yeers and afterwards makes another Lease to one of the Lessees c. And Fleming held that if the woman survived as under Tenant in speciall tayl and made a Lease for 21. yeers it is out of the Statute of 32 H. 8. and so it was adjudged in Wattes and Kings Case LAne versus Alexander Hill 5. Jaco The Plaintiffe declares in Ejectment upon a Lease made to him by Mary Planten for three yeers the Defendant saies c. that the Land is Copihold Land of the Mannor of H. in Norff. whereof the Queen Eliz was seised in Fee and long time before the Lessor had any thing there in Court such a day that J. S. her Steward at the Court c. granted the Land to the Defendant by Copie in Fee according to the custome and so justifies his entry upon the Plaintiffe The Plaintiffe replies and saies that long time before the Copy granted to the Defendant to wit at a Court of the Mannor held such a day the 43. Eliz the Queen by Copy c. granted the Land to the Lessor for life according to the custome by force whereof he entred and made a Lease to the Plaintiffe The Defendant by way of rejoynder maintained his barr and traverses with that the Queen at the Court of the Mannor by J. S. her Steward such a day c. granted the Land to the Lessor and upon this the Plaintiffe demurred in Law generally And Yelverton moved that the traverse was good in this Case upon the day and Steward and the difference is where the act done may indifferently be supposed to be done on the one day or the other there the day is not traversable as in the Case of a Deed made such a day there the day of the Deed is not traversable for it passes by the livery and not by the Deed. And the livery is the substance and the day but a bundance 10 E. 4. And the Law is the same if the day in trespasse wherein the day is not traversable For although it be done upon another day it is not materiall But when a man makes his title by an especiall kinde of Conveyance as in this case the Plaintiffe makes his title by one Copy there all that is concerned in the Copy is materiall and the party cannot depart from it for he claims not the Land by any other Copy but by that which is pleaded as is in the 18 H. 6. 14. where an Action is brought for taking his Servant and counts that he by Deed retained with him his Servant the Monday in one week in such a case it is a good plea for the Defendant to say that the Servant was retained by him such a day after without that that the Plaintiffe did retain him the Monday And the Law seems to be concerning Letters Patents wherein the day and place are traversable being the speciall conveyance of the party from which he cannot depart And also it seems that although the day in the principall case be traversed yet the Statute of 18 Eliz of Demurrers aids it it being but a generall Demurrer and the day being onely matter of form But the whole Court were of opinion that the day was not traversable in this case For the Queen granting an ancienter Copy to the Plaintiffs Lessor then to the Defendant and the traverse should have been without this that the Queen did grant in manner and form c. to the Plaintiffs Lessor and the Case is the same in the Letters Patents for there the traverse should be without this that the Queen granted in manner and form c. And the day and place shall not come into the traverse But Justice Fennor was of a contrary opinion for the Reason delivered by Yelverton before and he also and the Lord cheif Justice held it to be holpen by the Statute of 18 Eliz for it is but
matter of form For if the Jury finde a prior grant of the Queen to the Plaintiffs Lessor although it be at another Court it is sufficient and so by consequence the day is not materiall in substance which mark But Williams Justice and the rest held the traverse to be naught for by that the Jury should be bound to finde the Copy such a day by such a Steward which ought not to be and that it was matter of substance not helped by the Statute of 18 Eliz. DArby versus Bois Hill 5. Jacobi An Ejectment brought for an House in London and upon not guilty pleaded The Jury found a speciall Verdict And the case was Tenant in tail of divers Messuages in London 7 January 44 Eliz bargains and sels the said Houses to J. S. and delivers the Deed from off the Land the 8. of January the same yeer Indentures of Covenants were made to the intent to have a perfect recovery suffered of those houses and the ninth of January after a Writ of right is sued in London for those Messuages returnable at a day to come And the tenth of January the same yeer the Tenant in tail makes livery and seisin to J. S. of one of those Houses in the name of all And the other Messuages were in Lease for yeers and the Lessees did not atturn And the question was if the Messuages passed by the bargain and sale or by the livery And it was adjudged that they passed by the bargain and sale And Yelverton took a difference between severall Conveyances both of them Executory and where one of them is executed presently as in Sir Rowland Heywoods Case where divers Lands were given granted leased bargained and sold to divers for yeers the Lessees were at election whether they would take by the bargain and sale upon the Statute of 27 H 8. or by the demise at the Common Law But otherwise it is if one be executed at first for then the other comes too late as it is in this Case for by the very delivery of the bargains and sale the Land by the custome of London passes without inrollment for London is excepted and this custome was found by the Verdict And therefore it being executed and the Conveyance being made perfect by the delivery of the Deed without any other circumstances the livery of sesin comes too late for it is made to him that had the Inheritance of the Messuage at that time And the possession executed hinders the possession executory for if a bargain and sale be made of Land and before inrollment the bargain takes a deed of the said Land this hinders the inrollment because the taking of the livery did destroy the use which passed by the bargain and sale which was granted by the Court. And another reason was given because it appeared that the intent of the parties was to have the Land passe by the bargain and sale because it was to make a perfect Tenant to the Precipe as appears by the subsequent acts as the Indentures Covenant and the bringing the Writ of Right c. All which will be made frustrate if the livery of seisin shall be effectuall and when an Act is indifferent it shall be taken most neer to the parties intents that may be if a man hath a Mannor to which an advowson is appendant and makes a Deed of the Mannor with the appurtenances And delivers the Deed but doth not make livery of seisin yet now although the Deed in it self was sufficient to passe the Advowson yet because the party did not intend to passe it in Posse but as appurtenant if the Mannor will not passe no more shall the Advowson passe alone as it was agreed 14 Eliz in Andrews Case Which mark And the whole Court gave Judgment accordingly that the Defendant who claimed under the bargain sale should enjoy the Land CHalloner versus Thomas Mich. 6. Jacobi A Writ of Error was brought upon a Judgement given in Ejectment in the Courâ— of Carmarthen and Yelverton assigned the Error because the Ejectment was brought de aquae cursu called Lothar in L. and declares upon a Lease made by D. de quidam rivulo aquae cursu And by the opinion of the whole Court the Judgement was reversed for rivulut seâ— aque cursus lye not in demand nor doth a precipe lye of it nor can livery and seisin be made of it for it cannot be given in possession but as it appears by 12 H. 7. 4. the Action ought to be of so many Acres of Land covered with water but an Ejectment will well lye by if a stang for a precipe lies of them and a woman shall be indowed of the third part of them as it is 11. E. 3. But if the Land under the water or River do not pertain to the Plaintiffe but the River onely then upon a disturbance his remedy is onely by Action upon the Case upon any diversion of it and not otherwise Which observe VVIlson versus Woddell Mich. 6. Jacobi The Grand-father of the Plaintiffe in an Ejectment being a Copy holder in fee made a surrender thereof to L Woddell in fee who surrendred it to the use of Margery I. for life who is admitted c. But L Woddell himself never was admitted The Grandfather and Father dye the Son who is Plaintiffe was admitted and enters upon the Land Margery being then in possession and the Defendant then living with her as a servant in those Tenements and this was the speciall verdict And Judgment was given for the Plaintiffe And the Court was of an opinion that the Defendant was found to be a sufficient Trespassor and Ejector though he be but a Servant to the pretended owner of the Land because the Verdict found that the Defendant did there dwell with Margery And in such case he had the true title and had made his entry might well bring his Action against Master or Servant at his election And perhaps the Master might withdraw himself that he could not be arrested And secondly it was adjudged that the surrender of J. S. of a Copy-hold is not of any effect untill J. S. be admitted Tenant And if I. S. before admittance surrender to a stranger who is admitted that that admittance is nothing worth to the estranger For J. S. had nothing himself and so he would passe nothing and the Admittance of his grantee shall not by implication be taken to be the admittance of himself for the admittance ought to be of a Tenant certainly known to the Steward and entred in a Roll by him and it was held that the right and possession remained still in him that made the surrender and that is descended to his Heir who was the Plaintiffe And they took a difference between an Heir to whom the Copy descended for he may surrender before admittance and it shall be good because he is by course of the Law foe the custome that makes him Heir
to the estate casts the possession of his Ancestors upon him but a stranger to whom a Copy hold is surrendred hath nothing before admittance because he is a purchasor And a Copy made to him upon which he is admitted is his Evidence by the custome and before that he is not a customary Tenant and so he could not transfer any thing to another and adjudged so according to 24 Eliz Alderman Dixies Case BEdell versus Lull Pasch 7. Jacobi The Plaintiffe declares in Ejectment upon a Lease made by Eliz James of certain Lands The Defendant pleads that before Eliz had any thing one Martin James was seised in fee of it and had issue Henry James and dyed seised by reason whereof it discended to H. J. as Son and Heir and that Eliz entred and was seised by abatement and made the Lease to the Plaintiffe and that afterwards the Defendant as servant to H James and by his command c. The Plaintiffe by way of replication confesses the seisen of M. James And that he being so seised by his last Will in writing devised the said Land to Eliz in fee and afterwards dyed seised by reason whereof she entred by force of the devise and made the Lease to the Plaintiffe and traverse without that Eliz was seised by abatement in manner and form c. And the Defendant demurrs upon this replication and shewed for cause that the traverse was not good and adjudged for the Defendant for the Plaintiffe by his replication need not both confesse avoid and traverse the abatement too for the Plaintiffe made a title to his Lease by the Will of his Ancestor and that proved that he entred legally and not by abatement as the Defendant had supposed And then to take a traverse over makes the replication vitious For a traverse shall not be taken but where the thing traversed is issuable And here the devise is onely the title issuable And it was also held that the traverse was not good as to the manner of it for he should not have traversed without that that he was seised by abatement but it ought to have been without that that he did abate and also if the Plaintiffe had minded to have fully answered the Defendant he ought to have took his traverse in the very same words the Defendant had pleaded it against him to wit without that that he did enter and was seised by abatement which observe The Case concerned Sir H. James to whom the Defendant was Tenant SAunders versus Cottington Mich. 7. Jac. An Ejectment brought of two Houses but the Bill was onely for one and it was filed And the Defendant by his paper book pleaded to both Messuages And the Roll in Court and the Record of Nisi prius were two Houses And there was a verdict for the Plaintiffe and Judgement entred accordingly And a Writ of Error was brought by the Defendant and before the Record was removed the Plaintiffe moved the Court that the Bill upon the file might be amended and made two Messuages And because the Defendant had pleaded to Messuages in his Answer in paper and that the Roll and Record were according it was resolved by the whole Court that the Bill upon the File should be amended and made two Messuages for that Bill which made mention onely of one House could not be the ground of all the proceedings afterwards but it was as if no Bill had been filed and therefore it should be supplied and so had been severall times before the Record was renewed Which observe THe Plaintiffe declared in Ejectment upon a Lease of an House 10 Acres of Land 20 Acres of Meadow 20 Acres of Pasture by the name of one Messuage and ten Acres of Meadow be it more or lesse and upon not guilty pleaded the Plaintiffe had a Verdict but moved in Arrest of Judgement and Judgement was stayed For by the Plaintiffs own shewing in his Declaration he could not have Execution of the number of Acres found by the Verdict for in the Lease there is but ten Acres demised And these words more or lesse could not in judgment of Law be extended to thirty or fourty Acres for it is impossible by common intendment and the rather because the Land demanded by the Declaration is of another nature then that which is mentioned in the per nomen c. For that is only of Meadow and the Declaration is of arrable and Pasture MOore versus Hawkins Mich. 8. Jacobi In Ejectment after issue Joyned upon a not guilty pleaded the cause came to be tried before Brook and Yelverton Judges of Assize in the County of Oxford the Plaintiffe had declared of divers Messuages and divers Acres of Land lying in three Villages in the said County And at the tryall before the Jury was sworn Walter the Defendants Counsell put in a Plea that after the last continuance to wit such a day in Trinity Terme before the day of Assize to wit the 20. of July the Assizes being held at Oxford the 21 of July the Plaintiffe had entred into such a Close by name containing eight Acres parcell of the premises specified in the Declaration c. and this Plea was received by the Judges of Assize And afterward in Mich. Terme Yelverton and Walter being of Counsell with the Defendant desired that they might amend their Plea to wit to put in the very Village where the Land did lye into which the entry of the Plaintiffe was because it was but matter of form and not of substance and they were of opinion that the tryall of that new lssue ought to be of all the three Villages named in the Declaration And Yelverton Justice having asked the opinions of all the Judges in Serjeants Inne Fleetstreet related their opinions in the Court the Record of Nisi prius was returned into the Exchequer to wit that it was in the discretion of the Justices of Assize to accept such a Plea as is before and that it might be well allowed as the 10 H. 7. is and it shall stay the Verdict But otherwise it is of a protection for although they allow a protection yet the Judges may take the Verdict de bene esse yet he said that in the 7. E 3. in a Precipe quod reddat a Release was pleaded at the tryal and the Jury found the Verdict but that was the indiscretion of the Judges to allow it when it should not have been allowed And all the said Judges held as he related that the Plaintiffe could not have a replication to that Plea at the tryall for the Justices have no power either to accept a Replication upon that Plea or to try it but onely to return it as parcell of the Record of Nisi prius And they held also that the Plea being put in the Countrey could not be amended in adding the Town in certain in which the Close did lye for it was matter of substance And that the Court of
Exchequer where the Record was would not award the Venire Facias of all the three Villages named in the Record if it did not appear judicially to them that the Close did extend in all the Villages and it doth not appear for parcell if the premises doth not necessarily extend to all the Villages but may well be and so presumed in one Village onely and therefore it is matter of substance And the Judges had not power after their Commission determined to amend the Plea DAvis versus Pardy Mich. 8. Jacobi The Plaintiffe declared of a Lease made by one Cristmas the sixth of May Anno 7. of one Messuage c. In D. by reason whereof the Plaintiffe entered and was possessed untill the Defendant afterwards to wit 18. of the same month Anno sexto supradicto did eject him And not guilty being pleaded a verdict was found against the Plaintiffe And Yelverton moved in Arrest of Judgement to save Costs that the Declaration was insufficient For that Action was grounded upon two things first upon the Lease secondly upon the Ejectment and both those ought to concur one after the other And in this case the Ejectment is supposed to be one year before the Lease made for the Lease is made Anno 7. and the Ejectment supposed to be done Anno 7. 6. And therefore the Declaration naught And Yelverton vouched the case between Powre and Hawkins Anno septimo Termino Pasch Where the Plaintiffe declared upon the Lease of Edw. Ewer 27. April Anno sexto and laid the Ejectment to be 26. April Anno 6. And the Court held then that the Declaration was naught yet in the case in question the Declaration was adjudged good And the word sexto to be void for the day of the Ejectment being the 18. of the same month of May it cannot be intended but to be the same year in which the Lease is supposed to be made by the opinion of the whole Court AYlet versus Chippin Mich. 8. Jacobi The Plaintiffe declares upon a Lease made by John Aylet for one year of certain Land in C. in the County of E. by vertue whereof he entred and was possessed untill the Defendant did eject him The Defendant pleads that the Copihold Land is parcell of the Mannor of D. c. of which one Jo Aylet the Lessors Father was seised in Fee according to the Custome and that he made a surrendor thereof to the use of his Will and by his will devised the Land in question to John the lessor and H. Aylet his sons and to their Heirs Males of their Bodies and willed that they should not enter untill their severall ages of 21 years And further willed that W. B. and H. B. his Executors should have the Lands to perform his Will untill his said Sons Jo and H. came to their severall Ages of one and twenty years c. To which Plea the Plaintiffe replies and confesses the Will but shews further how that such a day and year before the Lease Jo his Lessor attained to his full Age of one and twenty years and entred and made a Lease thereof to him c. To which Plea the Defendant demurred and adjudged for the Plaintiffe For although the Estate to Jo and H. precede in words and the devise to the Executors insues in construction yet the estate to Io Executors precedes in possession And is as if he should have demised the Land untill his Sons Io and H. should attain to their severall Ages of one and twenty years And afterwards to them and their Heirs Males c. to be enjoyed in possession at ther severall Ages so that the Executors have onely a limited estate determinable in time when either Son severally should attain to his full age for his part For so it appears the Devisors intent was that either Son might enter when he attained to the age of one and twenty years And although it was objected by Justice Williams that the two Brothers are joyntenants by the Will and if one should enter when he comes to his full Age the other Brother being under age that would destroy the intent of the devise for then they should not take joyntly but the Court as to that said that the entry of him that attained to his full age doth not destroy the juncture but that they are joyntenants notwithstanding For that entry in the intent of the Devisor was only as to thâ— taking of the the profits and the possession and not as to the estate in joyntenancy and this is proved by 30 H. 6. Devise 12. where a devise was to foure in Fee and that one of them should have all during his life and this was adjudged good and it was as to the taking of the profits onely which observe by the whole Court but Williams RIce versus Haruiston Pasch 10. Jacobi The Plaintiffe declares of a Lease made by Jo. Bull c. The Defendant pleads that the Land is Copihold Land parcel of the Mannor of c. Whereof the King was seised and is seised and that the King by his Steward such a day granted the Land in question to him in Fee to hold at will according to the custome of the Mannor by vertue whereof he was admitted and entred and was seised untill the lessor entred upon him and outed him and made a Lease to the Plaintiffe and then he entred and did eject him c. The Plaintiffe replies that long before the King had any thing in the Mannor Queen Eliz. was thereof seised in Fee in right of her Crown and before the Ejectment supposed by the Defendant by her Steward at such a Court did grant the Land in question by Copy to him in Fee to hold at Will according to the custome of the Mannor who was admitted and entred and further shewed the descent of the Mannor to the King and how the Lesser entred and made a Lease to the Plaintiffe who entred and was thereof possessed untill the Defendant did eject him Upon which Plea the Defendant did demurr because he supposed that the Plaintiffe ought to traverse the grant alledged by the copy of the Defendant in his Barr. But the Court held the replication good for the Plaintiffe had confessed and avoided the Defendant by a former Copy granted by Queen Eliz under whom the King that now is claimed and so the Plaintiffe need not traverse the grant to the Defendant but such a traverse would make the Plea vitious for which see Hilliais Case 6. Rep. And 14 H. 8. Dotknis Case 2 E. 6. Dyer And Brooks title confesse and avoid for as no man can have a Lease for years without assignment no more can a man have a Copy without grant made in Court Which observe SHecomb versus Hawkins Pasc 10 Jacobi The case was in an especial verdict in Ejectment that one Mrs. Luttrel Tenant in fee of the Mannor of L. leavied a Fine to the use of her self for life and after death to
the use of her eldest Son in tayl c. With power to her self at any time to make Leases for one and twenty years and before the Lease in being expired she made another Lease to B. for one and twenty years to commence after the determination of the first Lease And as to the third part of the Land she made a Lease of that for one and twenty years after the death of one Carn who in truth never had any estate in the Land and afterwards she dyes the first Lease expires And I the Son enters and makes a Lease to the Plaintiffe And the Defendant claims under B. the Lessee And adjudged for the Plaintiffe for by such a power she could not make a Lease to comence at a day to come but it ought to be a Lease in possession and not in interest to comence in future nor in reversion after another estate ended but the Law will judge upon the generall power to make Leases without saying such ought to be Leases in Possession for if upon such power she might make Lease upon Lease she might by infinite Leases detain those in Reversion or Remainder out of the Possession for ever which is against the intent of the parties and against reason and adjudged accordingly Trin. 30 Eliz. Earle of Sussex case 6 Rep. 33. And Justice VVilliams said that when he was a Serjeant it was so adjudged in the Common Pleas in the Earle of Essex Case and Judgement by the the whole Court BRasier versus Beal Trin. 10 Jacobi Upon an especial Verdict in Ejectment the Case was that a Copy-holder in Fee of the Mannour of B. in the County of Oxford by license of the Lord lease the Land in question for sixty years to M. if he should live so long rendring Rent with a Condition of re-entry the Copy holder surrenders to the Lessor of the Plaintiff in Fee who demands the Rent upon the Land which being not paid he entred and made a Lease to the Plaintif without any Argument the Court seemed to be of opinion that the Entry of the Lessor was not congeable for Copy-hold land is not within the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Conditions nor the Lessor such an Assignee that the Statute intends for at the Common Law a Copy-holders Estate is but an Estate at will custome hath onely fixed his Estate to continue which Custome goes not to such collateral things as Entries upon Condition for such an Assignee of a Copy-holder being onely in by Custome is not privy to the Lease made by the first Copy-holder nor onely by him but may plead his Estate immediately under the Lord by the opinion of the whole Court ODingsall versus Jackson Mich. 10. Jac. In Ejectment the Declaration was that the Defendants intraverunt and that he did eject expulse and amove in the singular number and after a Verdict for the Plaintiff upon Not guilty pleaded the Defendant shewed this matter to the Court in Arrest of Judgement for the Declaration is incertain in that point because it cannot be known which of the Defendants did eject the Plaintiff for by his own shewing it appears that the Ejectment was but against one and upon that Declaration the Jury could not finde all the Defendants guilty for by the Plaintiffs supposal one onely did eject him but the Court gave Judgement for the Plaintiff that the Declaration should be amended in that point for it was but the Clerks fault and so it was and upon an Evidence in an Ejectment by the Lessees of Cresset and Smith Yelverton said that if a man comes into a Copy-hold tertiously and is admitted by the Lord and afterwards he makes a Lease for three Lives which is a Forfeiture of his Estate yet if he that hath the pure Right to the Copy-hold release to the wrong-doer that it is good for untill the Lord enter he is Tenant in fait and if the rever as Copy-holder 4 Rep. 15. But Walter seemed of another opinion and therefore quaere what benefit he shall have by the Release In an Ejectment the Plaintiff declared of an Ejectment of decem acris pisar and upon the general Issue it was found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in Arrest of Judgement because the Plaintiff had declared de decem acris pisar which is not good for Pease are not known by the Acre and therefore he should have declared de decem acris tene pisis seminaris as if a man will demand Land covered with water he must say decem acras terrae aqua co opertas but the whole Court held it good for in a common acceptance ten Acres of Pease or ten Acres sowed with Pease is all one and so is the opinion of Catesby 11 E. 4. 1. And the man the Secondary said that so it had been adjudged in the Exchequer Chamber upon a Writ of Error MEerton versus Orib Trin. 11. Jacobi Orib brought an Ejectment against Meerton in the Common Pleas 6 Jacobi of a Cole-mine in Durham in the County Palatine there the Defendant pleaded not guilty and it was found for the Plaintiff before the Justices Itinerantes there upon which Judgement the Defendant brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Errour that the Plaintif appeared by an Attourney whereas it ought to have been by Guardian being under age And upon an Issue that he was of full age was tryed at Durham and found that he was within age but the Plaintif had license to discontinue his Writ of Errour and brought a new Writ of Errour Quod coram nobis residat And declared that M. was inhabiting at Westminster in the County of Middlesex and being within age appeared by an Attorney the Defendant in the Writ of Errour confessed that he was inhabiting at Westminster but that he was at full age at the time And upon the tryall in Middlesex it was found that M. was under age And it was alleadged in Arrest of Judgement and it depended a long time that it was a mistryall and the doubt and question was onely whether the tryall at Westminster in this Case was good And Davenport and Yelverton were of opinion that it was not good for the Errour assigned was done at Durham and because they there have the best notice of it it ought to have been there tryed As if Errour be in a Record it shall be tryed where the Record is 19 H. 6. 79. Secondly This is a reall Action in which the Land shall be recovered and therefore though the Issue be upon a collaterall matter yet it shall be tryed where the Land lyes because it concernes the realty but if it had concerned the person onely it had been otherwise and this difference is taken by Montham 19 H. 6. 10. And therefore if a Feoffment be made upon payment c. If upon an Assise brought the Defendant plead payment in another place yet it shall be tryed where the Land lyes And so likewise if the Issue should be which
is the eldest Son although they alleadge their births in severall Counties yet it shall be tryed where the Land lyes and so in that Case a Release of all his right was pleaded against him and he pleaded that he was within age and borne in another County yet it shall be tryed where the Land lyes and so adjudged 7 H. 4. 8. and 17 E. 3. 36. b. 19 H. 6. 15. Nay though the Espousals be alleadged to be in another County yet it shall be tryed where the Land lyes and adjudged 7 H. 4. 8. And Davenport inferrs from 36 H. 6. 9. A grand Cape against one he comes and pleads that he was within age at the time of the first Cape which shall be tryed where the Land lyes And another exception was taken because the Venire facias was not well awarded for it was directed to the Sheriff of Middlesex that he should cause to come twelve Coram nobis apud westmonasterium which is not good for that Court follows the King and may be removed to any place and therefore it ought to have been Vbicunque fuerimus in Anglia but all the Judges Fleming being absent after mature deliberation held the tryall at Middlesex good for they took this difference in their answer to the rule layd downe that what concernes the realty it shall be tryed where the Land lyes for when nonage or the birth are alleadged to intitle one to the Land demanded as if in an Assise the Tenant pleads a discontinuance the Demandant sayes he was within age at the time or to debarr another of Land that he was borne before marriage in these Cases because the Inheritance of the Land depends upon it although they be alleadged in another place yet they shall be tryed where the Land lyes 19 H. 6. And so it is 39 H. 6. 49. b. to be intended but if nonage or birth be pleaded as matter dehors and not to the disabling of the title to the Land but to another purpose as here it is to the person because he could not appeare by Attorney in this Case it shall be tryed where the Infancy is alleadged As if in a Formedon in the Remainder the Tenant pleads nonage in the Plaintiff and prayes that the Plea may stay untill his full age if Issue be taken upon it it shall be tryed in the place where it is alleadged And as to the Exception to the Venire facias the Roll is right which warrants the Writ and therefore they held it was but the Writers fault and should be amended and Doddridge and Cook held the Triall good if Infancy be alledged the Triall shall be by inspection during his Nonage as it is 17 E. 3. Account 121. and 11 H. 4. 115. 25. Ass 2. and 48 E. 3. 11. and the 11. Rep. f. 30. but if his Age upon inspection remains doubtfull then the Judges may swear the party and examine Witnesses And 25 E. 3. 44. and 50 E. 3. 5. but if the Infant come to full Age it shall be tried by the Countrey 33 H. 8. and they took this Difference in what place it should be tried for if the Action be reall it shall be tried where the Land lies as it is 21 E. 3. 28. 28 E. 3. 17. 44 Assis 10. 46 E. 3. 7. 13 H. 4. 3. and if both places be in one County then the venire facias shall be of both 22 E. 3. 11. H. 4. 75. but if nonage be alledged in a personall Action the Triall shall be where the writ is brought 43. H. 6. 40. in Debt the Defendant pleaded infancy and that he was born in such a place yet the Venire facias was awarded of that place where the Action was brought and 43 H. 6. 40. Prisot was of the same opinion and the Law is the same when it concerns the person as in misnomer or that he is not the same person and so in the Case in question although the Action be brought in one place and the nonage pleaded in another County yet it shall be tried where the Action was brought and therefore the Action being brought in Midd. the triall of Midd. is good for a writ of Error is of the nature of an Originall which is personall and they held the Venire facias should be amended being but a matter of Form and that it was no mistriall it being awarded at a right place and likewise the will is right which warrants it and therefore it is but a misprision and no mistriall and the Venire facias shall be amended according to the will and Judgement was given for the Plaintiff in the writ of Error Formedon BRigham versus Godwin The Formedon did abate by the death of one of the Demandants and upon a new writ brought by Journes accounts the Tenant was Essoined and it was moved by the demanded that the Essoin should be quashed because the Tenant was Essoined upon the first writ but the Essoin was allowed by the Court but it was held by the Court that if the Tenant had the view upon the first Writ he should never have the view again at the Common Law we might have had a new Essoin upon view as often as he brings a new writ and Husband held that if by the Common Law it is to be granted the Statute doth not abridge it two views do not ly upon one writ at the common Law and if this shall be accounted but one Writ the view lieth not but in this case the Tenant did relinquish the view because he had day to plead NEvill versus Nevil Mich. 15 Jac. rotulo 77. Formedon in le Discender the writ was generall and the Count was upon a Feofment made after the Statute of uses and a speciall verdict whether the Deed warrant the Count the verdict is whether upon the whole matter the said A. N. gave the moity of the third part of the Mannor c. for default of Issue of the Bodies of either the said G. and D. to the use of either of them surviving and of the Heires males of his Body to be begotten or no the Jury are wholly ignorant the writ was to the use of G. and D. and of the Heirs males of the Bodies of the said G. and D. lawfully to be begotten and for default of such issue male of the Body of either of them then to the use of either of them having issue male of his Body lawfully begotten and for default of such issue male of both the Bodies of the said G. D. or either of them lawfully to be begotten then to the use c. By Deed an implication cannot be intended if there be not apt words otherwise it is in a Will for this is but a gift to a man and his Issue for this gift is but to both of them for life and severall inheritances Bishop al. versus Cossen Trin. 16 Jac. rotulo 62. In Formedon the Tenant pleaded a warranty and pretends
that it was collaterall warrantry where in truth it was a lineall warranty and it was held naught because the warranty was in Law a lineall warranty the Case was that Land was givenby Feoffment made to the use of the Feoffer for life remainder in Tail Tenant for life dies Tenant in Tail had Issue a Son and two Daughters and the Father and Son joyn in a Feoffment with warranty and after the Father and Son die without issue and the Daughters bring a Formedon and this is a lineall warranty PIt versus Staple Trin 14 Jac. rotulo 112. Formedon in le discender against three which plead non-Tenure and issue thereupon joyned and found specially that two of them were Lessees for life the remainder to the third person and whether the three were Tenants as is supposed by the writ was the question and the better opinion was that it was found for the Demandant for the Tenants should have pleaded severall Tenancy and then the Demandant might maintain his writ but by this generall non-Tenure if any be Tenant it is sufficient but in some Cases the Precipe may be brought against one who is not Tenant as a morgagor or morgagee COmes Leicester versus Comit. Clanriccard In Formedon upon a Judgement given in part for the Demandant and part for the Tenant the Tenant brought a writ of Error and had a Supersedeas upon it and afterwards the Demandant prosecuted a writ of Seisin and delivered it to the Sheriff and he executed the writ and immediately afterwards the Tenant delivered the Supersedeas to the Sheriff and the Tenant moved the Court and prayed a writ of restitution and it was granted him because the Tenant had done his indeavour and had not delayed the prosecuting the writ of Error COmes Clanriccard Francisca uxor Ejus Demandants versus R. S. milit vicecomit Lyple for three messuages c. which R. late Earl of Essex and Frances late wife of the said Earl by Fine in the Court of the Lady Elizabeth late Queen of England before her then Justices at Westminster levied and gave to William Gerrard Esquire and F. Mills Gentleman and the Heires of the said W. for ever to the use of Elizabeth Sydney Daughter and Heir of P. S. Milir and the Heirs of the Body of the said E. comming and for default of such issue to the use of the said F. then wife of the said Earl and the heirs of the said Fr. and which after the death of the said Eliz. ought to revert to the said Fr. by form of the gift aforesaid and by force of the Statute in such case provided because the said Eliz. died without Heir of her Body The Tenant pleaded in abatement of the writ because the writ ought to revert to the woman alone and it should have been to the Husband and wife and upon a demurrer Judgement was that he should answer over the writ may be either to revert to the Husband and wife or to the wife alone and herein the Tenant vouch two vouches and one is Essoined and an idem dies given to the other and Serjeant Harris demanded of the Court if he should Fourcher by Essoin because the Statute of Westminster the first is that Tenants Parceners or Joint Tenants shall not fourcher in Essoin therefore they two should not fourcher by Essoin but the Court held that before appearance it could not appear to the Court whether they were Tenants or not and therefore before appearance they shall have severall Essoins and Westminster the first is expounded by Gloucester the tenth which is that two Tenants shall not fourcher after appearance and at the day of the adjournment of the last Essoin the Tenant was Essoined and such Essoin was allowed and adjudged by the whole Court and the reason hereof seemed to some to be because the Tenant might be informed of the Vouchee that he vouched was the same person or no for he might be onother person for if he should be an estranger and demand the place and the Demandant could not hold him to the warranty the Demandant should loose his Land and they held that upon severall Processe to wit upon the view and upon the summons to warranty which are divers Processes the Tenant ought to be Essoined and the Court held that this Essoin was at the Common Law if the Tenant and the vouchee at the day given to the Tenant and the vouchee make default Judgement shall be given against the Tenant to wit a petty Cape and nothing against the vouchee SHotwell versus Corderoy In Formedon the Tenant prayes in aid â—nd the prayee in aid and Tenant vouch and the Vouchee was essoined and adjourned and at that Day the Attorney of the Tenant without the Prayer in aid cast an Essoin and an Idem dies given the Prayee in aid and it was quashed for they shall not have severall Essoines but joynt Essoines A Formedon brought of Lands in A. B. C. The Tenant pleads a Fine of all by the name of the Mannour and Tenements in A. B. And it was objected that he said nothing to the Land in C. but the Courtheld that by the name of the Mannor the Land in all the Villages would pass and the Demandant may if he will plead as to the Land in C. that it was not comprised in the Fine Hill 7. Jacobi rotulo 76. vel 69. Formedon in the Discender the Writ was general that J. L. gave to T. L. and the Heirs Males of his Body upon the Body of D. V. Widow lawfully to be begotten which D. the said T. afterwards took to Wife and which after the Death of the said T. c. Son and Heir Male of the Body of the said T. upon the Body of the said D. lawfully begotten to the said J. L. younger Son and Heir of the said J. L. Son of the said T. ought to descend by form of the Gift aforesaid c. and whereof he saith that the said T. was seised c. and 2 Eliz. of the said Tenements did infeoff the Plaintiff in Fee to the use of the said T. L. and his Heirs c. and note in the Count no mention made of the Marriage If a Gift be made in tail to D. and his Heirs Males the Remainder to A. in tail D. discontinues in the Life of A. and D. dies without Issue and the Heir of A. brought his Writ as the immediate Gift to A. his Ancestor who never was seised in his Life and for that cause the Writ was naught but if A. had been seised of the Land then it had not been necessary to have shewed the first Gift to D. by the opinion of the whole Court Actions upon the Statute of Hue and Cry NEedham versus Inhabitant Hundredi de Stoak Trin. 8. Jac. rotulo 534. Action brought upon the Statute of Hue and Cry by the Servant who was robbed in his own name and part of the Goods
were his Masters and part his own proper Goods and found guilty as to his own Goods and a special Verdict as to the Goods of his Master and Judgement for the Plaintiff COnstable versus Inhabitant in dimid Hundred de VValsham in Comitat. Essex Trin. 15. Jacobi rotulo 2244. The Action wabrought for a Robbery the Defendant is found guilty and it was alleadged in Arrest of Judgement that the Action would not lie because it was not brought against the whole Hundred and it was answered on the Plaintiffs behalf that the half Hundred is a Hundred by it self and the Court held the Writ should have been brought against them in this manner Inhabitantes in Hundredo de W. called the half Hundred of Waltham but the Writ was held good for the Writis so shall be intended to be brought against the men inhabiting in the half hundred of W. Judgement for the Plaintif in a special verdict the Jury found that the robbery was done upon the Sunday and it was held in the Kings Bench that the Hundred was liable NOrris versus Inhabitantes in Hundredo de G. Hill 14. Jacobi rotulo 431. And the Plaintiff declares upon a Robbery done the ninth day of October An. 13 Jacobi And the Originall bears Teste the ninth of October 14 Jacobi and after a Verdict Serjeant Harvey moved to stay the Judgement because the Writ was not brought within one year after the Robbery done according to the forme of the Statute of 27 Eliz. And the Court held it a good Exception CAmblyn versus Hundredum de Tendring Trin. 15. Jacobi rotulo 1952. The Plaintiff in his Declaration had mistaken to alleadge the very Day of the Robbery for he shewed the Robbery to be committed in October where in truth it was committed in September and the Court was moved that the Record which was taken out for Triall but never put in might be amended for the notice given to the Hundred as the Record is would appear to be before the Robbery and they granted that it should be amended Actions in Partition THe Process in Partition are Summons Attachment and Distress and the Process are returnable from fifteen Dayes to fifteen Dayes and if the Writ be brought against two or more several Essoines will lie but no View and the Sheriff upon the Distress is compellable to return the value of the Land from the teste of the Original untill the Return thereof and if the Writ be against two or more Deâ—eâ—â—iants and onely one appears the Plaintiff cannot declare against him untill the residue of the Defendants appear and Partition lies by the Statute of 31 H. 8. cap. 32. between Joint-tenants Tenants in Common Tenants for Life or for years but at the Common Law Partition was onely between Coparceners his Petit. is no Plea in Partition and in this Action there are two Judgements the first is that Partition shall be made and if the Plaintiff die after the first Jugement and before the second Judgement the Writ shall not abate but his Heir shall have a Scire facias against the Defendants to shew cause why Partition should be made and a Writ of Partition will not lie of the View of Frank Pledges and the Death of one of the Defendants abates the Writ And note the Plaintiff may have a general Writ but a special Count and if the Defendant confess part and plead Quod non tenet insimul pro indiviso for the residue the Plaintiff may have Judgement upon the Confession and a Writ to make Partition upon the Confession before the Triall and afterwards try the Issue for the residue or else he may respit his Judgement upon the Confession untill the Issue be tried but this is dangerous for if the Plaintiff be non-suit at the Assise then the whole Writ will abate and if the Sheriff return the Tenant summoned when in truth he was not an Action of Deceit lies not but an Action upon the Case because the Plaintiff shall not recover the Land by default and you shall never have a Writ of Partition against one where he cannot have one against the other thirteen men joyn in a purchase of a Mannour the Conveyance was of the moity to one of them in Fee and the other moity to the other twelve men in Fee the twelve make a Feoffment to one of twelve several Tenements and Land and that Feoffee makes twelve several Feoffments to those twelve men now the thirteenth man which had the other moity bringeth one Writt of Partition against them all pretending that they held insimul pro indiviso and by the opinion of the whole Court it would not lie but he ought to have brought several Writs and Mich. 6. Jacobi in Partition because both of them are in Possession he that is not prohibited may cut down all the Trees and no Estrepment will lie COcks versus Combstoks The Plaintiff declares that one A. was seised in Fee and demised for years to J. and L. and to the Plaintiff for term of Life and one of them demised to one of the Defendants for years the Defendant as to part pleads that he did not demise and the other pleads Non est informat and a Demurrer to the Plea of Non demisit because it is but argumentative Quod non tenet insimul and it was adjudged a naughty Plea a Writ of Error lies in Partition upon the first Judgement before the Writ be returned MIll versus Glemham The Defendant pleads that he before the purchasing of this Writ had brought a Writ of partition for the same Land against the Plaintiff which yet depends and demands Judgment if the Plaintiffs Writ were brought And the Court held that the Writ last brought is well brought for if the first Plaintiff will not proceed upon his Writ and the Defendant shall confess the Action yet the Defendant cannot sue a Writ to make partition upon that Plaintiffs Writ and therefore it is reasonable that the Defendant in the first Action may sue out a Writ to make partition and that the Defendants plea is naught and the last Writ is well prosecuted Actions upon Quare Impedit THe Process in this Action are Summons Attachment and Distress peremptory by the Statute of Marlborough cap. 13. the Sheriff must summon the Defendant by good summoners and return their names upon the original Writ and not return common summoners as John Doo and Richard Roo for a Writ of deceit lyeth in this Writ if the summons were not made indeed The Writs hereupon are returned from 15. days to 15. days The summons upon the first Writ may either be made at the Church door to the person of the Defendant And although a nihil be returned upon the first summons Attachment and Distress yet if the Defendant make default upon the Distress a Writ shall goe to the Bishop upon the title made by the Plaintiff but at the common Law
only the Tenant of the Freehold but by the Statute Tenant by Statute Merchant or Elegit may have an Assise if the Incumbent hanging the writ die and the disturber present again that writ lyes by Journes account upon the first disturbance and alwayes in a Declaration in a Quare impedit you must lay a Presentation in him from whom you first derive your Title or under some from whom he claimeth otherwise it is not good The Bishop cannot grant a Sequestration in no Case but where the Church is void but if the Clerk be instituted and inducted no Sequestration lieth CVppel versus Tansie Trin. 16 Jac. rot 3210. Quare impedit brought for the Church of Bleby the Issue was that there was no such Church and the Venire was de visu de Bleby and the Exception was because it was not of the Body of the County but the Exception was salved because in the Declaration it was alledged that one died at Bleby aforesaid and it was held that every place alledged shall be intended to be a Town and by the user of the writ it is presumed in Law to be a Parish and then if there be a Parish and a Town if the Venire facias be either of the Parish or Town it is good and it is a good Writ to demand Manerium de D. with the appurtenances Severall Quare impedits may be brought against severall Defendants as one against the Bishop and another against the Patron and Incumbent but if J. S. brings a Quare impedit against A. B. that A. B. cannot have a writ against the said J. S. if a Quare impedit abates within the six moneths the Plaintiff may bring another writ but if the Plaintiff be non-suit within the six moneths he cannot have a new writ because the Defendant upon Title made hath a writ to the Bishop and for that cause a new writ will not lie COmber versus Episcopum Cicester al. Trin. 6 Jacobi rotulo 1629. The issue in a Quare impedit was if S. Rose by covin between him and Comber and Rivers did resign into the hands of the said Bishop if the King hath Title of lapse and a resignation be made by fraud and one admitted this shall not take away the Kings Title for if the Kings Title appear upon Record then shall go out a writ for the King but otherwise it is upon matter of Evidence the King shall loose his presentation as well by resignation as by Death where he hath Title to present by lapse and doth not except the resignation be by fraud and where an avoidance is by Statute there needeth not notice to be given to the Bishop LOrd Say versus Episcopum de Peterborrow Mich. 30 Jacobi rotulo 2601. The Imparlance and the demurrer entred Hill 7. Jacobi rotulo 3458. The Case was Tenant in Tail grants the Advowson to others to the use of himself and his wife and the Heirs males of the Husband and the Husband dies and the wife survives and the Lord Say marries the woman and brought the Quare impedit the estate is determined by the death of Tenant in Tail and Judgement was given for the Bishop upon a Demurrer in a Quare impedit if any of the Defendants do barr the Plaintiff the Action is gone WAllop versus Murrey Trin. 8. Jacobi rotulo 3905. The Church became void by resignation and a presentation upon the proviso in the Statute of 21 H. 8. for the Kings Chaplains The Kings Chaplains might have three Benefices with license nay he may give to them as many as he will being of his own gift Judgement for the Plaintiff if the Incumbents Plea be found for him he shall never be removed although other Pleas be found for the Plaintiff by the whole Court Pasch 9. Jacobi If the writ abate for Form you shall never have a writ to the Bishop nor where it appears that you have one Title DOminus Rex versus Emerson Trin. 8. Jac. rot 1811. The question was where the King had Title to present to a Church by reason of ward-ship and after livery and before the King doth present under the Seal of the Court of Wards the King doth present by his Letters patents under the great Seal of England and the Clerk is admitted instituted and inducted whether the Clerk shall be removed or no and the Court held that he should not and Judgment that the Plaintiff nihil capias per breve he that getteth it first by the Court of Wards or great Seal shall have it there needeth no recitall in the grant A common person by his letter or his word may make a presentation to a Benefice to the Bishop the King may present by word if the Ordinary be present for a presentment is but a commandement if the King under any Seal present it is good It is best to plead the King presented generally and not to plead it by Letters Patents for it is the worst way and judgment was given for the Defendant and Mich. 10. Jacobi it was held by the whole Court that a presentment under the great Seal to a Church parcell of the Dutchy of Lancaster is good and needeth not to be under the Dutchy Seal CRanwell versus Lister The Defendant had been Parson for three years and pleaded plenarty generally by six moneths of the presentation of one Stiles a stranger to the Writ And the Court held the Plea to be nought because the Defendant shewed no Title in Stiles NEedler versus Winton and Needham Hill 12. Jacoci rotulo 1845. In a Quare Impedit the Case was Husband and Wife bargain and sell Land to the King this is as good as a Fine being found if it was delivered to the King but not entred of Record if it was made and delivered it was good but if the King should before it be delivered grant it out it had been void being not enrolled of record for the King in consideration of the bargain and sale of the Husband and Wife before the Deed inrolled did grant to them the Parsonage of Horsham in this case the Wife is bound as strong as by Fine and the King made the grant between the date of the deed and before inrolment If the Kings Clerk be once inducted the K. cannot remove his Clerk at the common Law before the Statute of 34. H. 8. If a Quare Impedit were brought against the Patron and Clerk the Patron might confess the Action and so prejudice the Clerk therefore by the Statute the Clerk being inducted he may plead that he is Parson impersoned and so defend himself GLaswick versus Williams Hill 9. Jacobi rotulo 854. A Quare Impedit brought of the Rectory of I. Stoneley one of the Tellers in the Exchequer was indebted to Queen Eliz. And it was found that he was seised of a Mannor ad quod c. in fee and sold it to the Plaintiff who brought a writ to
sides they shall recover costs and dammages LEe versus Edwards Trin. 19 Jacobi rotulo 470. The Case was in Replevin a Copy-holder claims Common in another mans Land the Lord infeofleth the Copy-holder of his Copy-hold Land whether he hath now lost his Common and held that he had but if a Copy-holder hath Common in the Lords waste and the Lord inseofeth him of the Copy hold with all Commons the Common is not gone Oabel versus Perrot Hill 9 Jacobi rotulo 2734. Tenant in Tail hath power to make a Lease for 89 years if three persons live so long and reserving the old Rent due and payable yearly and he maketh a grant in Reversion for years and whether that be good or no was the Question there being a Lease for life in possession the second Lease was for 89 years if three live so long for the matter in Law the Court held the Lease good but for want of an averment of the life of c. the Plea was not good ROberts versus Young Hill 9 Jacobi routlo 1835. the Defendant in a Replevin pleads that he offered amends and doth not shew that he offered it before the impounding of the Cattle and adjudged an ill Plea and the offer of amends cannot be made to him that maketh cognisance BAcon versus Palmer Trin. 12 Jacobi rotulo 3947. A Copy-holder in Replevin prescribes to have Common of pasture appurte nant to the Copy-hold the other party pleads an Extinguishment of Common because the Lord had inclosed Land lying in another field in which field and in the other field the Lord had Common by cause of vicinage and note that in Common for cause of vicinage if one inclose part it is an extinguishment of all the Common SHarp versus Emerson Mich. 12. Jacobi The Defendant makes avowry for Homage Fealty and Rent the Plaintiff prayes in aid and hath a Summmons in aid and at the return of the Summons the Prayee in aid was Essoined and after the Ession the Defendant moved the Court that the Homage might be put out of the Avowry which was entred with by consent of parties was raised out of the Will ARundell versus Blanchard and Jackson Pasch 13 Jacobi rotulo 2037. The taking in Replevin was supposed to be at Southwark and one of the Defendant pleads non cepit and the other Bailiff of the Governors of the possessions revenues and good of the Free-Grammar-School of c. for the Parishoners for the Parish of Saint Olaves in Southwark in the County of Surrey and the Advowry was made for damage fesant the Plaintiff prescribed for a way belonging to his house in the Parish of Saint Olaves in Southwark and the Venire facias was of Southwark in the Parish of Saint Olaves in Southwark and exception taken to that and held good because one Defendant had pleaded non cepit and another exception was because he had not shewed when the Corporation begun and held an idle exception for one need not shew when they were incorporated another exception was because the name of one of the Jury was mistaken because in the Return of the Venire it was to Lisney of Croydon and in the Pannell of the Habeas Corpus it was written to John Lisney of Croydon and because in sound it is all one and the Sheriff made oath that he was the man that was returned in the Venire facias the Return was amended in Court and Judgement given by the whole Court for the Plaintiff PAin versus Mascall Hill 12 Jacobi rotulo 3400. The Lord avows the taking of one Mare as for Rent behind so for the fourth part of a Releif and doth not expresse the same due for the releif and for the Rent the Plaintiff pleads tender and demurres for the Releif because he had not expressed the same and because he had distrained one thing for the Rent and Releif pretending that if one cause passe against him and another for the Avowant that he could not have a Return habend but the Court were of a contrary opinion but if two men shall distrain one and the same Mare for two severall causes and one hath Judgment for himselfe and the other for himselfe In this case no return habend can be made of the Mare BRown versus Goldsmith Trin. 13. Jacobi rotulo 607. A Court of Pipowders is incident to a Fine and a Court Baron to a Mannor And a Court Baron cannot be separated from a Mannor for it is a wealth to a Mannor the like of a Court of Pipowder to a Fair by the grant of a Mannor with cum pertinencijs the Court passes for it is an incident inseparable to the Mannor and a man cannot grant his Court but he may grant the profits of his Court. MAgistri socij Collegij Emanuel is in Cambridg The writ was adjudged naught in replevin because they had distrayned in their proper names for a Corporation as Maior and Comonalty cannot distrain in their own persons but by their Bayliff The Court held that the Sheriff could not take a Bond in replevin but must take pledges according to the old custome JVid versus Bungory Trin. 8. Jac. rotulo 3059. The Defendant shews that one was seised of Land in fee and held it by Knights service of a Mannor and for the rent of two Cocks and two Hens and the Lord grants the third part of the Mannor to another who avows for the seruice and the Cocks and Hens and held he could not alone avow for that joynt service but the other should joyn with him WEnden versus Snigg Trin. 11. Jac. rotulo 1137. In replevin the question was upon a Lease for life made to three to have and to hold to them the said A. B. and C. and every of them for the term of their lives and the longest liver of them successively one after another as they are writ in order And the question was whether this was a remainder or no and it was held to be a remainder upon the reading of the Record but if the grant had been only successively not saying as they are named in the writing it had been naught because he could not tell who should begin THorold versus Hadden Trin. 11. Jac rotulc 451. In replevin a Juror was returned by the name of Payly and in the distress the name was T. P. and in the Pannell he was written Baily and tryed by that name of Baily and moved in arrest of Judgment for the mistaking of the name And the Court held that if the right name was sworn yet notwithstanding the mistake it was good for if the name in venire was not mistaken all was good and the Sheriff ought to amend his misprision and the Court demanded if any one could swear that Paly was sworn and one then present in Court made oath that Paly was sworn and the Court ordered that it should be amended
Venire facias and upon the Habeas Corpus onely twenty and three were returned and the Jury did not appear full and a Tales was awarded and tried for the Plaintiffe and good because the Venire Facias was returned full PIgott versus Pigott Mich 20 Jacobi In Replevin Avowry that Ellen Enderby was seised in Fee of three Acres in Dale and took to Husband S. Pigott and had Issue Tho Ellen dyed and the husband was in by the Curtesie the Husband and Tho the Heir granted a Rent of 10. 〈◊〉 issuing out of the three Acres to the Avowant and avows for so much behind the Plaintiffe in barrsayes that before Ellen had any estate one Fisher was seised in Fee and gave it to John E. in tayl Jo had issue Ellen who after the death of her Father entred and was seised in tayl and took a Husband as is before declared And had Issue Tho and that Tho. Tenant by the Curtesie living grants the Rent as above without this that Ellen was seised in Fee of three Acres and issue was joyned thereupon and found for the Avowant And in arrest of Judgment it was objected that in effect there was no issue joyned For the traverse of the sesin of Ellen E. was idle for no title of the Rent is derived from her but they ought to have traversed the seisin of Thomas the grantor and then the Issue had been of such a nature that it had made an end of the matter in question which was not in this case no more then if the Tenant in Formulen should plead not guilty but the Court held that though an apter issue might have been taken and that the traverse is not good yet it was helped by the statute of Jeofailes For the estate of Ellen H. was in a sort by circumstance materiall For if she were seised in tayl and that estate tayl discended to Thomas the grantor then by his death the Rent is determined after the Fee discended to Tho from Ellen there the estate was of that nature that he might grant a sufficient rent charge And although it might well be presumed that Thomas after the Fee discended to him from Ellen had altred such estate tayl yet by Popham the Courts shal not now intend that because the parties doubted nothing but whether Ellen was seised in Fee or not when he dyed And that doubt is resolved by the Verdict as if a Defendant should plead a Dâ—ed of J. S to A. and B. and that it dyed and B. survived and infeoffed the Defendant if the Plaintiffe should say that J. S. did not infeoffe A. and that they should be at issue upon that and should be found against him although this be no apt issue yet it is helped by the statute because the parties doubted of nothing but of the manner of the feoffment of J. S. whether it was made to A or not and of the same opinion was Fennor Yelverton and Williams but not Gandy CRate versus Moore Mich. 3. Jacobi In Replevin of Cattell taken in D. the Defendant avowes as Bayliffe of H. Finch And the case was thus the Lady Finch Mother of H. Finch granted a Rent charge to H. issuing out of her Mannor of N. and out of all her Lands in D. E. and is in the County of Kent belonging or appeartaining to the said Mannor And the Plaintiffe to barr the Defendant pleads an abatement in H. Finch into the Lands in D. And upon the Defendant demurrs for the Lands in D. were not belonging or appertaining to the Mannor of N. and adjudged for the Defendant For no Land can be charged by that grant if it be not belonging to the Mannor And that for two Reasons the first is because by the word aut alibi it appears that it is all but one sentence and the Aut conjoynes the words proceeding to wit all the Lands in D. S. and to put in the County of Kent in these words following to wit alibi in the said County to the said Mannor appertaining and the sentence is not perfect untill you come to the last words to the said Mannor appertaining for if the Rent be issuing out of the Land in D. c. which is not appertaining to the Mannor then the sentence must be perfect and these words County of Kent and these aut alibi must begin a new sentence which was never seen that they should make the beginning of a sentence And therefore this case is not like the case between Bacon and Baker second of King James in the prohibition where Queen Eliz. grants all her â—ith Hay c. within the liberty and precincts of St. Edmonds Bury belonging and appertaining to the said Monastery and which were lately collected by the Almoner of the said Monastery for there the latter sentence is perfect and compleat And these words in the County of Suffolke and the nec non that ensues are a new sentence And therefore the last clause And which by the Almoner c. goe only to the Tiths following the nec non and not to the Tiths contained in the first clause but it had been otherwise if the nec non had been unacum as in truth the patent was but it was mispleaded for then the unacum would have reinjoyned all and made it but one sentence The second reason was in respect of the nature of the thing granted which was but a rent And therefore if rent be granted out of a Mannor to be perceived and taken out of one acre this shall be good and nothing shall be charged but that one acre only 17. Ass but otherwise it is of Land for a Feofment of a Mannor To have c. one acre it is a void habend For here it appears that the intent of the Lady Finch was only to charge the Mannor and such Land only which were appertaining to the Mannor But Popham held the contrary for he conceived that D. S. and W. in the County of Kent were particularly named and bounded in by the name of the place and County and therefore they should be charged although they were not appertaining to the Mannor As if a man grants all his Lands in D. R. and V. in the County of M. and in Darn in the same County which he hath by discent it should only extend to Darn but denyed by the Court but he was strongly of that opinion And he held that by the first of the charge out of the Mannor all the Lands parcell or appertaining to the Mannor are charged and therefore the subsequent words if they should be limited as is above-said would be idle and frivolous And Yelverton said that the words before belonging or appertaining shall be taken to extend to the Land occupied in the Mannor although it is not parcell of it and Fenwood and Willams granted and Judgment was given that the Defendant should have a return habend TOtt versus Ingram Trin. 4. Jac. In a replevin brought by T. against I.
who makes conisance as Bailiff of Sir Ed. Br. for a common Fine which was assessed upon the Plaintiff who was resident within the Leet of his Master The Plaintiff replies that Sir Edw. by his deed had released to him all rents services exactions and demands out of his Mannor except suit of Court the Defendant demurred And Nichols that suit of Court for which this common Fine was set is excepted and therefore the common Fine is not released by that but is excepted also a common Fine is assessed when the Jurors in the Leet do conceal that which they ought to find and with which they are charged and therefore the release being for exactions out of the Land And this is not for any thing by reason of the Land but because he doth misbehave himself and by the opinion of the whole Court a release of all demands doth not discharge a man of his suite to a Leet by reason of his residency because a Leet is the Kings Court to which every leige-Subject is to come and perform his allegiance to him And also because suit of Court is inseparably inoident to a Court leet which cannot be released PAllets Case Pasch 5. Jacob. In a replevin in which Pallet was Plaintiff the case was such where a man made a Lease of Lands of which Land he was seized by a good Title and of Land of which he was seised of a defeasible Title for years rendring rent and in the replevin the Lessor avows for the whole rent The Plaintiff in the replevin saith that after the lease made the Disseisee had entred upon part of the Land and a demurrer Sergeant Hicham moved for the Advowant that he ought to have a return for he agreed that the rent should have been apportioned but he said that if a man avows for many things and he hath right but to one he shall have a returh habend 5. H. 7. and 9. H. 7. And 4. Ass Pl. 6. where a man brings an assise for rent and hath right but to part yet he shall recover for that part and cited the opinion of Popham put in Walkers Cafe in the third Rep. 24. when rent reserved upon a Lease for years should be apportioned If a man in an action of debt demands more then hee ought yet upon a nil debet pleaded the Lessor shall recover so much as shall be apportioned and assessed by the Jury and shall be barred as to the residue But Yelverton was of another opinion for he said as this case is the Avowant shall not have a return habend But if the apporciament had been made by the Jury he should have had a return habend but in this case the apporciament must be made by the Judges to whom the quantity of the Land cannot appear and therefore they cannot make apportiament for they all agreed that the apportiament ought to be accotding to the value of the Land and not according to the quantity And to prove this he cited Hubberd and Hammonds Case 43. Eliz. co lib. 427. As where the Fines of Copyholders upon admittance are uncertain the Lord cannot exact excessive Fines and if the Copyholder deny to pay it it shall be determined by the opinion of the Judges before whom the matter depends and upon a demurrer to the evidence to a Jury upon the confession or proof of the annuall value of land the annuall value ought to appear to the Judges but in this case the value doth not appear to them and therefore they cannot make any apportiament and therefore the Avowant shall not have a return habend But Tâ—anfield held the Avowant should have a return habend for the whole rent for the Judges could not apportion this because the value did not appear and the eviction is matter of privity which ought to be discovered by the Lessee and he should give notice to the Lessor and he ought to shew the value of the Land from which he is inriched to the Judges And Popham is of the same opinion for he said the value of the Land ought to be shewed by the Lessee for every one ought to plead that which is in his knowledg and that was in the Lessee's knowledg and not the Lessor and Fenner of the same opinion but Yelverton and Williams against it for Yelverton said that it appeared that part of the Land was evicted and therefore it ought to be apportioned but because the value did not appear to the Judges it could not be apportioned Williams said that if the Lessee surrender part the Lessor need not shew the value and Popham agreed to that because the acceptions of the Lessor had made him privy to it KEnrick versus Pargiter Trin. 6. Jacobi The Defendant justifies the taking of the Cattell damage fesant upon a surmise of a custome that the Plaintiff being Lord hath the place in which c. wholly to himself untill Lammas day and after that day it is common for the Tenants and the Plaintiff is not to put in but only three horses c. And because the Plaintiff after Lammas put in more cattell then three horses the Defendant took them damage fesant as it was lawfull for him to do And issue was joyned upon the custome and found against the Plaintiff and Yelverton shewed in arrest of Judgment that the Defendant could not take the Cattell damage fesant for it appears that the Defendant is only a Commoner and it also appears that the place in which c. is the soile of the Plaintiff and the Cattell cannot be taken damage fesant upon his ground no more then the Tenant can have an Action of Trespass against his Lord guare vi armis c. in regard of his Seigniory as it is in Littleton and 5. H. 7. But the Court said that the matter of taking the Cattell did not come into question for nothing was in issue but the custome which is found against the Plaintiff for if the Plaintiff would have taken advantage of that he ought to have demurred And although by that he had confessed the custom yet whether such Commoner could have taken the Lords Cattell would then properly have come into debate And by Fenner Williams and Cook the taking the Lords Cattel damage fesant was good for by the custom the Lord is to be excluded but only for his stint and the Lord may well be stinted and the whole vestive and benefit of the soile is the Commoners and they have no other remedy to preserve the benefit they have in feeding their Cattell but by taking the Cattell of the Lord if he offends And the Custome hath made the Lord as meer a stranger as any other and without doubt the Commoner might take the Cattell of a stranger 15. H. 7. The chief Justice and Yelverton doubted of it And although the Commoners by the custome had gained the sole feeding in the land of the Lord Yet they ought to have shewed the custome and also the usage
village is in question or could come in Issue yet it was resolved by the whole Court but him that those of the village of Bail might well know whether the Plaintif being an inhabitant within the village in which the Leet was were a chief Pledge at the Court or no for to have cheif pledges doth properly belong to a Leet which Leet is within the village and therefore they of the Mannor cannot have so good knowledge of the matter as they of the Mannor and village together and therefore they all ought to have been of both as in the Case of Common or a way from one village to a house in another village this ought to be tried of both villages and so also of the Tenure of Land in D. held of the Mannor of Sale the triall must be as well of the village where the Land lies as of the Mannor of which the Land is holden as it was adjudged Hill 45. El. in the then Queens Bench in the Case between Lovlace and and Judgement was reversed and see 6 H. 7. and Arundels case in my Lord Cooks Reports BVrglacy versus Ellington Burglacy brought a Replevin against Ellington for the taking of his cattell c. the Avowant pleads that one W. B. was seised of the place in which c. in his Demesne as of Fee and being so seised died by reason whereof the Land descended to one Crist. his Daughter and Heir who took to Husband the Avowant the Plaintiff in his Barr to the Avowry confesses that W. B. was seised and that it descended to C. who took to Husband the Avowant but he further said that the 16 of April primo Jac. the Husband and Wife by their Deed indented and inrolled did bargain and sell the same Land unto one Missenden and a Fine levied by them and that M. the 30 of James bargained and sold it to F. M. in Fee and he being so seised licensed the Plaintiff to put in his cattell the Avowant replies if in the said Bargain and Sale made by the Husband and Wife a Proviso was contained that if the said Ellington should pay one hundred pounds a year after then c. and pleaded the Statute of 13 Eliz. of usury with an averment that the profits of the Land were of the value of twelve pounds by the year the Plaintif rejoyned that true it is there is such a clause in the Indenture but he further said that before the sealing of the Indenture it was agreed by word that the said Ellington should have and receive the profits and not the Plaintif and thereupon the Avowant demurres and the Case was thus Ellington bargains his Land to M for the payment of one hundred pounds a yeare after to be paid and that the Bargainee should have the profits the bargainor enters as upon a void Sale because of the statute of usury for by the Proviso â—he is to have the hundred pounds and ten pounds for the forbearance and by the Law he is to have the profits and the which did amount above ten pounds by the hundred the bargainee to avoid the usury pleaded an agreement by word before the sealing of the Bargain and Sale and the question arising upon this was if the Bargainee might plead this verball agreement for the avoiding of the Deed which did suppose the contrary and Moore of Lincolns â—nne counsell was of opinion that he could not put that maxime that every thing must be dissolved by that by which it is bound and his whole argument depended upon that and he cited divers Cases as 1 H. 7. 28. 28 H. 8. 25. 1 Eliz. Dier 16. 9. Rutlands Case 5 Rep. and Cheyney 6 Case there but the whole Court without any argument were of opinion that he might plead the verball agreement and avoid the usury and first they all agreed that when a Deed is perfected and delivered as his Deed that then no verball agreement afterwards may be pleaded in destruction thereof as it is in the Cases put but when the agreement is parcell of the Originall contract as here it is it may be pleaded and secondly otherwise it would bring a great mischief being the custome so to do by word but if it had been expressed within the Deed that the Bargainee should have the profits and that it was delivered accordingly that no agreement or assignment of the profits could now avoid it for it is an usurious contract and therefore the whole court gave Judgement for the Plaintif that he might well plead the agreement Actions of Trespass and Battery JOhnson versus Turner Trin. 44 Eliz. Trespasse brought for breaking the Plaintifs house and the taking and carrying away his goods the Defendant justifies all the Trespasse the Plaintif as to the breaking of the House and taking the goods and the matter therein contained demurres upon the Defendants Barr the Defendant joins in demurrer in this form to wit because the Plaintif aforesaid as to the breaking of the House and taking the goods is sufficient demands Judgement and Judgement given in the Common Pleas for the Plaintiff and a Writ to inquire of Damages upon which Damages are assessed for the breaking of the House and taking the goods and whether the subsequent words to wit and the matter therein contained go to the whole matter in the Barr to wit to the carrying of the Goods away also for when the Defendant joyned in Demurrer with the Plaintiff he joyned specially to wit to the breaking of the House and taking the Goods but nothing of the carrying them away and so as to the carrying of them away nothing is put into Judgement of the court yet the Writ to inquire is for the whole and the Judgement also and the carrying of the Goods away being parcell of the matter and for which greater Damages are adjudged and that being not put into the Judgement of the Court by the Demurrer therefore the Judgement is erronious for there is a discontinuance as to the carrying of the Goods away which is part of the matter and this businesse concerned Mr. Darcy of the privy chamber concerning his patent for Cards PVrrell versus Bradley Pasch 1 Jacobi The Plaintif declares in Trespass wherefore by force and Arms such a day the Defendant did assault him and one Mare price six pounds from the person of the Plaintiffe then and there did take and Yelverton moved for the Defendant in arrest of Judgement and the Declaration was not good for the Plaintif did not shew any property in the Mare for he ought to have that it was his Mare or the Mare of the Plaintif for as it is laid in the Declaration the words may have two intendments that the property of the Mare was to the Defendant and then the taking was lawfull or that the property was in the Plaintif and then the taking was wrongfull and it being indifferent to whether it shall be taken most strongly against the Plaintif for his
City the Plaintiff surmising that the Sheriff and Coroners are Citizens of that City may pray a Venire facias to the next County of the body of the County or of the next Villiages in the next County And if the challenge of Kindred be not rightly alleadged in the challenge it matters not if it be Kindred and if a Venire facias be quashed because it was returned by the Under Sheriff who was Kin to him or other good cause it shall be quashed and the Venire facias shall be returned by the high Sheriff with words in it that the Under Sheriff shall not intermeddle with it And if the Array be challenged and affirmed the Defendant may after challenge the Poll and must shew his cause of challenge presently And if the Land in question lye in foure Hundreds if foure of any Hundred appeare it is good and note That the challenge of the Array shall be drawne in Paper and delivered presently after the Jury appeares and the Defendant is not bound to make good his challenge with these words Et hoc parat est ver iscare c. And those that try the principall challenge may also try the challenge upon the Tales if the King had been party alone no challenge was to be allowed but if the suit had been in the name of another who sued as well for the late King as for himselfe in a Writ to inquire of waste after a distress no challenge to the Poll lyes It is good cause to challenge a Juror because he was attainted in a conspiracy or attaint or if any Juror was put into the Pannell at the desire of the party it is good cause of challenge to the Array And if a Jury of two Counties and both Arrayes are challenged two of one County shall try the Array of that County and two of the other County shall try the Array of the other County and they shall not joyne untill they be sworne of the Principall and two of one Hundred and two of the other Hundred doe suffice if in Trespass the Defendant justifie as a Servant to the Lord and by his commandement It is good cause of challenge to the Juror that he is a Tenant to the Lord although the Lord be no party to the Record and if Process by challenge is awarded to the Coroners the Process afterwards shall not goe to the Sheriff although there be another Sheriff but after Judgement execution shall issue to the new Sheriff And where a man challenges the Polls of the principall Pannell he afterwards shall not challenge the Array of the Tales and if the Array be quashed it is entred upon Record but if it be affirmed then it is not entred If Trespass be done in diverse Townes in one Shire they may all be joyned in one Writ to wit why by force and armes the Closes and Houses of the Plaintiff at A. B. and C. have broken and c. WOlsey versus Sheppard Constable The Constable being Defendant justifies the Imprisonment by reason that the Plaintiff kept one Alehouse against the forme of a Statute of Queen Elizabeth and therefore by the warrant of two Justices he was committed to Prison and Issue was that he did not keep an Alehouse against the forme of the Statute aforesaid and indeed the Statute was made in Edw. 6. time and the Jury found that he did keep an Alehouse against the Statute in Edw. 6. time And the Court held the mistaking of the day of the Act is not prejudiciall by way of barr but by way of count it must be layd truly GLasbrook versus Einsey Pasch 16. Jacobi in Assault and Battery the Defendant pleaded not guilty and the next terme after the Writ of Venire facias was awarded the Defendants Attorney would have confessed the Action by Relicta verificatione which the Plaintiff did deny to receive having took out his Venire and that those Errors which had escaped in the proceedings by that confession were not holpen as they are after tryall and it was much controverted by the Court whether the Defendant without the consent of the Plaintiff might confesse the Action and the Court was in severall opinions but because the Plaintiff always prays for the confession it seemed he might refuse the confession and afterwards it was adjudged the confession should not be received because it appeared to the Court to be but a practice to lessen the Plaintiffs Damages COok versus Jenman Trin. 12. Jacobi rotulo 329. An Action of Trespass and Battery was brought the last day of October 10 Jacobi The Defendant as to the force and armes sayes nothing but pleads generally that he and one in the sayd last day of October did joyntly enter into the Plaintiffs at S. and did then and there assault the Plaintiff and that afterwards to wit such a day and yeare the said Plaintiff did by his Writing c. release c. the said R. of all Actions c. And avers it to be the same Trespass whereof the Plaintiff complained and the Plaintiff traverses without this that the Trespass c. was joyntly done and demurrer upon this Plea pretending the Trespass is severall and not joynt and so no satisfaction but it was held a good Plea for the Battery was joynt or severall at the Plaintiffs election to have his Action against one or other And a satisfaction by one is a satisfaction for all and the Plaintiff cannot have severall dammages but one dammage against them all and he hath his choice as in Heydens Case to have the best dammages COok versus Darston Mich. 15. Jacobi An Action of Trespass brought by the Committee of a Lunatique being a Copy-holder to whom the Lord had committed the Lunatique and a stranger sowed the Land and the question was whether the Committee or the Lunatique should have the Action and the Court held the Action should be brought in the name of the Lunatique YOunge versus Bartram Battery brought by the Plaintiff against Husband and Wife and two others the Woman and one of the others without the Husband plead not guilty and the Husband and and the other plead Son assault demesne and tryed and alleadged in arrest of Judgement because the Wife pleaded without her Husband and Judgement stayed and a Repleader by the whole Court CRogate versus Morris If a stranger come over a Common the Lord may have an action but not the Commoner for the petty Trespas multiplicity of actions wil not take away my action except it be a damage whereby I lose my Common I can have no action If a stranger come and eat up my Common a Free-holder may bring an Assize of common for it is a Disseisin for a Disseisin of Common is the taking away the profits of the Common And an action of case will lye against the Lord for cutting down the body of the tree when the Tenant should have the loppings if the Commoner may have his Common
times used to have a Dispensation from the Archbishop and if the Incumbent in this Case should preach Heresie as the Attorney and Popham said the Ordinary might correct him for the parson is not exempted out of his Jurisdiction but his Parsonage onely but by Gawdy and the rest the Ordinary could not meddle with him for the Parson is priviledged in respect of the place but the Patron may commission and examine the matter and thereupon out and deprive him and so it happened in Coverts Case as Gawdy and Williams said wherein the Bishop of Winchester was the Donor of such a Donative 13 E. 4. LEe versus Lacon 3. Jac. In trespass the action was Land in the County of Salop and not guilty pleaded and the venire facias was made with a space for Salop but Salop was not named there And by vertue of that Writ the Sheriffe of Salop impannelled the Jury and found for the Plaintiff and the matter above specified was moved in Arrest of Judgment to wit that the venire facias was vicious and so a mistriall but by Fenner and Williams it was to be accounted his if no venire facias had been awarded And so indeed by the Statute of Jeofailes for the County to wit Salop is omitted and left out and so the Sheriffe of Salop had no power nor authority to summon the Jury because the Writ which is his Warrant is generall to the Sheriff and not naming of any County but the Court held it to be the best way to amend it and they put this difference For when the action is laid in Salop and upon a special pleading the issue is drawn into a forreign County there the entry and award of the venire upon the Will is speciall to wit to the Sheriff of that County where the issue arises to be tryed and in such case a venire facias with a blanâ—k shall not be good because it cannot be judged to which of the Sheriffs the venire was to be awarded and upon that incertainty it shall be naught but when the generall issue is taken or the matter is triable in the same County where the action is laid there the venire facias is awarded generally and must of necessity be intended to be the Sheriffe of that County where the action is laid and cannot be otherwise intended and for this reason it was but the default of the Clerk which is amendable and so it was amended BAylie versus Moon Trin. 3. Jacobi An action of Battery brought in Plymouth Court before the Major and Bailiffs there and not guilty pleaded but afterwards the issue was waived and Judgment was given for the Plaintiff and a Writ to enquire of damage was awarded to the Serjeant of the Mace that by the oath of twelve c. he should inquire and the Writ was made returnable at the next Court before the Maior and Baylifs And upon a Writ of Errour brought it appeared by the Record certified that the Writ to inquire of damages was taken before the Maior of Plymouth who was also Judg of the Court and for that cause reversed for the Writ warrants the inquiry to be before the Serjeant of the Mace who by the writ for that purpose is made a distinct Officer and so an inquiry before the Maior is not warranted by any writ And so by consequence a Judgment to recover those damages taxed before a wrong Officer to whom the Writ was not directed is erroneous which was granted by the whole Court LAxworth versus West Mich. 3. Jacobi Trespass brought for the taking of Hay severed from the ninth part of Elthorp in the County of Warwick the Defendant to part pleads not guilty and to the residue pleads a devise of the Parsonage made by Lepworth to the Defendant at Wapenbury in the same County and to inable the devise for tithes in L. alledges L. to be a Hamlet in Wapenbury to the intent that the whole Tithes may pass and upon a non devisavit the venn was of Wapenbury and found for the Plaintif that T. L. did not devise it and the other issue of not guilty found for the Defendant and moved in Arrest of Judgment that the venu was mistaken because it was of Wapenbury only and not of Elthorp and they of W. could not try a matter in E. And although it was answered that the Defendant himself by his plea had confessed that E. was but an Hamlet yet the Court held the venu mistaken for when the Plaintif declares of a Trespass in E. This by generall intendment is presumed to be a Village of which Village the matter which is there in question ought to be tryed and although the Defendant had alledged Elthorp to be but an Hamlet yet it was but to inable the devise and doth not extend to the issue before joyned upon the not guilty for part for in that issue both parties agree that Elthorp is a Village and it is a perfect issue taken which hath not any coherence with the other issue of non devisavit but if the Defendant had to the whole issue pleaded the devise as his excuse and had alledged E. to be an Hamlet of W. and that only been in issue there the venu awarded had been good of W. only but in this case it was adjudged that the venire was mis-awarded and that the Plaintif should have a venire facias de novo DElves versus Wyer Mich. 3. Jacobi The Plaintiff brought an action of Trespasse for breaking his Close and for cropping 200. Pear-trees and 100. Apple-trees and damage found to 40. l. And the Court was moved by Richardson for that the damages might be mitigated because he produced an Affidavit whereby it appeared that the party himself before the Action brought would have took 5 l. but denyed for the Court said that they could not diminish the damages in Trespass which was locall and therefore could not appear to them and the damages might well amount to 40 l. for cropping of an Orchard and so Judgment entred WOody's case Mich. 3. Jacobi Woody brought an action of false imprisonment and Battery against two who justifie and set forth that London is an ancient City and that the Maior of London is a Justice of Peace and that the Defendants were Serjeants of the Mace according to the custome of the City and that the Lord Maior to wit one Lee commanded them to arrest the Plaintif for causes to them unknown but to him known and to imprison him c. Walter moved that this Justification was insufficient because they only shewed that they were Serjeants at Mace duely elected according to the custome of the City but do not shew the Custome and Authority that they have to make Serjeants and to arrest as it is 4. H. 4. 36. in trespass the Defendant justifies that the Tower of London is within the City of London and time out of mind c. one Court was there used
c. and that the Plaintif was sued there by J. S. and that hee was summoned and upon a nihill returned a capias issued according to the Custome c. And that he being an Officer there did arrest and the Court ruled him to plead the Custome particularly for holding the Court and to prescribe c. And here it is shewn that the Maior is a Justice of Peace And it doth not appear whether he did it as a Justice of Peace or Maior as 14. H. 7 8. A Justice of Peace cannot command his servant to arrest one without a Warrant in writing in his absence And Popham chiefe Justice said That although the Judges knew the Authority of the Maior by which they arrested men yet because it did not appear to them judicially as Judges it must be pleaded And a Justice of Peace cannot command his servant to arrest one if not in his presence which was granted And Fennor Justice said that the servant is not an Officer to the Maior as he is a Justice of Peace but the Constable and Walker also added that the Plea was that the Maior commanded to imprison him presently without shewing any cause which was held naught for the maior ought to temper his Authority according to Law For the Judges cannot imprison without shewing cause but them and the Maior both may command an Officer to arrest a man without shewing the cause for else before he shall be examined he may invent and frame an excuse and the accessories will flye away And Williams Justice finds that it was incertain for the Plaintif by what authority he commanded it whether as Maior or Justice of Peace and his power as a Justice of Peace the Judges knew by common Law but his power as a Maior they knew not if it be not shewed by pleading and Judgement HVggins versus Butcher Trin. 4. Jac. The Plaintif declared that the Defendant such a day did assault and beat his Wife of which she dyed such a day following to his damage 100 l. And Serjeant Foster moved that the Declaration was not good because it was brought by the Plaintiff for a Battery done upon his Wife And this being a personall wrong done unto the woman is gone by her death And if the woman had been in life hee could not have brought it alone but the woman must have joyned in the Action for the damages must be given for the wrong offered to the body of the woman which was agreed And Tanfield said that if one beat the servant of J. S. so that he die of that beating the Master shall not have an Action against the other for the battery and loss of service because the servant dying of the extreamity of the beating it is now become an offence against the Crown and turned into Felony and this hath drowned the particular offence and prevails over the wrong done to the Mr. before And his action by that is gone which Fennor and Yelverton agreed to BRown versus Crowley Pasch 5. Jac. Action of Trespass brought against Croyley for wounding the Plaintif upon the hinder part of the left legge being rendred in Latin super posteriorem partem levis libaei and the Jury found for the Plaintiff And Harris moved in Arrest of Judgment for hee said that these words levis libaei made the Declaration vitious for the incertainty for he said that levis signified light and it was an improper word for left and that judgment ought to be respited for the incertainty And Yelverton argued that judgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff for he said the Declaration was not vitious for if the Plaintiff had declared generally that he had wounded broken or evill intreated him and had omitted those other words it had been sufficient and then the adding of those words which were not materiall but for damages did not make the Declaration vitious and he said that levus leva levum was Latin for left And whereas he hath said that he strook him super posteriorem partem levis libaei where it should have been levis libaei it was but false Latin and the Declaration shall not be made naught for false Latin And Popham said that hee shewing upon which part of the body the wound was were laid only to incense damages for the Declaration had been sufficient though they had been omitted And Justice Fennor agreed to Popham and he said it had been judged that where a man brought an Action against another for calling him strong Theife and the Jury only found that he called him Theife but not strong Theif yet the Plaintiff recovered for this word strong was to no other purpose then to increase dammages and Judgement was given for the Plaintif VIccars versus Wharton Pasch 5. Jac. Viccars brought an action of false imprisonment against Wharton and others and shews that he was imprisoned two dayes and two nights without meat or drink The Defendants come and shew that King Edward the 1. by his Letters Patents did incorporate one Village in Nottingham-shire with Bailiffs and Burgesses and that the King did ordain and make those Burgesses Justices of the Peace there and that the Defendant was Bailiâ—â— and a Justice of Peace there and that the Plaintiff did speak divers opprobrious and contumelious words of the Defendant by reason whereof they imprisoned him And shews further that the Bailiffs have used from the time of the making their Patent to imprison the disturbers of the Peace and it was held a naughty plea for a custome could not be shewn in such a manner And Tanfield held in this case that a man could not prescribe to be a Justice of peace but Justice Williams held he might prescribe to be a conservator of the Peace And Tanfield held that the King might grant that all the Burgesses and their Heires should be Burgesses which Justice Williams denyed HAll versus White Pasch 5. Jac. An action of Trespass brought against the Defendant for impounding the Plaintiffs Cattel the Defendant justifies for Common And upon that they were at issue in Derby-shire and the Jurors being sworn the Bailiff found one Bagshaw one of the Jurors rending of a Letter concerning the said cause and shewed it to the Judg and a verdict given by the Jury And this matter moved in the then Kings Bench to quash the verdict but denyed by the whole Court because the Letter and the Cause was not certified by the Postea and made parcell of it for otherwise the examination of that at the Barre after the verdict shall never quash it And so it was adjudged between Vicary and Farthing 39. Eliz. where a Church Book was given in Evidence of which you shall never have remedy except it be entred and made parcell of the Record BVtler versus Duckmonton Trin. 5 Jacobi In Trespasse upon a speciall Verdict the Case was that no demised Land to a woman if she should live sole and unmarried
his house which he could not do for the entring is one act done and ended at the going out again And therefore if he re-enter it is a new Trespass and the continuando is only alledged for the aggravation of damages 2 R. 3. 15. 10. E. 3. 10. 16. E. 3. 24. That a continuando cannot be for breaking the House but Doddridge and Haughton Justices the rest being silent were of opinion that it might be alledged that a continuando for although it might be that if hee went forth and re-entred it should be a new Trespass but if upon his first Entry he continued divers dayes it might be alledged with a continuando And see for that Mich. 38. El. in the Common Pleas fol. 118. If a Disseisee re-enter he shall have an Action of Trespass against the Disseisor with a continuando And so is Fitzherberts Nabrevium 91. L. that a continuando may be laid as well for breaking a House as eating the Grass and so is 10. E. 3. 10. and 20. H. 7. 30. by the opinion of Gapley GEush against Mynne Pach. 11. Jacobi An Action of Trespass brought wherefore by Force and Armes the Close of the Plaintiff did break c. The Defendant justified by reason there was a report that a Vermine called a Badger was found there to the great damage of the Inhabitants by reason whereof he uncoupled his Beagles in the place where c. and hunted there and found the Badger and pursued him untill he Earthed in the place where c. by reason whereof he digged the ground and took the Badger and killed him and afterwards hee stopped up the Earth again which is the same Trespass and demands Judgment whereupon the Plaintiff demurs And upon reading the Record Scamber of the Inner Temple was for the Demurrer and that the Defendant could not justifie as this case was And first he was of opinion that the Common Law warrants hunting such noysome Beasts although it be in the Lands of another because it is good and profitable to the Common-wealth that such hurtfull Beasts should be extirpated according to the 8. E. 4. 15. And Fishermen may justifie their Nets upon anothers Land 13. H. 8. 16. 22. H. 6. 49. A man may justifie entring into a house to serve a Subpaena 3. H. 6. 336. A man may justifie the entring into anothers Land with the Sheriff to help him to distrain but otherwise it is for things of pleasure as 38. E. 3. 10. B. You cannot justifie the Entry when your Hawk hath killed a Pheasant in anothers Land and so for hunting of Hares or Conies in the Free-hold of another but although the Law allows and permits such Entries as aforesaid yet the Law requires that such things shall be done in an ordinary and usuall manner as 12. H. 8. 2. A Commoner cannot digge the Land to make Trenches although it be for the benefit of another and this is confirmed and explained by the Statute of 8. Eliz. cap. 15. For although that Statute gives reward for the killing of Vermins yet the Statute further saies that it must be with consent and with reasonable Engines and Devices 2. R. 2. Barr. 237. Grant of Fish in the Pond one cannot dig the Land and make a Sluce but must take with them Nets And so if a man grant to me all his Trees in such a place I I cannot grub up the roots out of the earth if there be any other way to take them but if there be no other way then it is otherwise as 9 Ed. 4. 35. a. A grant to put a Pipe in my Land and afterward it is stopped I may dig to mend it by the opinion of the Court and therefore there being an Ordinary course to wit hunting to kill the Badger the digging for that is unlawfull and the Action will well ly Mich. 36. and 37 Eliz. 60. Nicholas Case expressely for a Fox and Fenner held it was not lawfull to break a Hedge in the pursuit MIles against Jones Pasch 11 Jac. Miles brought an Action of Trespasse against Jones wherefore by force and Arms his goods c. The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff 5 Jacobi acknowledged a Recognisance of 100. l. at Mich. at which day he did not pay it and that two years after the Recognisance was extended upon his goods because the monies were not satisfied at the day nor at any time after the Plaintiff replies that they were paid in the sixth year of James and desires this that it may be inquired onely by the Countrey and the Defendant likewise and upon the Triall it was found for the Plaintiff and it was new moved in arrest of Judgement by Goldsmith that there was no Issue joyned for an Issue ought to be joyned upon a thing alledged by the party DOyly against White and Webb Trin. 11 Jacobi Doyly brought an Action of Assault Battery and imprisonment of his wife against White and Webb The Defendant pleads a speciall Justification to wit that in November 2 Jacobi an Action of Trespass was brought in the Common pleas by one A. against Julian Goddard and upon the generall Issue it was found for J. G. and Judgement given for her and afterwards and before Execution J. G. takes to Husband the now plaintiff and afterwards brings a Writ of Error in the Kings Bench and upon a Scire Facias against the said Julian the Judgement in the Common pleas was reversed and costs given to A. the plaintif in the Writ of Error and aftewards a Capias ad satisfaciend was directed to the now Defendants to take the said I. G. by Force of which the said Defendants took the woman of the now plaintif with an averment that the said I. G. and the Wife of the now Plaintif were one and the same person and the plaintif demurres upon this plea and Yelverton moved that this justification was not good for divers causes first when the Sherif is to execute a process he is to do it duly and upon the right person at his perill and for that see 11 H. 4. 90. b. If the Sherif take the goods of another in Execution he is a trespassor 5 E. 4. 50. a. If a Capias be to take I. S. and there be two of the same name he ought to look to take the right man at his perill and as he ought to take notice so he must pursue his authority and for this see 10. E. 4. 12. b. if a Capias issue out against I. S. the Son of A. and he take I. S. the Son of B. false imprisonment lies against him and in a Case when his Warrant is against I. G. there is no such J. G. for by her marriage with the Plaintiff she had another name and he is therefore a Trespassor for the taking of J. Doyly and his averment cannot help him because it agrees not with his Warrant and so cannot be intended to be the same person but if the variance was
in the name of Baptisme onely it would be otherwise and secondly although the party had admitted her to have the same name yet the Sherff in pleading had taken expresse Conusance of the contrary and had made it appear to the Court that it was not according to his authority and therefore he shall be punished but the whole Court was of a contrary opinion for first the Scire facias was according to the Judgement in the Common Pleas and well then might all the subsequent Processe be according in course of Law but if the Husband had come upon the Scire facias and shewed how that she was covert then the Action ought to be against both of them and secondly the parties themselves in all the proceedings throughout have all admitted that she is the same person and that she had the same name and therefore this differs from the 10 E. 4. 15. and therefore they shall be concluded from saying the contrary and although the Sheriff had shewed the marriage that was but a bare allegation and suggestion of the Sheriff and it appears not judicially whether it were so or no and thirdly it would be dangerous for the Sherif to return a Non est inventus for because the parties have admitted her name to be so in all the proceedings the Sheriff shall be estopped also as the 3 H. 7. 10. and then an Action of the Case would ly upon the false Return or if the Woman should be in the company of the Sheriff and the party shew her to the Sheriff she might escape CArrill against Baker Trin. 11 Jacobi The Plaintiff brough an Action wherefore by force and Arms he entred into his Warren and digged his Land and chased his Conies and took them the Defendant pleads to all except to the entring the Warren chasing the Conies and digging the Land not guilty and as to the entring of the Warren chasing of the Conies and digging the Land he pleads an especiall Justification to wit that he had Common there time out of mind and because the Plaintiff stored the Borrows there with Conies and made new holes by reason whereof the Defendants sheep feeding there fell into them to their great damage the Defendant did with a Ferret chase the Conies and stopped up the holes with the earth digged out c. and upon that Plea the Plaintiff demurred and George Crook was of opinion that it was not a good justification and the Question was single whether a Commoner might drive out Conies which surcharged the Land and he conceived he could not for the Freehold and possession of the Land is in the Terr-Tenant onely and the Commoners cannot intermeddle with it for a Commoner hath onely the grasse of the Land and not absolutely neither to do with it what he pleases but onely to take it with the mouths of his Cattel and for this see 12 H. 8. 2. a. and 27 H. 6. 10. and 13 H. 8. 16. the espleas in a Quod permittat is alledged in taking the grasse with the mouths of his Beasts and for that see 22 Assis 48. 10. E. 4. 4. and 46 Ed. 3. 23. if a stranger put in his Cattell the Commoner cannot have an Action of Trespass and 13 H. 8. 15. ruled that if a Commoner dig the Land to make a trench he is a trespassor but he may drive out or distrain for doing damage and 15 H. 7. 12. 13 H. 7. 13. and 12. H. 8. 2. a. because after a manner he hath interest in the grasse which is spoiled and consumed by the Cattell of the stranger but although he may drive out and distrain the Cattell of an estranger yet he cannot meddle with the Lords Cattel or the Terr-Tenants although there be more then reasonable as in Fitzherberts Na. brev 125. D. and 8 E. 3. 30. if the Lord surcharge the Common The Commoner may have an Assise against the Lord and if he be a copy-holder he shall have an Action of the case 9 Rep. 112. but the Lord may distrain H. 9. Ja. Kings Bench a prescription for a Commoner to kill Conies of the Lords is not good and he cited Pasch 43 Eliz. Kings Bench rotulo 234. Belly and Laughorns Case the Lord may use the Sale as he pleases but as his Case is the Commoner although Tenant of the Land cannot kill the Conies with his Ferret For a free Warren in such a precinct is a charge upon the Land in what hands soever it comes but if he hath a Warren adjoyning and the Conies come into the Lands of another out of the Precinct then he may kill the Conies and he cited Boslers and Hardies Case in the Common Pleas and for an express authority he cited Old and Conies case Hill 29 Eliz. and Sir Robert Fitcham he was against it and he agreed he could not kill the Conies but as to the digging he took this difference if a Commoner makes any thing de novo in the Land he is a Trespassor as it is adjudged in the Case of a trench before and the like but if a commoner amends and reforms a thing abused it is no Trespass and therefore if the Land were full of Mole hills he may dig them down 13 H. 8. and 42 Assis if the Lord make a Hedge the commoner may pluck it down 23 E. 3. 6. a. See if the Lord make a Pond in the Land the commoners may dig and let the Water out and therefore holes that were made long in a hurt and Damage to the Land the commoner may put the earth digged out again into its place Secondly the Defendant hath shewed that the Cony holes were made by the Plaintiff himself and he shall never take advantage of his own wrong and Thirdly the Law will allow every man to preserve his inheritance and it cannot be preserved any other way for if he should bring his Assise yet he in that shall recover but Seisin and no Reformation of the Trespass and wrong done and the opinion of the Court seemed to incline for the Plaintiff and Doddridge Justice said that a Lord or his Feoffee may make new conie-Borrows lawfully for they are necessary for the preservation of the conies but one fault found by Justice Haughton in the pleading nothing was done for the Plaintif declared for entring into his Warren the Defendant pleads to all but the Warren digging and chasing not guilty and as to the digging and chasing he justifies for common here but answers nothing as to the Warren neither by confession or traverse and therefore all was discontinued as Herlackendons Case is Co. 4. Rep. and to this the whole court Fleming being absent agreed WAldron against Moore Trin. 11. Ja. The Plaintiff brought an Action of trespass against Moore wherefore his Close called Gerleford at Rentesbury in the County of Devon by force and Arms hath broken and entred c. The Defendant pleads that a long time before the Trespass was supposed to be done one
John W. was seised of three hundred Acres of Land in R. aforesayd of which the place in question called G. is parcell and that 30 H. 6. the sayd John Whithing reciting that whereas N. de la moore 31 E. 1. the Plaintiffs Ancestor Son and heire of H. de la Moore grants to William de la Moore Corsum aque which runs from W. thorow the middle of the Land of the sayd M. And shews further that by meane discents it discends to the Defendant c and so justifies The Plaintiff replies if W. S. was seised of the place where c. and made a Lease thereof to him for yeares and traverses that the three hundred Acres of Land were parcell and Issue joyned upon that and found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in Arrest of Judgement that the Defendant had not made any answer to the Plaintiff and so no Issue joyned for the Plaintiff layes the Trespass in G. in L. the Defendant sayes he was seised of three hundred Acres of which the place c. was parcell but he conveys no title to himselfe but by a course of water thorow the middle of the Land of M. but whose Land that was it doth not appeare and is another thing and therefore an Issue upon that which the Defendant doth not claime is voyd and although Issue be joyned yet it is not helped by the Statute of Jeofailes of 18 Eliz. or 32 H. 8. for it is as no Issue when it is of a thing not in question but if the Issue had been of a matter in question although ill joyned yet it is ayded as Nichols Case is 5 Rep. 43. upon payment pleaded without Deed And Doddridge and Crooke Justices agreed to that but Haughton seemed to incline that it was an Issue and so helped by the Statute FVller against Pettesworth Knight Mich. 11. Iacobi Fuller brought an Action of Trespass against Pettesworth and his Servant for breaking his Close and taking one Cow in D. in the County of B. One of the Defendants plead not guilty the Servant pleads that the Plaintiff holds of Sir Peter P. as of c. in the County aforesayd and for services behinde by the command of his Master he seised the Cow c. The Plaintiff traverses c. and one Venire facias was awarded out of both the Villiages and being found for the Plaintiff it was new moved in Arrest of Judgement by Finch of Grays Inne that two Venire facias ought to have been awarded because the Issue is of things in severall places for if there be severall Issues in one place one Jury shall be onely Impannelled but if in severall places for severall things locall severall Juries shall be but the whole Court held that one Jury onely should be impannelled and one Venu onely should be awarded out of both the places and it is all one as if it had been in one place but it had been otherwise if in severall Counties as 41 Eliz. DAme Petts Case Mich. 11. Iacobi In an Action of Trespass brought by the Lady Petts upon not guilty pleaded the Jury being at Bar the matters following came in question upon the evidence by Haughton and the other Justices If A. be seised of a great Close where c. and a Stranger enter and occupy part of the Close yet notwithstanding A. continues the posaession of the residue whether this shall preserve his possession in the residue and he shall be judged to be in possession of that because it is an intire thing 5 E. 4. 2. and 8 E. 3. 13. Seisin of part of the services is the seisin of the whole and so is Bettisworths Case 2. Rep. The possession of the House is the possession of the Land for the Lessee against his Lessor of that which passes by one demise But if a stranger enter and sever part by metes and bounds nothing is wrought by the possession of the residue Another question was this A Lessee for yeares of ten Acres paying twenty shillings Rent the Lessee is outed of parcell yet he payed all the Rent to him in Reversion the Lessor having notice of the enter whether this protects the Reversion so that nothing is gained by the entry but the interest of the Lessee and shall be no disseisin And Yelverton at the Barr was of opinion that it should be no Disseisin Rithen Sect. 590. saith That so long as the particular Tenant continues his possession so long is the reversion in the Lessor for in such case as to the Lessor the Lessee shall be alwayes deemed in possession by force of the Lease and the reason why the Lessee shall be adjudged in posaession of all as to the Lessor is because the Lessor cannot have notice of the alteration of the posaession for when the Lessee by his owne Act or sufferance doth a thing in alteration of the posaession of which by common intendment the Lessor cannot have or take notice there the Law will not prejudice the Lessor And see for that Farmers Case in the third Rep. 79. If Tenant for life levy a Fine having Land in the same Villiage this shall not bind the Lessor if five yeares pass before he take notice of what Land the Fine is levied And the same Law if Tenant for life make a Feofment to one who hath land within the same Village levies a Fine and in this cafe if the Lessee hath continually payd all his Rent the Lessor cannot intend or suspect but that the Lessee is absolute Tenant of the whole and in Farmers Case it is sayd That if the Lessor levy a Fine the Disseisee is barred without claime for it is impossible but he to whom the wrong is done shall presently know it But if he that hath the particular estate by Grant or trust reposed in him shall secretly practice although he pay the Rent and continue posaession yet it is otherwise But the Reporters opinion was that if in the principall case no Rent had been reserved then the Reversion had been devested by the entry for there had been no act done to mislead or hinder the knowledge thereof and also although rent be reserved and all payd yet if he had express notice thereof the reversion had been devested And secondly if it should be a Disseisin a great mischeif would follow for if a discent should be it would take away the Lessors entry and yet no fault in them because in common presumption the Lessee alwayes continued Tenant but Cook of a contrary opinion for he said it could not be denyed but that the Lessee is out of the posaession and then it follows of necessity that the Lessor must be out of his reversion And as to notice to make his claime he must take notice at his perill 4 M. Dyer 143. b. But note that this is when the Law intends that he may take notice which it will not intend in this Case Haughton was of opinion that it was a
BAnks against Barker Hill 12. Jac. rotulo 1979. In an Action of Trespass the venire facias was well awarded upon the case of the venu in Westown and of the Mannor of D. and the Writ of Venire was mistaken to wit of the venu of Westown and exception being taken after tryall the Court was moved for the amending of the venire facias by the roll and it was denyed because the Jury did come of another venu then they ought by the Law of the Land to come and therefore could not be amended but afterwards the Court seemed to be of an opinion that the awarding of the venu in the roll was mistaken because it was of the venu of the Villiage and Mannor and it should have been of the Mannor only being to try a custome of the Mannor FOrrest against Headle Hill 13. Jac rot 1123. An Action of Trespass brought and a continuando of the Trespass unto the day of the shewing forth the Plaintifs Originall to wit the 20. day of November which day was after the shewing forth of the Originall and because the Jury gave damages for the whole time which ought not to be it was proved that the Judgment upon the verdict might stay but by the whole Court the videlicet was held idle and Judgment given for the Plaintiff COcks against Barnsley Hill 10. Iac. rotulo 2541. An Action of Trespass brought and a speciall verdict found and the question was whether Land held in ancient Demesne was extendable for debt and an action of Trespass brought for that cause And Justice Nichols held it was extendable for otherwise if it should not be extendable there would be a fayler of Justice for if a Judgment should be had against a man that had no other Land but what was in ancient Demesne and that it could not be extendable there would be a fayler of Justice which the Law doth not allow of but an Assize or a re-disseisin doth not lye of Land in ancient Demesne because of the Seisin that must be given by the Common Law and it would be prejudicial to the Lord which the Law allows not and Wynch and Hubbard were of the same opinion For ancient demesne is a good plea where the Free-hold is to be recovered or brought in question but in an action of Trespass it is no plea. And note that by this execution neither the Free-hold nor Possession is removed but only the Sheriffe enters to make execution upon a Judgment had in the Common bench in debt which is a proper Action to be brought there WRight and his Wife against Mouncton Hill 12. Iac. rotulo 43. An Action of Trespass brought to which the Defend pleaded not guilty And the Husband only made a challenge that he was servant to one of the Sheriffs and prayes a processe to the Coroners and the Defendant denies the challenge and therefore notwithstanding the challenge the Venire issued to the Sheriffs and after a tryall exception was taken because the woman did not joyne in the challenge and it was held that the Husband and Wife should joyn in the challenge although the cause of challenge proceded from the Husband only but after tryall it was helped by the Statute of Ieofailes and judgment given for the Plaintiff BIde against Snelling Hill 16. Iac. rotulo 1819. An Action of Ejectment brought and also a Battery in one and the Writ and after a verdict it was moved in Arrest of Judgment because the Battery was joyned with the Ejectment The damages were found severally and the Plaintiff had released the damages for the Battery and prayed Judgment for the Ejectment Winch held the Writ naught but Judgment was given for the Plaintiff notwithstanding STeward and his Wife against Sulbury An Action of Trespass brought wherefore by Force and Armes the Close of the Wife while she was sole at D. hath broken and the wood of the said D. to the value of 1005. there lately growing hath cut down and carried away and in his Count shews that he hath cut downe two acres of wood and exception was taken because he declared of so many acres of wood and not of so many loads of wood to wit twenty c. loads and held by the Court to be a good exception BLackeford against Althin Trin. 14. Jac. rotulo 3376. An action of Trespass brought wherefore by Force and Armes a certain Horse of the said Plaintiffs took away c. The Defendant conveys to himselfe a certain annuity granted to him by one John Hott The Plaintiff shews that one William Hott Father of the said Iohn Hott the Grantor was seised of Land in Fee which Land was Gavel-kind Land and devised it to his Wife for life the remainder to Iohn Hott the Elder and Iohn Hott the Younger his Sonne and the Heirs of their bodies And afterwards William dyed and the Woman entred and was seised for life and the two sonnes entred and were seised in tayl and being so seised Iohn Hott the younger had issue Iohn Hott c. and traverses without this that Iohn Hott the Father at the time of granting the annuity was seised of the Tenements aforesaid with the appurtenances in his Demesne as of fee as c. And the Defendant as before saith that the said J. H. the Father at the time of the granting the annuity aforesaid was seised and after the tryall it was moved in Arrest of Judgment supposing it was mistried because the issue was that the said J. H. the Father at the time of the grant c. And it doth not appear that the said J. H. was nominated Father neither could it appear that the said J. H. was the Father and so the word Father was idle and the Court were of opinion that it was helped by the Statute of Ieofailes and the word Father was idle and judgment was given for the Plaintiff A. brought an Action of Battery against the Husband and Wife and two others the Wife and one of the others without the Husband pleads not guilty and the Husband and the other pleaded seu assault demesne and tryed and alledged in arrest of Judgment because the Woman pleaded without her Husband and Judgment was stayed and a Repleader alledged and this case was confirmed by a case which was between Yonges and Bartram HArvy against Blacklole Trin. 8. Jacobi rotulo 1749. An Action of Trespass brought wherefore by force and Armes his Mare so strictly to a Gelding did fetter that by that fettring the Mare aforesaid did dye If a stranger take a Horse that cometh and strayeth into a Mannor the Lord may have his action of Trespass If my stray doth stray out of my Mannor and goeth into another Mannor the day before the yeare be ended I cannot enter into the other Mannor to fetch out the stray If I take an Horse as a stray and onother taketh him from me the Action lyeth not by the Owner against the second taker
H. 6. 46. be it true or not and if it be not true the party may have his action against the officer which doth it and it was adjudged in Fullers Case in the Kings Bench that the high Commissioners may imprison and impose a fine for Heresie and Schisme and it was also resolved that Poligamy before the Statute of the 3. of King James was punishable before the high Commissioners for this was an heynous crime otherwise the Statute would not have made it Felony and he said that it was agreed in the time of the last Queen Elizabeth that the high Commissioners should not meddle with any thing but only those five that is Heresie Schisme Poligamy Incest and Recusancy and with no others and it was moved that a Writ De causione admittenda lieth for that they would not allow of the submissions And the Justices would consider of that and the Prisoner was remanded and it was adjourned And at an other day it was moved by Nicholls Sergeant that the high Commissioners supposed for that that the Statute of 5. El. gives authority to the Queen and to her heires and successors to grant Commission to Visite Reforme Redresse Order Correct and amend all Errours Heresies Schismes Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities whatsoever and that the Commissioners may execute all the premises according to the Tenure and effect of the said Letters Patents that by that they might fine and imprison at their pleasure But Coke chiefe Justice said that it appeares by the preamble of the said Statute that after the Statute was in the â—5 yeare of the Raigne of King Henry the 8. by which the ancient Jurisdictions Authorities superiorities and Prehemenences were united or restored to the Crown and by meanes of the said Statute his Subjects were continually kept in good order and were dâ—sburthened of divers great and intollerable charges and exactions before that time unlawfully taken and exacted untill such time as the said Statute of 25. H. 8. was repealed by the Statute of 1. and 2. of Phillip and Mary which said Statute of 1. and 2 of Phillip and Mary should be repealed and void by which it appeares that the Kings Subjects were greviously burthened with grevious and intollerable charges and exactions and yet in this time of usurped power of the Pope doth not challenge that he might Commit or Imprison or Fine in any case but in the cases especially mentioned in the last Case aforesaid and for that all the usurped power was annexed to the Imperiall Crown the which he called the clause of annexing the second was the clause of deputation and this was the clause of the Statute by which the Queen hath power to grant Commission to such persons being naturall borne Subjects as her Majesty her Heires or Successors shall thinke fit to Exercise Use and Execute under her Majesty all manner of Jurisdictons Privelidges and Preheminences in any wise touching or concerning any spirituall Jurisdiction in all her Majesties Dominions and to Visit Reforme Redresse Order Correct and amend all such Errors Heresies Schismes Abuses Offences Contemps and Enormities whatsoever which by any manner spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power authority or Jurisdictions can or may be lawfull Reformed Ordered Redressed Corrected Restrained or amended and the third he calleth the clause of execution by which power and authority is given to the Commissioners to Exercise Use and execute all the premises according to the Tenure and effect of the said Letters Patents And it seems it was not the intention of the Statute to give any power to the Commissioners which was not given to the Queen by this Statute for the clause of deputation shall not be more ample then the clause of annextion and then the clause of execution refers to the first too clauses as it appears by the words of that that is to use and execute all the premises according to the said Letters Patents and the premises are expounded by the first clauses that is Errors Heresies Schismes c. And the said Letters Patents refer all Letters Patents before mentioned where the persons are appointed to be naturall borne Subjects and the materiall manner of Jurisdictions Priviledges and Preheminences Ecclesiasticall Siprituall and to Visit Reforme Order Redresse Correct and Amend all such Errors Heresies c. Which by any manner of spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Power Authority or Jurisdiction can or may lawfully be Reformed Redressed Ordered Corrected Restrained or Amended c. So that it cannot be intended that they may proceed in any other forme but only according to the Ecclesiasticall power and Jurisdiction and no other for otherwise they may Fine Imprison and ransome any man at their pleasures which was never intended by the makers of the said Statutes But only to transfer the Power and Authority which at that time was in the Bishops which then were Papistes to the high Comissioners the which the King may alter at his pleasure and so he cannot the Bishops for they are nor displaceable after their consecration Michaelmas 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Common Place A Man was cited before the High Commissioners for Poligamy which was agreed to be a cause examinable punishable there and upon examination of the Cause the Defendant was acquit and yet he was censured to pay costs though that he was acquitted of the Crime and this Court was moved for a Prohibition and it was denyed for they may hold plea of Principall and then Prohibition shall not be granted for the accessary and the Lord Coke said that they have just cause of lawfulnesse of punishing the offence though they have not just cause of the Deed and peradventure it was very suspitious that he was guilty and for that he hath only God for his revenger Parkers Case THree were cyted to appeare in the Court at Chester for Tenths and treble damages demanded and also in the Libell it is suggested that the Land is barren and very unfruitfull and Prohibition was awarded against those joyntly and yet it was agreed that they ought to count upon the Prohibition severally Penns Case PEnn Parson of Ryton in the County of Warwicke sued for Tithes in the Ecclesiasticall Court before the Ordinary and the Defendant here pleads that the same Parson was presented upon a Symonicall contract and for that his Presentation Admission and Institution were void by the Statute of 31. Eliz. And the Symony was for that that it was agreed between the said Parson and another man that was Brother to the Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry who was Patron of the same Church That if he should procure three severall grants of three severall next avoydances to them severally granted to surrender their said severall grants and procure the said Bishop to present him when the Church became void that being then full of an old Parson being deadly sick that he would make to him a lease of parcell of the Tithes of his Rectory And the brother
of the said Bishop procured the said Grantees to surrender their severall grants accordingly the Church being then full And also after when the Church became void he procured the said Bishop to present him according to the first contract and then the said Penn made a lease to him of the Tenths and after sued others of his neighbours in the spirituall Court for tithes who pleaded the said Symoniacall contract and here Nicholls Serjeant suggested that the Judges Ecclesiasticall would not allow of this Plea there but the Court would not give credit to this suggestion but said that if the Ecclesiasticall Court make exposition of the Statute of 31 H. 8. Against the intent of it that then they would grant a Prohibition or if they should in verity deny to allow of this Plea and for that advised him that his Clyent might offer this Plea another time to them and if they denyed to grant that they would grant a Prohibition Hurrey against Boyer IN Prohibition awarded in the spirituall Court for stay of a Suit there for tithes of Lands which were the possessions of the Hospital of S. Johns of Jerusalem upon suggestion that the Prior of the said dissolved house of S. Johns had this priviledge from Rome which was by diverse Councells and Canons that is that the Lands of their Predecessors which by their own hands and costs they did till they were tied to pay no tithes and then by the Statute of 31 H. 8. chap. 18. Of dissolutions which was pleaded but agreed that this Hospitall was not dissolved by this Act but by a speciall act made 32. H. 8. chapter 24. By which their Corporation and Order was dissolved and their possessions given to the King with all the Priviledges and Immunities belonging to that and the King granted that to the Plaintiff in the prohibition and if he should hold them discharged of payment of Tithes was the question it was urged by Harris Serjeant that this Immunity was annexed to the corporation of the Prior and his Brethren of the said Hospitall and that that was determined by the dissolution of the said Hospitall and doth not come to the King and he saith that so it hath been adjudged in the Kings Bench against the Booke of 10. Eliz. Dyer 277. 60. 2. Coke the Bishop of Winchesters Case 14. B. And the Arch-Bishop of Canterburies Case 47. B. And 18. Eliz. Dyer 349. 16. And he said that it was not given to the King by the Statute of 31 H. 8. of dissolutions for that was given by act of parliament and this was not intended by the Statute of 31. H. 8. As it appears by the Arch-Bishop of Canterburies Case Nicholls Serjeant argued to the contrary And he cited a Cannon made by the Councell of Mag. and another made by Innocent the third In the year 1215. And diverse others and also the Statute of 2. Hen. 4. 4. And 7 Hen. 4. 6. And he said that the Pope had Authority amongst spirituall men and might grant to them freedoms of speciall things and he saith that if Land be discharged of payment of Tithes by prescription of not tithing and this Land came to the King yet this priviledge remaines and also he urged that these priviledges are given to the King by the Statute of 31 H. 8. Of dissolutions by which all Hospitalls as well dissolved lost surrendred granted or c. To the King as those hospitalls which should be dissolved lost c. And by this the possessions lands c. are given to the King in the same plite and case as they were in the hands of the hospitallers themselves and he affirmed the Booke of 10. Eliz. Dyer 277. 60. To be good Law and the Archbishops of Canterburies case 2. Coke 47. b. and the Bishop of Winchesters case 44. b. and 18. Eliz. Dyer 349. 16. and also the words of the Statute of 32. H. 8. 24. gives to the King not only the mannors houses c. but also all Liberties Franchises and Priviledges of what natures names or qualities soever they be appertaining or belonging to the said Religion or the Professors thereof by which he intends that this freedome to be discharged of tythes and so concludes that the Prohibition shall stand see the rest after Easter 9. Jacobi Forde versus pomroy UPon a Prohibition the case was this An unmaried woman being proprietor of a Parsonage tooke to a Husband a Parishoner within the Parish set forth and devided his tythes and those immeadiatly tooke backe and the Husband alone sued for the treble value according to the Statute of the 2. Ed. 6. And two points were moved First if that were a setting forth within the Statute and by the Court that it was not and so hath been adjudged in 43. and 45. of Eliz. and 1. Jacobi If the Husband may sue for the treble value without naming his Wife and to that the Court would be advised for though that the Husband may sue alone where a thing is personall for which he sueth as the bookes of 4. Ed. 4. 31. 7. Ed. 4. 6. 15. Ed. 4. 5. and 11. are yet where the Statute saith that the Proprietor shall have suit for the not setting forth c. The Husband is not intended Proprietor as the Statute intends but the Wife and for that the Wife ought to joyne see more Wagginer and Wood Pasche 8. Jacobi in the Kings bench WAgginer sued Wood in the Court of Requests for that that Wood had estopped his way and in the Bill of complaint there was no expresse of the place the County nor to what place the way did lead and for that it was demurred to the Bill there And notwithstanding they ordered the defendant Wood to answer and the Atturney came and moved the Court for a Prohibition and it was granted to him for they could not determine the right of a way Glover and Wendham HEndyn of Grayes Inne moved the Court for a Prohibition and the case was this A man dwelling in a Parish that is Dale hath land in his occupation in the Parish of Sale the Wardens of the Church of the Parish of Sale and other the Parishoners there make a Tax for the reparation of the Church for Church ornaments and for Sextons wages amounting to the sum of 23 l. And the Tax of the Church being deducted commeth but to 3 l. only And now the forreigner which dwells in Dale is sued in the Court Christian by the wardens of the Church of Sale for his part of the Tax and he praies Prohibition and Hendyn saith he well agreed the case of Jefferies 5. Coke that he should be charged if this Tax had been for the reparation of the Church only for this is in nature reall But when that is joyned with other things which are in nature personall as ornaments of the Church or Sextons wages with which as it seems he is not chargable then Prohibition lies for all Flemming
H. 6. 3. This priviledge by the canon which gives that shall be taken strictly And so is the opinion of their own expositors see Panormitan Canon 37. So that there is an apparant difference between that and the lands which came to the King by the statute of 31. H. 8. For by that the King is discharged of paiment of tythes and so are his Patentees It seems to me that the construction of the Cannon may be in another course different from the rules of the common law as it was ajudged in Buntings case that a woman might sue a Divorce without naming her Husband very well and 11. H. 7. 9. The pleading of the sentence or other act done in the spiritual Court differs from the pleading of a temporall act done in temporall Courts and 34 H. 6. 14. a Administration was committed upon condition that if the first Administrator did not come into England that he should have the Administration which is against the Common Law for there one authority countermands another and 42 Ed. 3 13. A Prior which hath such priviledge to be discharged of Tithes makes a Feoffment and his Feoffee payes Tithes to the Prior and this was of Lands which were parcell of the possessions of Saint Johns of Jerusalem and upon that he inferred that this priviledge is personall and if it be so it is determined by dissolution of the order as it is determined in 21 H 7. 4. That all Parsonages impropriate to them by the dissolutions are become prsentable and so of these which were annexed to the Templers for these shall not be transferred to Saint Johns though that the Lands are 3 Ed. 1. 11. By Herle accordingly Fitz. Natura Brevium 33 K. and 35. H. 6. 56. Land given in Frankalmaine to Templers and after transferred to Hospitallers of Saint Johns the priviledge of the Tenure is paid and so shall it be in case of Tithes being a personall priviledg that shall not be transferred to the King and to the Statute of 32. H. 8. The generall words of that do not extend to discharge the Land of Tithes though that the Statute makes mention of Tithes if there be not a speciall provision by the Statute that the Lands shall be discharged and this appears by the words of the Statute of 31 H. 8. where the general words are as generall and beneficiall as the words of this Statute and yet there is aspeciall provision for the discharge of the payment of tithes by which it appears that the generall words donot discharge that and so the generall words of 1 Ed. 6. are as larg and beneficiall as the generall words of the Statute of 31 H. 8. And yet this shall not discharge the Land of payment of Tithes and this compared to the Case of the Marquesse of Winchester of a writ of Errour that that shall not be transferred to the King by Attainder of Land in taile for treason by the Statute of 26 H. 8. or 33 H. 8. And so of rights of action and so it was adjudged in the time of H. 8. that if the founder of an Abby which hath a Corrody be attaint of Treason the King shall not have the Corrody and he agreed that the Hospitall of Saint Johns of Jerusalem is a house of Religion for this is agreed by Act of Parliament and the word Religion mentioned in the Statute more then seventeen times and also it seems to him that the Statute of 31 H. 8 shall not extend to that for this gives and establishes Lands which come by grant surrender c. And that shall not be intended those which come by Act of Parliament no more then the statute of 13 Eliz. extends to Bishops 1. and 2. Phillip and Mary Dyer 109. 38. The statute of Westminster the 2. chap. 41. Which gives Contra formam collationis to a common person founder of an Abby Priory Hospital or other house of religion without speaking expresly of a Bishop and yet it seems that this extends to an alienation made in Fee simple or Fee taile by the Bishop 46 Ed. 3. Forfeiture 18. But it is resolved in the Bishop of Canterburies Case 2 Coke 46 that the statute of 31 H. 8. shall not extend to these lands which come to the K. by the statute of 1 Ed. 6. to make them exempt from paying of Tithes and to the Case in 10. Eliz. that is but an opinion conceived and that the Prior hath this priviledge from Rome and that the Farmer shall pay Tithes and the question was in the Chancery and upon consideration of the statute of 31 H. 8. It seems that the Patentee himself shall be discharged as long as by his own hands he tills it and the statute of 32. H. 8. Upon which the state of the question truly consists was not considered and also it was not there judicially in question And to the case of Spurling against Graves in Prohibition consultation was granted for that that the statute was mistaken and so the award was upon the form of the pleading only and not upon the matter and so he concluded and prays consultation Houghton Serjeant to the contrary and he agreed that it is a personall priviledg and if the Order of St. Johns had been dissolved by death that then the priviledg shall be determined and this appears by the Stat. of 2. H. 4. 4. before cyted and also the case of 10. Eliz. Dyer 277. 60. did doubt of that but he relyed upon the manner words of pleading that is that Hospitallers are not held to pay Tithes it is as a reall composition made betwixt the Lord and another Spirituall person of which the Tenants shall take advantage as it is resolved in the Bishop of Winchesters case Also as if a man grant a Rent charge if the Grantee dye without Heir the grant is determined But if the Grantee grant that over and after dyes without Heir yet the Rent continues 27. H. 8. Or if Tenant in tayl grant Rent in fee and dies the grant is void But if he after suffers a recovery or makes a Feofment the Rent continues good till the Estate taile be recontinued as it is resolved in Capels case So here the order of Templers hath been determined by death the priviledg hath been determined but insomuch that the Land was transferred by Parliament to the King this continues Also the words of the Statute of 32. H. 8. are apt not only to transfer all the Interest which the Pryor had in his Lands but also his Priviledges and Immunities to the King and he agreed it is not material if the words Tythes are mentioned in the Statute or not But the word upon which he relyes and which comprehends this case is the word Priviledg which takes away the Law for where the Law binds them to pay Tithes the priviledg discharges them And the words of the Statute are taken in the most large extent that is all Mannors c. Priviledges
Immunities c. of what nature c. be they Ecclesiasticall or Temporall which appertain and belong c. by or in the right of their Religion but the Priviledges and Immunities they have in the right of their Religion and these the Statute of 32. H. 8. gives to the King and there is no cause that they should surmount or that the Statute should give to them more favour then the former Statute hath given to those religious houses which were dissolved by the Statute of 31. Eliz. For the Hospitallers of S. Johns were favourers and maintainers of the Popes Jurisdictions as well as the others as it appears by the Statute of 32. H. 8. Also the words of 32. H. 8. hath only the words of the King and his Successors and doth not speak of his Assigns which words are expressed in the Statute of 32. H. 8 But it is provided by 32. H. 8. that the King cannot use at his will and pleasure which amounts to so much Also the Statute of 31. H. 8. extends to all Religious houses by expresse words and it shall not be intended that the intent of the makers of the statute was to omit that which were to be of the Order of S. Johns of Jerusalem when the mischeif was in equal degree And it hath been agreed that they are religious persons and that they were under the obedience of the Pope for so they are described in the statute of 17. R. 2. by which the possessions of the Templers was transferred to them so that on the matter they are religious which shall not be intended so largely as every Christian may be said religious but Secular and Regular which vow Obedience Chastity and Poverty and for the proof of this he cyted a president Also it seems to him that the Statute of 30. H. 8. extends to those Lands which come to the King by the statute of 32. H. 8. And it is not like to the Arch-Bishop of Canterburies case 2 Coke 47. upon the statute of 1. Ed. 6. For that Statute gives the Lands to the King for other causes and not for the same causes which are contained in the Statute of 31. H. 8. But the Statute of 32. H. 8. is for the same cause and with the same respect to Religion But if these Lands have come to the King by Exchange or by Attainder then they shall not be intended to be within the Statute of 31. H. 8. But if another Statute be made in 32. H. 8. by which all Religious houses have been given to the King this shall be intended within the Statute of 31. H. 8. And the Judges before whom the cause depended judicially ought not to be ignorant of that and so he prayed that a Prohibition might be Shirley Serjeant for the Defendant at another day in Trinity Tearm 9. Jacobi argued that the question only depended upon the Statute of 32. H. 8. upon which the Prohibition is founded with the Statute of 31. H. 8. by which the Lands of Monasteries are given to the King do not extend to those Lands which are given after by Parliament But he intented that the Constitution which discharges the Templers of the payment of Tithes is spirituall and extends only to spirituall persons which may prescribe in not tything see 38. Ed. 3. 6. 2 of Coke the Bishop of Winchesters Case 44. Also he intended when an appropriation was made to the Templers that this is determined by dissolution of their Order So upon the Statute of H. 5. of Priors Aliens which have Impropriations or which have Rent issuing out of them and after the Impropriation is dissolved the Rent is gone for the Impropriation is dissolved Also he took exception to the pleading for that that it is only a branch of the Statute of 32. H. 8. And then by vertue of the premises he was seised which is not good and so hee concluded that it was a good cause of demurrer upon the Prohibition and prayed consultation Barker Serjeant for the Plaintiff seems the contrary and yet he agreed that he could not take benefit of the Statute of 31. H. 8. for that that these Lands came to the King by another Statute but he relyed upon the words of the 32. H. 8. which was made only for the dissolution of the Hospitall of St. Johns of Jerusalem Tythes are as ancient as any thing that the Church hath and before that any Law was written for Abraham payed Tithes to Melchisedeck but it doth not appeare that he paid the tenth part but Tithes are due by the Judiciall Law of God and the King hath power to appoint what quantity shall be paid But at the beginning there were Sacrifices Oblations and Tithes And it was ordained by Edgar King of this Realm that Tithes should be given to the Mother Church Also Edmund Ethelstone William the Conquerour and the Councell of Magans specially provided that Tithes should be paid but did not appoint when they should be paid But the first Law which appointed the quantity was made in the time of Edw. 1. and this ordained when they ought to pay the Tenth with the feare of God And it was resolved in Fox and Cresbrooks case in the Commentaries after severance they are temporall and Action lyes against him which carries them away as of Mortuary as it is resolved 10. H. 4. 1. 6. And before the Councell of Lateran every one might pay his Tithes to what person he would and then were paid to Monasteries as Oblations But of Tithes which are due to any by prescription hee which payes them hath no such election but ought to pay them to him which claims them by prescription 14. H. 4. 17. If a Parson of a Parish claim Tithes in another Parish as portion of Tithes due by prescription to his Rectory he ought to shew the place specially So if Nunns prescribe to have a portion of Tithes they ought to shew the place for it is a question if they are spirituall or not for their office is only to pray in their house 24. Ed. 3. So the book of Entries if a man claim Tithes to his Pupil he ought to shew in what place the Tithes lye in the 17. Ed. 2. The order of the Templers was dissolved and their possessions annexed to St. Johns of Jerusalem and they did not claim by any Bull of the Pope nor other spirituall Canon but by prescription which is priviledg and private Common law and this appears by the Statute of Westminster 2 Chap. 47. That is that they are conservators of his priviledges Also he saith that the Statute of 2. H. 4. discharges Farmers without speaking of Priviledges And the Statute of 7. H. 4. 6. useth the same words which are contained in the Stat. of 32. H. 8. That is that none shall put in execution any Buls containing any priviledges to be discharged of payment of Tithes And Mephams Canon in time of Ed. 1. saith Let the custome be
proceedings there And it was granted in so much that the originall ground of the Suit that is the infamous words were pardoned by the generall pardon and for this all the proceedings were erroneous and their transmitting after And afterwards the Prohibition received willingly And for these causes Prohibition was granted to the Court of Requests Thomas Baxter against Thomas Hopes IN Prohibition the Plaintiff Suggests that within such a Town was such a custome that every Inhabitant which maintained a family and dairy for manuring his land and maintenance of his family have used of time out of memory c. to pay tythes of Corn growing upon his Farm in kind and by reason thereof have used to be discharged of after crop of the said land And also that they have used to pay tythe milk and tythe Calves in kind and by reason thereof have been discharged of tythe of yong and barren Beastes and the Plaintiff suggested further that he occupied a Farm and maintained a family and dairy for the manurance of that and maintenance of his family and hath paied his tythe Corn and milk and Calves in kinde And for that ought to be discharged of tythes for the after crop and for yong and barren Beastes and for the tenthes of which suit was begun in the Court Christian and upon demurrer joyned upon Prohibition the custome was debated whether it were good or no and it was moved first by Houghton Serjeant for the Defendant that the custome was not good insomuch that by that the Plaintiff was not to pay more then by the Law he ought for he ought to pay tythe Corne and milk and Calves in kind And this is no more then the Law compells him to do and this cannot be a consideration to discharge him of other things For all things which renue ought to pay tythes of Common Right as after pastute and barren Cattell and Corne and milk And all other things which renue if it be not good custome to the contrary which is grounded upon consideration and then to consider how much consideration shall be valuable in other Cases and what not And to that it appeares in 9. Ed. 4. 18. and 19 in Trespasse upon the Statute of 5. Rich. 2. The Defendant pleads accord that the Plaintiff entred into his land againe and agreed that that was not barr insomuch as agreement without satisfaction is not barr and entry into lands is no more then he might do without the agreement and for that it is not good for default of consideration so in 12. H. 7. 15. a. in trespass for goods taken the Defendant pleads arbitrement that is for that that the Defendant hath taken the goods of the Plaintiff and that he should deliver them to the Plaintiff in full satisfaction And agreed that this is no good award insomuch that this cannot be satisfaction for that that the goods were the proper goods of the Plaintiff And although that he hath his goods againe yet he is not satisfied for the taking But if the award had been that the Defendant should redeliver his goods and carry them to such a place certain at his own costs and charges then it had been good See 45. Ed. 3. accordingly So in an action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit made in consideration that the Plaintiff hath payd due debt is not good for this is no consideration and so in the principall Case the Prescription is not good insomuch that he hath not suggested more or other consideration which by the Law he ought to do But he agreed that if he had suggested that the Plaintiff had plowed and manured the land and disposed of the tythes of the Corn for the benefit of the Parson in other manner then the Law compelled him then the first prescription had been good and so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Defendant Hutton Serjeant for the Plaintiff in the Prohibition seems the contrary and that the Suggestion and Prescription and Custome Contained in that are good And to the Objection that it is no consideration that the Custome may be founded he intended that this is a ground upon immunity subsequent to the Consideration as of things which are not tythable as in the generall Case of things which are for the maintenance of the family for Plowing and Manuring of the land shall not pay tythes as in a suit for tythes for herbage suggestion that they were depastured by labouring Cattell which Plowed and Manured the Land of which the Parson had tythes or small Wood which are cut or imployed for the fencing of a Farm or fuell spent in the Farme shall not pay tythes insomuch that without that the Farme cannot be Manured nor the Famaly sustained And so by consequence the Parson shall not have any tythe Corn insomuch that no Corn will grow without manuring and also the Parson by those hath the more tyth Corn and so he hath consideration in that for the better that the Farme is fenced and manured the more tythe the Parson shall have So the Farmer may be discharged of tythes for Rakeings insomuch that he Mowes and Cocks the tythes for the Parson at his own costs and this is sufficient consideration And also he insisted upon the Statute of 2. Ed. 6. Which provides that tythes shall be payd in the same manner as they were payd for 40. yeares before and he cited one Jessopps case to be adjudged in Prohibition Pasche 36. Eliz. Upon suit in Court Christian for flocks and locks of Wooll And the Custome was alleaged that the owner had woond the tythe for the Parson and in consideration of that ought to be discharged of tythes of locks and flocks if they be not made by Covin to defraud the Parson and these were demanded by the name of wooll dispersed and 18. Eliz it was adjudged that tythes shall not be made for Brick and in Prohibition the suggestion was grounded upon the generall immunity and insomuch that it was made of land for which no tythes are to be payd insomuch that it doth not renue that for this cause tythes ought not to be payd for the Brick which is made of that and so of Mynes and so Loppings and Toppings and bark of Trees shall pay no tythes But are within the Statute of 40. Eliz. 5. of wood to be falne as it is resolved in Soby and Molyns case in the Commentaries And he agreed that for herbage the tenth gate or proffit of that ought to be payd if there be not a custome to the contrary but in the Principall case he intended that that was payd in the Corn and in that the Parson hath recompence and consideration as before and so he concludes and praies Judgment for the Plaintiff Dodrigde Serjeant of the King argued that the Custome is not good as it is here suggested for the consideration is of some things which ought to pay tythes in kind and so upon the matter is no sideration at all
41 Assis The case was this there was a custome that a Park hath paid two shillings a yeare and the sholder of every Deere which was killed for tithes and in consideration of that had been time out of minde c. Discharged of Tithes and now the Park is dis-parked and it was moved by Harris Serjeant that this dissolves the custome for when part of the custome is dissolved by the party himself this determines the residue for it is adjudged if the Land be discharged of tithes by reall Composition then if he sue for tithes in the spirituall Court prohibition by the common Law was granted without other suggestion but only that he sued there for Lay Fee and it was said that it was adjudged 5. Jacobi that where it was a custome that so many of the bucks shall be paid for tithes in such a park yeerly and after the park shall be disparked yet that remaines discharged of Tithes and the custome remaines and Coke cheif Justice seemed that tithes are due by divine right but not what part for if the tenth part be due dy divine right then all Customes are void Trinity 11. Jacobi 1612. in the common Bench. NOte by the Statute of 50. Edw. 3. If a Consultation be once duly granted no new Prohibition shall be afterwards granted upon the said Libell But if it be apparent matter that the first was not duely granted then a new Prohibition may be granted by the whole Court and with this agreed the book of Entries in the Title of Prohibition But this is to be intended to the Spirituall Judge and it seems that the Admirall is out of this Statute see 22. H. 7. Bushes Case NOte that it was agreed in this Case that if a Parsonage be impropriate and the Vicaridge be endowed and difference be between the Parson and the Vicar concerning the endowment that shall be tryed by the Ordinary for the persons and the cause also are spirituall And there the Vicar sues the Parson for Tythes and he suggests the manner of tything and prays a Prohibition and it was granted and after upon solemn argument Consultation was granted in so much that the manner of tytheing did not come in question but the Endowment of the Vicaridg only for that is the Elder Brother as the Lord Coke said and this was cyted to be adjudged by Coke Prohibition Agars Case AGar of Kingston upon the Thames was sued in the Ecclesiasticall Court for beating of his Wife and for calling her Whore and was sentenced by them to pay to his Wife three shillings a weeke for her Alimony and divers Fynes were imposed upon him for not performing of that and also provided that hee should enter into a Recognizance for performance of that and a Prohibition was granted and also a Habeas Corpus to deliver Agar out of Prison Michael 8. Jacobi Blackdens Case BLackden marryed one within age and after disagreed so that they might marry else-where and the first Wife had Issue by other Husbands and dyed and Blackden was sued in the Ecclesiasticall Court by an Informer supposing he had marryed a womon living his other Wife And Blackden proves there the disagreement by which he had sentence for him against the Informer and yet hee was taxed to give to the Informer twenty markes for costs which hee refused to pay and moved to have a Prohibition which was granted For it was injustice to allow Costs to one which had vexed him without cause and when they had given sentence against the Informer Parkers Case Michael 8. Jacobi PArker being a Parson of a Church was deprived by the High Commissioners for Drunkenness and moved for Prohibition but it was not granted and he was directed to have action for the Tythe and upon that the validity of the Sentence shall be drawn in question Doctor Conways Case Michael 8. Jacobi COnway and his Wife were sued before the High Commissioners that is to say the Wife for Adultery with Sir Michael Blunt and the Husband for connivency to that as a Wittall and they were sentenced there for that and costs taxed in July and after the general pardon came and pardoned all offences before the 9. day of November before and upon that the Doctor moved for Prohibition and had that because the offences were not enormious crimes and the Statute and the Commission upon that is to give power to them to proceed upon enormious crimes and to Fyne and Imprison for them Also resolved that the generall pardon hath discharged the Costs though that the Costs were taxed before the Pardon was in Print And this by the relation that hee had at the day before the Costs were taxed Cradocks Case Michael 7. Jacobi CRadock bought diverse things upon the body of the County which concerned the furnishing of a Ship as Cordage Powder and Shot and the party of whom they were bought sued Cradocke for the money in the Admirall Court and Prohibition was granted for the Statute of Richard 2. is that the Admirall shall not meddle with things made within the Realm but only of things made upon the Sea and that no Contract made upon the Land shall be held there And here the Contract was at St. Katherines stairs in the body of the County for it was said that St. Katherines is within London and the Major of London hath jurisdiction upon the Thames as farre as Wapping And if a Murther be committed upon the Thames this shall not be tryed by the Admirall and here Terry and Peacocks Case was cyted which is related in Binghams case in the 2. Reports and also in Sir Henry Constables Case in the 5. Reports and it was cyted to be adjudged that if a Contract be made at Roan in France that shall not be tryed in the Admirall Court for that it was made upon the Land and not upon the high Sea Pasche 8. Jacobi Regis Common Eench Gaudyes case with Doctor Newman THe Parishioners of the Parish of Alphage in Canterbury prescribed to have the Nomination and election of their Parish Clark and the Parson of the Parish by force of a Canon upon voidance of the place of the Parish Clark elected one to the Office the parishoners by force of their Custome elected Cundy the Parson supposing this election to be Irreguler for that it was against the Canon sued Cundy before Doctor Newman Chancellor of Canterbury and the said Cundy was by Sentence deprived of the Clark-ship of the Parish and the Clark of the Parish admitted Cundy moved for a Prohibition and had it granted by all the Court for it was held that one Parish Clark is a meer lay man and ought to be deprived by them that put him in and no others and if the Ecclesiasticall Court meddle with deprivation of the Parish Clark they incura Premunire and the Canon which willeth that the Parson shall have election of the Parish Clark is meerly void to take away the Custome that any Parish had to
any private Prison And it seemes if any do against this Statute that an action of false Imprisonment lies For every one ought to be committed to the Common Goal to the intent that he may be dilivered at the next Goale delivery and also if any be committed to any of the Counters in London unlessthat it be for debt that an action of false Imprisonment lieth for that for these are private Prisons for the Sheriffes of London for Debt only Note in Debt for ten pound the Defendant confesseth five pound and for the other five pound pleades that he oweth nothing by the Law and at the day the Plaintiff would have been nonsuited And it was agreed by all that if he be nonsuited that he shall loose all as well the debt confessed as the other Note the yeare of the Reigne of the King was mistaken in the Record of nisi prius but the Record which remaines in the Court was very well and it was amended For insomuch that it was a sufficent and certaine Issue this was sufficent Authority to the Justices of nisi prius to proceed but nothing being mistaken but the yeare of the Reigne this shall be amended for it is only the misprision of the Clark see Dyer 260. 24 25. 9. Eliz. 11. H. 6. Note also if Tenant in Dower be disseised and the Disseisor makes a Feoffment the Tenant in dower shall recover aâ—l their dammages against the Feoffee for she is not within the Statute of Glocester chapter 1. By which every one shall answer for their time Hillary 8. Jacobi 1611. in the Common Bench. Reyner against Poell See Hillary 6. Jacobi fol IN second deliverance for copy-hold in Brampton in the County of Huntington the case was copy-hold Lands were surrendered to the use of a woman and the Heires of her Body and she took a Husband the Husband and the Wife have Issue 2. Sonnes and after Surrenders to themselves for their lives the remainder to the eldest Son and his Wife in fee the Husband and the Wife dye the eldest Son dies the youngest Son enters and Surrenders to the use of a stranger And the sole question upon which they relied if the Wife was Tenant in tayl or if she had fee simple conditionall and it was argued by Nicholls that the Wife was Tenant in tayl and to prove that he cited 2. cases in Littleton where it is expresly mentioned who may be Tenant in tayl see Sect. 73. 79. And who may have a Formedon see in the discender sect 76. And he grounded that upon reason for that that it cannot be denied But that fee simple might be of copy-hold according to the custome and as well as fee simple as well it may be an estate tayl for every greater containes his lesse and he said that this is grounded upon the reason of other cases as if the King grant to one to hold Plea in his Court of all actions of debt and other actions and then one action of debt is given in case where it lieth not at the common Law yet the Grantee may hold Plea of that But if a new action be framed which was not in experience at the time of the grant but is given after by Statute the grant shall not extend to that and to the Objection that copy-hold is no Tenement within the Statute of gifts c. As to that he saith that that shall be very well intended to be within the Statute as it is used and 4. H. 7. 10. A man makes a gift in tayl by deed the Donee hath an estate tayl in the deed as well as in the Land so Morgan and Maxells case Commentaries 26. And so of Office Honour Dignity and copy-hold also and Dyer 2 and 3. Phil And Mary 114. 61. It is found by speciall verdict that copy-hold Lands have been devisable by copy in tayl and so it is pleaded 2 and 3 Eliz. Dyer 192. b. And when a lesser estate is extracted out of a greater that shall be directed and ordered according to the course of the Common Law and for that the Wife shall have plaint in nature of a Cui in vita and 15. H 8. b. Title Tenement by copy of Court Roll it was said for Law that tayl may be of a copy-hold and that Formedon may well ly of that in descender by protestation to sue in nature of a Formedon in descender at the Common Law and good by all the Justices for though that Formedon in descender was not given but by Statute Yet now this Writ lieth at the Common Law and shall be intended that this hath been a custome time out of mind c. And the Demandant shall recover by advise of all the Justices and the like matter in Essex M. 28. H. 8. And Fitz. affirms that in the chamber of the Dutchy of Lancaster afterwards and also he saith that when custome hath created such Inheritances and that the Land shall be descendable then the Law shall direct the discent according to the Maximes and Rules of the Common Law as incident to every estate discendable and for that shall be possessio Fratris of a copy-hold estate 4. Coke 22. a. Brownes Case b. And there 28. a. Gravener and Tedd the custome of the Mannor of Allesley in the County of Warwick was that copy-hold lands might be granted to any one in fee simple and it was adjudged that a grant to one and the Heires of his Body is within the Custome for be that Estate Tayl or Fee simple conditionall that is within the Custome So he may grant for life or for yeares by the same Custome for Estate in Fee simple includes all and it is a Maxime in Law to him that may do the greater it cannot be but the lesse is lawfull and over he said that in all cases where a man was put to his reall action at the Common Law in all these cases a copy-holder may have plaint with protestation to prosecute in â—…re of the same action and to the objection that there cannot be an Estate tayl of copy-hold Land for that that the Tenant in tayl shall hold of him in revertion and shall not be Tenant to the Lord to that he said that this Estate may be created as well by Cepit extra manus Domini as by Surrender and then there is not any reversion or remainder but it is as if Rent be newly granted in tayl but he said there may be a reversion upon an Estate tayl as well as upon an Estate for life and he did not insist upon the Custome but upon this ground that if the Custome warrant the greater Estate which is the Fee simple the lesse shall be included in that And he did not argue but intended that it would be admitted that discent of copy-hold Land shall not take away entry nor Surrender of that nor shall make discontinuance so prayed Judgement and â—…rne Harris the youngest Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff that it shall be
a Fee simple conditionall and not an Estate tayl and he said that the sole question was if the Statute of Westminster 2. conevrted and changed Fee simple conditionall of copy-hold into an Estate tayl for if it be not an Estate tayl within this Statute it shall not be an Estate tayl at all for Littleton saith before the making of the said Statute these Estates were Fee simple conditionall and for that cannot be by prescription also he said that copy-hold Estate was so base an Estate that at the Common Law a copy holder had no remedy but only in the Court of the Lord But as to Littleton who sayth that he may have a Formedon in discender to that he saith that the Heire which hath Fee simple conditionall may have it by the Common Law for this was at the Common Law before the making of that Statute of Westminster 2. As it appears by 4. Ed. 2. Formedon 50. 10. Ed. 2. Formedon 55. And by Bendlowes in the Lord Barkleys case in the Commentaries 239. b. by Benlose where it is said by him that a Formedon in discender was not at the Common Law but in a speciall case where an Assise of Mortdancester would not serve the Issue that is if a man had Issue a Sonn and his Wife died and after that he takes another Wife and Land was given to him and to his second Wife and to the Heires of their two Bodyes begoten and they have another Sonn and the Wife dies and after the Father dies and a stranger abates there he sayth that before the Statute the youngest Soon could not have an Assise of Mortdancester and for that he shall have a Formedon in discender which was no other but a writ founded upon his Case see 10 of Ed. 2. Formedon 55. And for that when Littleton speakes of an Estate tayl of copy-hold that ought to be understood of Fee taile which may be Fee simple conditionall and so Littleton may be reconciled 〈◊〉 will well agree with himself also it seems that Copy-hold is ouâ—â—f the intent and meaning of the Statute of Westminster 2. For at the common Law in ancient times this was base Estate and not more in reputation then villinage and also if such an Estate then might be created of that which shall be perpetuall and no means to barr it for surrender of that doth not make any discontinuance and Recovery was not known till 12. Ed. 4. and he saith that in ancient time the name of Copy-holder was not well known for in ancient time they were called Tenants in Villinage and Tenants by copy is but a new terme see Fitzherberts Natura Brevium 12. b. and the old Tenures fol. 2. and Bracton lib. 2. charter 8. In gifts made to servants calleth them Villaines and Sokemen and in the old Tenures it is said that the Lords may expell them and upon this he inferred that if it be so baseâ— Tenure though it be of Lands and Tenements yet they shall not be intended to be within the intent of the makers of the Statute of Westminster 2. and also by a second reason that is that it was not the intent of the makers of the Statute that this should extend to any Lands but only to those which are free Lands for the parties are called Donees and Feoffees and the will of the Giver should be observed according to the forme in the Charter of his gift manifestly expressed by which it appears that it ought to be of such Land of which a gift may be made and also the Statute provides that if the Donee levy a fine that in right it should be nothing by which also it appears as to him it seemed that it ought to be of such Land of which a fine may be levied And also for a third reason which was the great Inconvenience which would ensue upon it for then the Donees have no meanes to dispose of that nor give that for the advancement of his Wife nor her Issues and also the Lord shall loose his signiory for the Donee shall hold of him in Reversion and not of the Lord and it is resolved in Heydens Case 3 Coke 8. a. That when an act of Parliament alters the service Tenure Interest of the Land or other thing in prejudice of the Lord or of the custome of the Mannor or in prejudice of the Tenant there the generall words of such act shall not extend to Copy-holders see the opinion of Manwaod cheife Baron there and he agreed that admitting it shall be an Estate taile that then Surrender shall not make discontinuance and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiffe his Clyent see Hill and Vpchars Case which was adjudged in the Kings Bench and the principall case was adjourned untill the first Saturday of the next Tearme See Hillari 7. Jacobi in this Book in Replevin the Plaintiff was non-suited between the same parties See also Pasche 9. Jacobi 149. Hillary 1610. 8. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Wallop against the Bishop of Exeter and Murray Clark IN a Quare impedit the case was Doctor Playford being Chaplaine of the King accepted a Benefice of presentation of a common person and after he accepted another of presentation of the King without any dispension both being above the value of eight pound per annum if the first Benefice was void by the Statute of 21 H. 8. chapter 13. or not was the question for if that were void by the acceptance of the second Benefice without dispensation then this remaines a long time voide so that the King was intituled to present by Laps and presented the Plaintiff the Statute of 21 H. 8. provides that he which is Chaplain to an Earle Bishop c. may purchase license or dispensation to receive have and keep two Benefices with cure provided that it shall be lawfull to the Kings Chaplaines to whom it shall please the King to give any benefices or promotions spirituall to what number soever it be to accept and receive the same without incurring the danger penalty and forfeiture in this Statute comprised upon which the question was if by this last Proviso Chaplaine of the King having a Benefice with cure above the value of eight pound per annum of the presentation of a common person might accept another Benefice with cure over the value of eight pound also of the presentation of the King without dispensation the words of the Statute by which the first Church is made void are and be it enacted that if any parson or parsons having one Benefice withcure of Soules being of the yearly value of eight pound or above accept and take any other with cure of Soules and be instituted and inducted in possession of the same that then and immediately after such possession had thereof the first Benefice shall be adjudged in the law to be void See Hollands case 4. Cooke 75. a. This case was not argued but the point only opened by Dodridge Serjeant
of his confirmation and not by the first see 11. R. 2. Grants 9. Ed. 3. 4. 12. R. 2 Feoffments 58. See Perkins fol. 8. b 9. a. Grants 10. Eliz. Dyer 279. 4. Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610 In the Common Bench. Styles against Baxter STyles brought an Action upon the case against Baxter for calling him perjured man the Defendant justified that he was perjured in such a Court in such a deposition and so pleaded that certainly and it was found for the Defendant at the Nisi prius and Judgment was given accordingly and the Defendant afterwards published the same words of the Plaintiff upon which he brought a new Action for the new publication in which the Defendant pleaded in Barr the first Judgment upon which the Plaintiff demurred and it was adjudged without any Contradiction that it was a good Barr. Hillari 8. Jacobi 1610. In the common Bench. Andrewe against Ledsam in the Star Chamber ANdrewe exhibited his bill in the Star Chamber against Ledsam the matter Andrew being a rich Usurer delivered to Ledsam being a Scriâ—ener one thousand pound to be imployed for him for Interest that is for ten pound for the use of every hundred pound for every yeare Ledsam being a Prodigall man as it seemes spent the Money and delivered to Andrewe diverse severall obligations every of them containing three severall persons well known to be sufficient being some of them Knights others Gentlemen and Esquires of great Estates and the other good Citizens without exceptions were bound to Andrewe in two hundred pound for the payment of one hundred sixty pound to Andrew at a day to come within six Moneths then next comming as Andrew had used before to lend his Money and delivered the Obligations with Seales unto them and the names of the parties mentioned to be bound by that subscribed and his own name also subscribed as witnessing the sealing and delivery of them as a publique Notary aâ— the good and lawfull obligations of the Parties which were mentioned in them where indeed the parties mentioned in them had not any notice of any of them But Ledsam had forged and counterfeited them as he hath confessed upon his Examination upon Interrogatories administred by the Plaintiff in this Court and at the hearing of the Cause and sentence of that it was moved if Ledsam shaâ—l loose both his Eares or but one for if it be but one forgery then by the Statute of 5. Eliz. Admitting that the Bill is grounded upon this Statute he shall loose an Eare and pay the double dammageâ— and cost to the party greeved And also if Andrew being but the Obligee and not any of the parties in whose names the Obligations were forged if he be such a party greived which shall have double costs and dammages and these doubts were resolved by Coke cheife Justice of the Common Bench where they were moved and Flemming cheif Justice of the Kings Bench that Ledsam should loose but one eare for that shall be taken as one forgery for that it was made at one time and also that Andrew was the party greived within the Statute but Coke said that the Bill was generall that is against the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme and not precisely upon the Statute of 5. Eliz. For he said that when a Bill is founded upon an Act of Parliament that this ought to containe all the branches which are mentioned in the Act the which wants in this Bill but insomuch that it was adjudged in Parliament what punishment such offenders shall have they inflicted the same punishment which is appointed by the Statute and added to that that he should be Imprisoned till he found good Suerties for his good behaviour and also that hee shall be brought to every one of the Kings Courts at Westminster with great Papers in his hatt containing his offence in Capitall letters but the Lord Chancellor expounded the double dammages in such manner that is that they shall not be intended double Interest but only the Principall Debt Note that if Execution be directed to a Sheriffe to Arrest any man or to make Execution within a Liberty And the Sheriffe direct his Warrant to a Bayliffe of the Liberty for to make Execution of the Processe which makes it and after is a Fugitive and not able to answer for that the Lord of the Franchise shall answer for that and shall be liable to answer for his Bayliffe by all the Justices Burdett against Pix IN Debt upon a single Bill by Burdett against John Pix as administrator of Freewen the case was this that is Freewen was bound in an Obligation of thirty four pound to Burdett the Plaintiff and was also bound to one William Pix in 80. l. Freewen dyed Intestate and the Letters of Administration of his Goods were Committed after his Death to the said John Pix the Defendant and the said William Pix also made the said John Pix the Defendant his Executor and died and the Defendant in this Action pleads that the said Freewen was indebted to the said William Pix and that he was his Executor and that he had Goods of the said Freewens sufficient to satisfie the said debt the which he retained for the satisfaction of that and that over that he hath not of his to satisfie him upon which the Plaintiff Demâ—…or that that the Defendant doth not plead that he hath â—…is election to retaine the said goods for the satisfaction of â—…own said Debt before the Action brought and by all the Justices he ought to make his election before the bringing of the Action otherwise he shall be charged with the other Debt See Woodward and Darcyes Case Commentaries 184. a. and 4. Cook 30. Coulters Case Hillary 8. Jacobi 1610. in the Common Bench. Bone against Stretton THe case was this A man seised of two Acres of Land makes a Lease for years of one Acre to one and another Lease for yeares of the other Acre to another and then he enters and makes a Feoffment and severall Liveryes upon the severall Acres and one of the Lessees being present doth not assent to the said Livery and the use of the said Feoffment was not the use of his last Will and then he declares his last Will and by that recites the said Feoffment and then declares the use of that to be to the use of himself for life the remainder over to a stranger and after the Tenant for years which did not assent to the Livery grants his Estate to the Feoffor and the Feoffor dies and Nicholls Serjeant moved first That this enures as a grant of a reversion and that the grant of the perticuler Tenant enures first as an Attornement and then as a surrender of his Estate as if it had been an expresse surrender and all the Justices agreed that this doth not enure to make Attornement and surrender as expresse surrender will for an expresse surrender admits the reversion to be in the Grantee to whom the surrender is made
or Geldings and no more and because the Beasts aforesaid in the narration aforesaid specified over and above the aforesaid other three Mares or Geldings the aforesayd time in which c. were in the aforesayd place in which c the Grasse then growing there eating and the Common of pasture of the sayd Robert Pargiter overcharging and doing damage to the sayd Robert there the sayd Robert Pargiter in his owne right doth wel avow and the aforesayd John Phillips as Bayliff of the aforesayd Pargiter doe well acknowledge the taking of the Beasts aforesayd in the aforesayd place in which c. and justly c. they then doing damage there c. And the aforesayd Robert Kenrick saith That neither the sayd Robert Pargiter for the reason before alleadged the taking of the aforesayd Beasts in the aforesayd place in which c. can justly avow nor the aforesayd John Phillips as Bayliff of the aforesayd Pargiter for the same reason the taking of the Beasts aforesayd in the aforesayd place in which c. justly can acknowledge Because by protestation that he the sayd Robert Kenrick and all those whose estate the sayd Robert Kenrick now hath and at the aforesayd time of the taking c. had in the sayd Messuage and foure Virges of Land with the appurtenances whereof c. time out of minde had not nor used to have or were accustomed every yeare at the first day of August called Lammas day and from thence to the next Feast of the Parification then next following Common of pasture in the aforesayd place in which c. onely for three Horses Mares or Geldings and not more in manner and forme as the aforesayd Robert Pargiter and John Phillips above have alleadged for Plea the sayd Robert Kenrick sayth That he long before the time of the taking of the Beasts aforesayd and also at the same time of the taking c. was seised of the Mannor of Kings Sutton with the appurtenances in Kings Sutton and Astrop in the County aforesayd whereof the aforesayd Messuage and four Virges of Land with the appurtenances whereof c. are and at the aforesayd time of the taking c. and also time out of mind c. were parcell in his Demesne as of Fee and the aforesayd House and foure Virges of Land with the appurtenances thereof c. and of the taking and likewise time out of mind were parcell of the Demesne Lands of the Mannor of Kings Sutton aforesayd And the sayd Robert Kenrick so of the Mannor aforesayd with the appurtenances in manner aforesayd appearing seised the sayd Robert before the sayd time in which c. put his Beasts aforesayd which then were the proper Beasts of the sayd Robert Kenrick upon the aforesayd House and four Virges of Land with the appurtenances lying and rising in the aforesayd place in which c. to eate the Grafs there growing in the sayd place in which c. called Great Greens parcell c. the Grass in the same then growing feeding and the aforesayd Beasts were in the place aforesayd untill the aforesayd Robert Pargiter and John Phillips the aforesayd fourth day of August the seventh yeare aforesayd at Kings Sutton aforesayd in the County aforesayd at Great Greene parcell c. took the sayd Beasts of the sayd Robert Kenrick and those unjustly detained against Sureties and Pledges untill c. as he above against those complaines and this he is ready to verifie whereof and from which the aforesayd Robert Pargiter and John Phillips the taking of the aforesayd Beasts in the aforesayd place c. further acknowledge the sayd Robert Kenrick demands Judgment and his damages by reason of the taking and unjust detaining of those beasts to be adjudged unto him c. And the aforesaid Robert Pargiter and John Phillips say that the aforesaid Plea of the said Robert Kenrick above in the Bar avowed pleaded and matter therein contained is very insufficient in Law justly to avoid the said Robert Pargiter and the said John from just acknowledging the taking of the Beasts aforesaid to have and shut up and that he to the said plea in manner and forme aforesaid pleaded hath no need not by the Law of the Land shall be held to answer and this they are ready to averr whereof for default of a sufficient plea of the aforesaid Robert Kenrick in this part the said Robert and John as before demand Judgement and Returne of the Beasts aforesaid together with their Damages c. To them to be adjudged c. And the aforesaid Robert Kenrick in respect he hath sufficient matter in Law justly to avoid the said Robert Pargiter and the aforesaid John from justly acknowledging the taking of the said Beasts to be shut out as above alledged which he is reaoy to verify which truly matter of the aforesaid Robert Pargiter and John do not answer according to their verifying they altogether refuse to admit as before and demand Judgment and their Damages occasioned by the taking and unjust detaining of the said Beasts to be adjudged to them c. And because c. Upon the pleadings the Case was thus a Freeholder prescribs to have common in parcell of the Demesnes of the Mannor for six Horses and other Cattel in certain Land from Lammas to Candlemas that the Lord of the Mannor hath used to have the said Parcell of Land in severall to his owne use from Candlemas to Lammas and in consideration of that the said Lord hath used to have Common in the said parcell of Land for Horses only and not more and the Lord unjustly puts in other Beasts then the said three Horses in the said parcel of Land and surcharged the Common and the Free-holder distrayned them doing Damage and the Lord brings a Replevin and it was argued that prescription was not good for that that Free-holder claimes that as Common without number in his severall Soyle the Grantee cannot exclude the owner of the Soile 12 H. 8. Brooke so of him which hath Common Fishing in the severall of another he cannot exclude him which hath the severall 18 H. 6. 16. And it is not like to the Case of the time of Edward the first prescription the 55. Where is Prescription that the Owner of the Soile shall be excluded from his Common for part of the yeare for there the other claimes all the Vesture of the Land and so may well exclude the Lord but not when he claimes it but as Common but it was agreed that by Lawes by the Commoners consent they may order that their great Cattell shall be put in in such Feild only untill such a Feast and after that for sheep and swine and this is good as it appears by 46 Ed. 3. 25. And Coke cheife Justice said that such prescription to have Common and to exclude the Owner of the Soyle is not good and he saith that so it hath been adjudged between Whyte of Shirland 31 Eliz. And in
his Writ and that the eldest Brother hath nothing in the Land Judgement was had against a Defendant in Debt and Capias to satisfie awarded and Non est inventus returned and Scire facias awarded against the Bayl and upon the first Scire facias the principall Defendant yeelds his Body in execution and it was very good for before that the Bayl had no day in Court and in the Kings Bench if the Defendant yeelds his Body upon the second Scire facias it shall be accepted And if a man be Bayl upon a Writ of Error if the Judgement shall not be reversed he shall be in execution againe It was objected by Hutton Serjeant that the Scire facias is against the Bayl to know why the execution shall not be awarded against the Bayl and that ought to be delivered to the Sheiriff before the day of the returne or otherwise it shall be Erroniously awarded and then the party may yeeld his Body to Prison at any time and discharge his Bayl and agreed that Bayl in this Court may be released Accompt doth not lie for any sum certaine Pasch 9. Jacobi 1611 in the Common Bench. John Reyner against Powell See Hillary 8. Jacobi 136. HAughton Serjeant argued that there shall be a good Estate tayl of a Copy-hold and that by the custome after the making of the Statute of Westminster 2. And he agreed that at the Common Law all estates were Fee simple absolute or conditionall and that the estates tayl were created by the Statute of Westminster 2. And do not exclude customary estates as it appeares by Littleton who saith that Tenant at will by copy of Court Roll by custome may be in Fee simple and so of estate tayl and with this agrees many other Authors 15 H. 8. b. Tenant by Copy-hold of Court Roll resolved in the point and that a Formedon in the discender lieth for that and as the Statute of Westminster 2. divides estate tayl and Fee simple So may custome of a Mannor as well as custome make an estate at will which is personall and determines by the death of any of the parties to discend and as well as the custome of London of not moving things fixed is created by custome as well may Formedon be created by Custome and also the Statute is that gives Cui in vita extends to a Copy-hold so the Statute of Limitation as it appeares by Brooke Limitation 5 Ed. 6. And with this agrees also Heydons Case and though that the words are Voluntas Donatoris in the Charter c. Yet the estate tayl may be created by devise So that the Statute shall not have such literall construction and as well as a Lease for a hundred yeares may be within the Statute of 11. H. 7. Which speakes only of discontinuances as it appeares by Sir George Brownes Case 3. Coke So may a Copy-hold estate which is but an estate at will be within the Statute of Westminster 2. and it is confest by the other part by pleading that he was seised in tayl according to the custome of the Mannor and it is not pleaded that he had Issue at the time of the Alienation and the other party claimed by the Alienation the which was not good if he had no Issue at the time of that if he had but Fee simple conditionall and so concluded and praied Judgement c. Dodridge Serjeant of the king saith that the reputation of the estate consists upon two parts first the name secondly the nature of the estate tayl and for both the makers of the Statute of Westminster 2. bad no intention that this should extend to Copy-hold and first for the name which gives the being he cited Fitz. Natura Brevium 12. C. where it is sayd that Copy-Tenants or Copy-holders or Tenants by copy is but a new Terme found for of auncient times they were called Tenants in Villenage or of base tenure as this also appeares by the old Tenures by which it appeares that then they were called and named Tenants which held in Villenage or of base tenure and Bracton booke 2. chap. 8. in the end speakes of that and calls them Villaines Sokemaines and that if such a Tenant will transfer his Tenement let it be delivered into the hand of the Lord or his Steward and he wrote immediately before the Statute of Westminster 2. and agreed with Fitz. Na. Bre. And also Bracton booke 4. fol. 209. Saith that such Tenants have used to Plow the Demesnes of the Lord and calls and names them as before and 4. Ed. 1. He is called Customarius So that Custome doth not make the certainty of his estate if he hath any and he said that 42. Ed. 3. 25. is the first in Law in which is any mention of these Lands and there they are called Neists Lands and 14 H. 4. 323. a. they are called Sokemaines by base Tenure and Lambert calles it Folkland by which and severall names he saith that the basenesse of the Estate appeares And to the estate he saith that originally it was but at the will of the Lord though that it be according to the Custome of the Mannor So that the Lord cannot put him out if he performe the services And the Register doth not respect him for he hath not framed any Originall for him to give him remedy by the Common Law but only in the Court of the Lord though that erronious Judgement be given Also he cannot prescribe but in the name of the Lord as it appeares by 18. Ed. 3. Fitz. prescription that such estates which are incident to Fee simple as Dower not Tenants by the Curtisie cannot be derived out of this without Custome nor that warranted So that his reputation appeares by his name and also by his nature Also he intended that the makers of the Statute of Westminster 2 did not intend that the Statute should extend to this for it is Oppositum in Objecto for Custome is without time of memory And the Statute of Westminster 2. was made 13. Ed. 1. the beginning of which every one knowes Also the Statute of Westminster 2. doth not extend to any Lands but those which the Tenant might have aliened before the Statute But the Copy-holder had not any power to alien for the Lord ought to be his Instrument and hand as Bracton saith to alien transfer he cannot but by the hands of the Lord and it must be restored to the Lord the words of the Statute are The will of the giver in the Charter c. So that the Statute intends such Lands which may passe by Deed and Fine and devise his Deeds and the Deed extends to them for a Fine is Chirograph and devise to be made by copy of Court Roll is not so for that is only of Acts made in the Court of the Lord it cannot be within the Statute for Copy-hold ought to be held of the Lord and Tenant in tayl shall hold of the giver and so
cannot a Copy-holder which hath so base an estate And if this shall be so these mischeifes will insue That is that this base estate should be of better security then any estate at the Common Law for Fine shall not be a Barr of that for it cannot be levied of that also Recovery cannot be suffered of that for there cannot be a Recovery in value neither of Lands at the Common Law neither of Customary Lands for they cannot be transferred but by the hands of the Lord. And to Littleton he agreed and also 4 Ed. 2. which agrees with this where it is said that at Stebenâ—eath a Surrender was of Copy-hold Lands to one and the Heires of his Body but he said that that shall not be an Estate taile for then the Estate hath such operation that this setles a Reversion and Tenure betwixt the Giver and him to whom it is given but this cannot be of Copy-hold Land for this cannot be held of any but only of the Lord and to the others this Estate doth not lye in Tenure and yet he agreed that of some things which did not lye in Tenure Estate Tail may be but Land may be intailed but Copy-hold Estate is so base that an Estate tail cannot be derived out of it so that though that custome may make an Estate to one and the Heires of his Body yet this cannot be an Estate taile but Fee-simple conditionall and also he agreed that they might have Formedon in Discender but it is the same Formedon which was before the Statute as if Tenant in Fee-simple conditionall before the Statute would alien before issue but it was no Estate taile with the priviledges of an Estate taile before the Statute and to the other matter of Surrender that is the admittance of the parties which is an Estate taile that doth not conclude the Court as it appears by the Lord Barkleys Case in the Commentaries where the Estate pleaded severally by the parties is not traversed by any of them and so concludes and prayes Judgment c. And this case was argued again in Trinity Tearme next ensuing by Montague the Kings Serjeant for the Defendant and he said that there are three questions in the case First If Copy-hold land may be intailed Secondly Admitting that it may be intailed if Surrender makes discontinuance Thirdly If it shall be Remitter and to the first he seemed that it might be intailed and that it shall be within the Statute of Westminster 2. And first for the Antiquity of that he said that Littleton placed that amongst his Estates of Free-hold and hath been time out of minde and is a primitive Estate and not derived out of the Estate of the Lord and the Lord is not the Creator of that but the means to convey that after that it is cerated and what is created then shall have all the priviledges and Benefits which are incident to it and shall be nursed by the custome and is time out of minde and the Law alwaies takes notice of it and he cited 24 H. 4. 323. by Hankf Bracton Fitz. Na. Bre. 12 C. and Brownes Case 4. Coke which is not simply an Estate at the will of the Lord but at the VVill of the Lord according to the custome of the Mannor and when it hath gained the reputation of Free-hold then it shall be dircted according to the rules of the Common Law and 2. and 3. P. and Ma. Dier 114. 60. allow Copy-hold Estate to be intailed and he saith That no Statute hath more liberall exposition then the Statute of Westminster 2. 45. Ed. 3. Incumbrance shall not charge the Issue intaile also a Copy-holder shall have a Cui in vita also a Copy-hold is within the Statute of Limitation and so upon the Statute of buying of pretenced rights And it is alway intended when a Statute speakes of Lands and Tenements that Copy-hold Lands shall be within that And he saith That all the Objections which have been made of the contrary part are answered in Heydons Case but he relyed upon that that every reall Inheritance is within the Statute of Westminster 2. 4 Ed. 2. Formedon lyeth of Copy-hold Land 25 Ed. 3. 46. Estate tayle is of a Corrody and office which proves that Copy-hold is a reall Inheritance and for that shall be within the Statute 46 Ed. 3. 21. Gavelkinde Land may be intailed 6 Rich. 2. Avowry 2. 8. Rich. 2. 26. Copy-holder shall be charged with Fees of a Knight at Parliament 22 and 23. Eliz. Dier 373. 13. Lands in ancient Demesne were intayled and he said that the reason is that for that it is Inheritance and time hath applyed them to an Estate and so concluded and prayed Judgment for the Defendant Hutton Serjeant argued for the Plaintiff that Copy-hold Lands cannot be intailed for that is but a customary Estate and the Law doth not take any notice of it but onely according to Custome for there were no Estates tayle before the Statute for then all were Fee simple absolute or conditionall that is either implyed or by limitation which cannot be of an Estate tayle which is not within the Statute of Westminster 2. for no Actions are maintainable by that but those which are by the Custome and a Writ of false Judgment See Fitzherberts Natura brevium 12. 13 Ed. 3. F. Prescription 29. that it hath no Incidents which are incident to Estates at the Common Law without Custome as Dower See Revetts Case and so is Tenancy by the Curtesie and there shall be no discent of that to take away Entry and so of other derivatives And he seemed that it is not within the Statute for three reasons apparent within the Statute First That it is hard that Givers shall be barred of their reversions but in case of Copy-holds the Giver hath no remedy to compell the Lord to admit him after the Estate tayle spent but onely Subpena and in this Case the Lord may releive himselfe for the losse of his services for that the Statute provides no remedy for him Secondly That the Statute doth not intend any Lands but those of which there is actuall reversion or remainder and those which passe by Deed so that the will of the Giver expressed in the Charter may be observed and of which there may be a subdivision as Lord Mesne and Tenant for there shall be alwayes a reversion of the Estate tayle and the Donee shall hold of the Donor and not of the Lord. Also it seems that the Statute doth not intend to provide for any but those for whom the VVrit in the Formedon ordained by the Statute lyes and agreed that for Offices and such like Formedon lyeth if the party will admit Estate tayle to be discontinued Also the Statute intends those things of which a Fine may be levyed for the Statute provides that the Fine in his owne right should be nothing but by Copy-holder Fine cannot be levied and for that he shall not be within the
the street shall be devisable and he claimes by force of a Devise made according to that custome and adjudged that the custome is not good for it is inconvenient that in one self same ancient Town one house shall be devisable and another not and upon that the Plea was amended so here custome that a Copy-holder may sell all the Trees is inconvenient for it doth not appeare that this Custome extended to any other but to him Secondly this Custome is against the Common Wealth for every Custome ought to have preservation and maintenance and that shall not be here for when one Copy-holder hath sold all the Trees the Successor shall not have any Boots nor Fire and so by the same reason he may pull down the house And so this tends to destruction and rests in the will of a man if he will distroy or not And this is inconvenient that such power should be given to one which hath but an estate for life as in 14. Ed. 3. Barr 277. Copy-holder pleads Custome of a Mannor that that Copy-holder which comes first after a windfall falne shall have it and resolved to be void Custome for that it rests in the will of a man if he will finde that or not So in 5. H. 7. 9. Custome that if one find Beasts doing Dammage that he may distraine them and have foure pence for his Dammages and adjudged void Custome for the Dammages are nncertaine and for that it is no reason that the Fine shall be certaine and 19. Eliz. Dyer 358. 46. Custome that all Devises and Leases granted for more then six yeares are meerly void forthwith is a void Custome because contrary to common reason and the liberty of one which hath Fee simple So 2 Hen. 4. 24. Custome that the Tenants of the Mannor shall not use their Common till the Lord put in his Beasts is void for it should not depend on the Will of the Lord So in the principall case the Lord cannot grant Copy-hold Estate in reversion for it depends upon the Nomination of his Tenant and for that the Custome shall be void Thirdly The Copy-holder hath prescribed to do a thing which is contrary to his Estate and doth not cohere with his Estate that is that Lessee for life shall cut the Trees for he hath but a speciall property in that and not the â—bsolute property and it is like to a Case in 19 Ed 3. Feoffments 68. and 19 Assise 9. Where Commander of an Hospitall prescribes that he and his Predecessors which have had the same office have used to make Leases for lives and in an Action brought by the Prior it was adjudged that the custome is void and so by consequence the Lease was void for the Commander hath no Estate to make it so in Forsâ— and Hemlings Case 4. Coke and 3 Ed. 3. F. Dat. Custome that a married Wife may make a Will is void for it doth not stand with the quality of her person so here it is not with the quality of the Estate but it may be objected that it is a greater Estate then an Estate for life for it is perpetuall Free-hold to that it may be answered in this case it is no greater Estate then for life for the Copy-holder hath only made nomination but he which was nominated was not admitted so that the Tenant hath no greater Estate nor the Lord hath granted greater Estate then for life but admit that he be Tenant for life with a Remainder for life to him to whom the nomination is made yet he cannot do such an act and for that the cutting down of the Trees shall be a forfeiture of his Estate by custome by which the Estate is created and copy-hold Lands are not as other Lands which if they were let for Life at the common Law the Tenant were dispunishable for wast till the Statute of Glocester for it was the Folly of the Lessor to make a Lease to such a person which would make wast and for that as the benefit and Priviledge of the copy-holder remaines so the benefit of the Lord shall not be abridged and so he prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Haughton Serjeant seemeth the contrary for the Defendant and he agreed that Customes ought to be reasonable and if they be generally inconvenient they cannot be reasonable and to the first exception to prove that it is a new Custome that is that it is found that he is onely Tenant in possession without saying Without Remainder as it was in the first Case to that he thought if it were true that the Copy-holder hath such priviledge that he might nominate his Successor it is not materiall and to the lessening of the Fine that is found very certaine for he that is nominated at the first requires admittance and if the Lord refuse that he shall be admitted for such a Fine that the Homage Assess and so it is found and that is very certaine and the rather for that that this is a speciall Verdict Also he agreed as before That Custome ought to be reasonable and if it be generally inconvenient though it be not mischeivous yet it shall not be good and to the Case of 40 Assis 37. Custome to devise the Tenements on the South side of the Street is not good for that that Custome cannot be in one particular place certaine and also he agreed the Case of Windfall for that tended to charge the Lord 3 Eliz. Dyer 299. 57. 58. Custome to have Herriot the best Beast and if that be put out of the way before seisure then the Lord may seise and take the Beast of any other mans there arising and lying downe to his owne proper use and the custome held voyd and unreasonable So the custome in 20 H. 7. to have so much for every Pound-breach is voyd but this custome is meerly between the Lord and Tenant and the custome hath made that discendable Inheritance and also may have reasonable beginning and the Lord hath benefit for that that is his Fine for the admittance of him which is nominated and custome hath created other Estates as Grant to him and his is good by the custome and so the Cases of 21 Ed. 4. and 22 Ed. 4. before cyted for the turning of Plough upon the Land of his Neighbour So the custome if the Lord feed the Beasts of his Tenant that he may Fold them and so he concluded that the first custome to make nomination is good and to the second custome he agreed that bare Copy-holder for life could not Prescribe to cut and sell all the Trees no more then custome that Tenant for life may devise as 35 H. 6. But here the Tenant hath perpetuity in his Estate and may nominate his Successor and as well as the Common Law allows Tenant after possibility of Issue extinct to make waste so may custome allow Tenant for life with such nomination power to cut and sell the Trees Also he intended admitting the custome not good
that yet the Copy-holder hath nor forfeited his Estate for the Trees and the Mannor are granted by severall Grants and for that though that they are by one selfe same Deed yet by that the Trees are severed from the Mannor and the Trees are the cause of the forfeiture and they are no parcell of the Mannor as in 31 Edw. 3. Assis 441. by sale of a Castle the services are extinct So here the forfeiture cannot accrue to the Mannor when that commeth by reason of Trees which are severed by reason of severall Grants and he thought that the Grant shall be taken more strong against him which made it as if a man in the Premises give Fee-simple to have in tayl the Estate tayl shall be precedent and the Fee-simple depending upon that so if a man have the next avoydance of a Church and the Church becomes voyd and after he purchase the Advowson yet the Presentation remaines as it was before for that is the best thing and so it is resolved in Herlackendens Case 4 Coke 63. b. That if a man makes a Lease for yeares of Land except the Trees and after grants the Trees to the Lessee that the Trees are not reunited to the Land and so he concluded that it shall be no forfeiture and prayed Judgment for the Defendant and this Case was argued againe Michaelmas 9 Jacobi by Shirley for the Plaintiff that the first custome was voyd insomuch that he claimed to doe a greater thing then his Estate would warrant as in 35 H. 6. Custome that if one Pawne the Goods of another that he which hath them Pawned may keep them whosoever they were is not good as Custome that the Tenant in tayle may devise is voyd for his Estate will not warrant it and it is prejudice to the Tenant in reversion So Custome that Copy-holder shall have Common and another Custome that none shall put in his Beasts till the Lord put in his 2. H. 4. 24. Also there is no Fine Limited to be tendred by the Tenant or to be demanded by the Lord And if a Copy-holder refuse to pay his Fine it is a Forfeyture and if the Custome do not provide for the Fine of the Lord as for the Copy-holder the Custome shall be void Also here cannot be admittance for Littleton saith that the sole meanes to transfer Copy-hold is by Surrender And here if the Custome should be good the copy-hold should be transferred by Nomination only and so the Lord should be Defeated of his Fine and it seemes also that the second Custome is void for it is contrary to the Estate of a copy-holder to sell all the Trees but he agreed that he might have Estovers for houseboote and hedgboote as it was adjudged in Swayne and Becketts Case and he cited the 19. assis Where a Commoner made a Lease for life and void for that that the Estate would not support it 9. H. 6. 56. and 11. H. 6. 40. Prescription to sell Estovers is void for Estovers are appropriate to a house And also it was adjudged in this Court between Poltocke and Powell that a copy-holder for life cannot prescribe to sell the Trees for it is contrary to his Estate as if a Custome be that if a Feoffor die his Heire within age that he shall be in Ward as 8. H. 6. And he thought that the Nomination was no alteration for he to whom the Nomination is made hath only an Estate for life when the Nomination is made and that doth not warrant the sale of the Trees and to the third it seemes that the Lord of the Mannor bargaine and sells the Trees and after lets the Mannor to the bargainee for years and then copy-holder makes wast he thought that the Trees were not severed from the Mannor as in 33. H. 8. 48. Dyer 2. if a man bargaine and sell a Mannor and after in the same Deed makes a bargaine and sale of an Advowson appendant this remaines appendant So if a man bargaine and sell a Mannor and also the Trees do not passe till Livery be made of the Mannor So if Lessee for yeares gives and grants the Land and makes a Letter of Attorney to make Livery the tearme passes without Livery and then it is a Forfeyture And here the Lessee shall have the benefit of Shade and Burrough and the Trees themselves during the Tearme as parcell of the Land and then when the copy-holder hath done more then his Estate will warrant this is a forfeyture and the Lessee shall take the advantage of it and so he praied Judgement for the Plaintiff Harris for the Defendant that the Customes are good but admitting that so yet the Plaintiff shall not take advantage of it and he argued that Custome ought to have two properties first reasonable secondly ought to have time to make that perfect and then shall be good as it appears by the examples of Littleton f. 37. of Burrough English and Gavelkind and custome may be against common right but not against common reason which is the common Law 8 Ed. 4. 18. 21 Ed. 3. 4. And he intended here that the second custome is good if the first be good for then it is perpetuall Free-hold and Copy-hold Estate of Inheritance is but an Estate at will at the Common Law and yet such Copy-holder may dispose the Trees as well as custome may create the Estate as well may it give such priviledge as custome may warrant the taking of Toll for passing over the soile of another 22 Assise 58. And so custome to have the Foldage of the Beasts which feeds upon his soil is good but custome for paying the Goods of another is not good for there is not any recompence but fishing in the Sea and to dig the soile adjoyning for landing of his Nets is good for this is for the publick good 8 Ed. 4. 23. So the custome for turning upon head-land of another is good and is for the preservation of Tilling and also it is between Lord an Tenant and shall be intended to have a reasonable beginning for consideration c. That this continues for he hath Fines and other Services and yet 3 Eliz. 199. Dyer If the Lord claim Harriot of his Tenant and if it be Esloyned alledge custome that he may take the Beasts that he found upon the Land in Withernam and this was adjudged unreasonable custome so 20 H. 7. 13. Custome to have three shillings of a stranger for pound-breach is void but of a Tenant is otherwise for it shall be intended to be a lawfull beginning 11 H. 7. 40. So here the beginning shal be intended to be lawfull and for valuable consideration and for this it shall be good and to the second custome it follows by consequence to be a good custome if the first should be good and then to the third he agreed that Copyholder cannot make wast and if he do it shall be a forefeiture of his Estate as it is said
by Hull 9 H. 4 Wast 59. but this ought to be such Wast that is prejudiciall to the Inheritance as it is agreed in Herlackendens case 4 Coke Where it is agreed that the Bargainee hath severall Interests in the Land and in the Trees and by the Writings by the making of the Lease of the Mannor they are not reunited and annexed to the Free-hold again and then the cutting and selling is no prejudice to him in reversion and so no Wast to make forfeiture and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Defendant and is adjourned see the beginning fol. Trinity 9. Jacobi 1611. In the Common Bench. As yet Doctor Hūfreys Case see Hillary 8. Jacobi IN the Writ of Ravishment of Ward between Francis Moore Esquire Plaintiff against Doctor Hussey and Katharine his Wife Robert Wakeman Clark and many other Defendants Dodridge the Kings Serjeant argued for the Defendant Doctor Hussey that a marryed Wife is not within the Statute of Westminster 2. chapter 35. By which the Writ of Ravishment of Ward is given that which before the Statute was only Trespasse is by the Statute altered in manner and form of proceedings and in penalty of Judgment and he thought that this Writ being formed upon the Statute doth not extend to a married Wife for by the Statute if the Defendant cannot satisfie for the marriage he must abjure the Realme or shall have perpetuall Imprisonment which goes neer to every man next unto his Life the love of his Country and liberty and those the makers of the Statute did not intend against a married Wife and he grounded his argument upon these words of the Statute by which it appears that the makers of the Statute did not intend any person which had no property in any Goods nor power to make satisfaction For first the Statute provides that if he be able to make satisfaction that then he should satisfy if not that then he shall abjure the Realme by which it appears that the Statute intends those that have property and by possibility may satisfy but a woman cannot for her marriage is a gift of all her goods personall to her Husband see for that Fox and Girtbrookes Case Commentaries Secondly The Statute provides new form of proceedings for if the Ward or any of the parties dy hanging the Writ the Writ shall not abate but it shall be revived by Resummons by or against the Executors of him that is dead by this it appears that he which hath no power to make Executors shall not be intended to be within the Statute and a married Wife cannot make a Will and by consequence cannot make Executors see Coke 6. a. Forse and Hemblins case 3 Ed. 3. Devise 13. 4 H. 6. 6. and if the Executors have no assets then the statute gives remedy against the Heir Thirdly The Statute intends to give action against him which may have possession of the ward the which a married Wife cannot have for her possession is to the use of the Husband and by the words of the statute he against whom the Action is given ought to be made Fidei possessor and to the objection that though that the Wife married cannot by any possibility have sufficient to make satisfaction according to the intent of the statute yet if the Husband hath sufficient he shall answer for his Wife as in 48 Ed. 3. 26. and 17 H. 6. A married wife shall be attached by the Goods of the Husband he saith that there the reason is that the Wife is answerable by the Husband but this is only to make him to appear but he against whom the action is given by this statute ought to have property and in such cases a married Wife shall not be punished as in the same Parliament Westminster 2. chapter 25. Is provided that if a Disseisor faile of Record that he shall be imprisoned in Assise for this is the speedy remedy but if a married wife pleads a Record and failes of that to the Jury she shall not be imprisoned though that the Assise was brought against the Husband and the Wife or against the Husband and the wife is received see 1. 3 Ass 1 44 ass 3. 17. as 19. 11 H. 4. Also the statute of Conjunctim Feoffatis fol. 99. Which was made in the time of the said King Ed. 3. in which time the statute of Westminster 2. was made and is contemporary with the same statute by which it is provided that if any plead Joyntenancy which is found against him in the Assise that he shall be imprisoned by the space of a yeare and 16 Assise 8. Husband pleads Joyntenancy with his wife and maintaines the Exception which is found against them and resolved that the Wife should not be imprisoned by this statute 21 Assise 28. 31 Assise a. accordingly and he said there was not any president nor Book of Record by which it appears that a Writ of Ravishment of Ward was maintained against a marryed Wife for Ravishment after the Coverture but for Ravishment before the Coverture see 6 and 8. Ed. 3. and to the Objection that the Plaintiff hath election if he will have the sufficiency come in question may but admit the Defendants to be sufficient and then the imprisonment nor the abjuration shall not be inflicted as it seems to be some opinion 8 Ed. 3. 52. and to that he saith that the admittance of the parties cannot alter the Law for if it were not the intent of the makers of the Statute that this should extend to the Wife the admittance of the parties will not make that extend over the provision of that also it seems to him that the Verdict is not perfect for that it is not fonnd by whom the VVard was married but only that he appeared marryed and it ought to be without the consent of the Plaintiff and for that it might be that he was marryed by the Plaintiff and then there is no cause of action nor to have the value of the marriage and it appears by 22 R. 2. Damages 130 that they ought to inquire by whom he is marryed and also the value of the marriage and if it doth not appear whether he be married or not then the Verdict shall be conditionall and the Judgment also and all the Presidents are he appears married without the assent of the Plaintiff and so he concluded and prayed that the Judgment might stand Harris Serjeant for the Plaintiff prayes Judgment and he supposed that it is in the choyce of the Plaintiff what Judgment he would have for he ought to have Dammages and the value of the marriage and it remaines in the discretion of the Plaintiff what judgment he will have that is upon the Statute for to have the corporall punishment or allow the Defendants to be sufficient and so to have judgment for the Damages and the value of the Marriage without any Imprisonment or Abjuration as in 29 Ed. 3. 24. and 8 Ed. 3. 52. where
that the Husband was subject to that then by consequence it was intended that all persons which were chargeable by the common Law shall be chargeable by the Statute and by the action which is formed upon that and by the common Law the Husband was chargeable and by consequence shall be chargeble by the Statute and he intends that there would be difference between actuall wrongs and others which are come by omission and if the VVife be the person which did the wrong then she shall be punished as well by Statute as she was before by the common Law also she shal be out-lawed and it hath been agreed that Ravishment of Ward shall be maintainable against the Husband and the wife if they both are Ravishers and also if the wife be Ravisher before marriage and after takes a Husband the Husband shall be charged with the damages and his Body shall be imprisoned and by consequence shall be abjured also shee may make an Executor by the consent of her Husband but admitting that she could not then the remedy is given against the Heir and she shall be within this Statute as well as other Statutes made in the time of the said King as the Statute of Westminster 1. 37. And shall be a Disseisor with force and shall be imprisoned whether the Husband joyn with her or not as it is adjudged 16 Assise 7. for all Statutes which provide for actuall wrong a married VVife shall be intended within them as it is 9 H. 4. 6. But the pleading of Joyntenancy there the Plea is the act of the Husband and so fayling of Record upon the Statute of 34 Ed. 3. as it is 16 Assise 8. for the Husband propounds the exception but if the VVife propounds the exception then she shall be within the Statute and shall be imprisoned 21 Assise So if a married VVife make actuall disseisin with force she shall be imprisoned 9 H. 4. 7. b. 8 Ed. 3. 52. 22 Ed. 2 Damages 20. 27 H. 6. Ward 118. And so the President Trinity 33 H. 8. Rot. 347. in a case between Thomas Earle of Rutland against Lawrence Savage and his VVife in Ravishment of Ward at the Nisi prius the Defendants make default and the Judgment was that the Husband and the VVife should be taken and upon that he inferred that the Husband should be subject and charged with the damages and so it is taken upon the statute of 35. Eliz. That the Husband shall be charged with Debt for the Recusancy of the VVife and shall be imprisoned for the not payment of it as to the verdict it seems that this is good and it shall be intended the VVard was marryed by the Defendants as in 33 Ed. 3. Verdict 48. It is found by verdict that Mulier enters and resolved that this shall be intended in the life of the Bastard or otherwise it is nothing worth and in Fulwoods case 4 Coke the Jury found that the Defendant acknowledged himself to be bound and that shall be intended according to the statute of 23 H. 8. and so here though that it be not found that the VVard was married by these Defendants yet it shall be so intended notwithstanding that nothing is found but only that he appeared married and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff This case was sollemnly argued this Tearme by all the Justices that is Coke and Walmesley Warberton and Foster and upon their selemn arguments Coke and Walmesley were of opinion that a married wife is not within the statute and Warberton and Foster were of the contrary opinion and so by reason of their contrariety in opinion the Judgment was staid Trinity 9. Jacobi 1611. in the Common Bench. Burnham against Bayne THE case was A Man seised of divers Lands the halfe of them were extended by Elegit and before Judgement was had against him a new Elegit Awarded and if all the halfe which remaines or but the halfe of that which was the fourth part of all should be extended was the question And it was agreed by all the Justices that but the halfe of that which remaines and not the halfe of all which he had at the time of the Judgement But the halfe of that which he had at the time of the Elegit And if all which remaines be extended the Extent shall be void by all the Justices see 10. Ed. 2 Execution 137 16. E. 2. Execution 118. And here the principall case was A man hath a Rent of forty pound reserved upon a Lease for years and two Judgments in Debt were had against him at the Suit of Sir Thomas Cambell and three Judgments at the Suit of the Plaintiff the halfe was first extended by Elegit upon the first Judgment had at the Suit of Sir Thomas Cambell and after upon the Judgment had at his Suit the halfe of the residue was extended and after upon the Judgment at the Suit of the Plaintiff all the residue was extended and all the Justices agreed that the Extent was void for they ought to extend but the halfe of that which remaines and that was but the fourth part Trinity 9. Jacobi 1611. In the Common Bench. Trobervill against Brent THE Case was A man makes a Lease for yeares rendring Rent and after grants the Reversion for life to which Grant the Lessee for years attornes the Grantee acknowledgeth a statute and after surrenders his Estate the Conusee extends the Statute and distraines for the Rent and in Replevin avowes for the cause aforesaid and adjudged that the Avowry was good Agreed that Creditor may sue the Executors and the Heir of the Debtor also but he shall have but one Execution with satisfaction see the Statute of 23 H. 8. for such course in the Exche quer Note that no Court of Equity may examine any matter of Equity after Judgment which was precedent the Judgment see the Statute of 4 H. 4. chapt 23. Trinity 9. Jacobi 1611. In the Common Bench. Hamond against Jethro THe case was this Edward Hamond was Plaintiff in Debt upon a Bill against VVilliam Jethro and the Bill was made in this manner Memorandum that I VVilliam Jethro do owe and am indebted unto Edward Hamond in the Sum of ten pound for the payment whereof I binde my self c. In witnesse and after the in witnesse it was thus subscribed Memorandum that the said VVilliam Jethro be not compelled to pay the said ten pound untill he recovers thirty pound upon an obligation against A. B. c. And in the Count was no mention made of this Subscription but this appears when the Defendant prayes hearing of the Bill the which was then entered Verbatim of Record and upon that the Defendant demurred in Law Harris Serjeant for the Plaintiff agreed that if it had been in the Body of the Bill it ought to have been contained in the Count to inable the Plaintiff to his action but that which is after in witnesse
for the matter it is not within the Statute and then for the persons also he intended that it is not within the Statute and this appears by the words of the Statute of 28. Edw. 1. Articuli super Chartas and to that 10. H. 6. 130. it is adjudged that Judgement in such case there given is void and Coram non Judice so 7 H. 6. 30. expresses the cause to be insomuch that none of the parties are of the houshold of the King 4 H. 6. 8. 19 Edw. 4. 8. 5. Edw. 4. 32 H. 6. Rot. 27. And he cyted also Michelburns Case to be adjudged upon a Writ of Error in the Kings Bench 38 Eliz. That they could not tender a Plea in Trospasse for Trover and Conversion if none of the parties were of the Kings house and further he said that when a Court hath Jurisdiction and errs in matter of proceedings or in Law there the Execution made by force of their Process shall be lawfull But where the Judgement is void by default of Jurisdiction as in this Case there it is otherwise as 10 H. 6. 13. Recovery of Land in the Spirituall Court is void so Formedon commenced Judgment given upon that before the Judges of Assises void So 36 H. 6. 32. Recovery of Land in Wales in this Court is void and 8 Edw. 4. 6. Recovery of Land in ancient demesne is avoidable by Writ of Deceipt But in the other cases before the Judgment and Recovery is absolutely void and Coram non Judice for default of Jurisdiction So in 9 H. 7. 12. b. Recovery of Land in Durham Chester or Lancaster here is void for the same cause And in this case also the said Statute makes that void by expresse words see the statute of Articuli super Chartas Chap. 3. And to the case of 14 H. 8. before cyted of Warrant awarded by Justice of Peace he agreed that insomuch that the Justice of Peace had Jurisdiction of causes of Felony and erred only in the forme and manner of his proceedings and so in all the other cases which were put of the other part And also hee agreed that a Writ of Error may be well maintained if such Judgement which is void as it was in Michelburns case for the party may admit the Judgment to be but voidable if he will And to the exceptions to the pleading that is that the authority is not prosecuted 1 Postea that is such a day which was before the Judgment and yet it seems good and that in the first the authority was very well prosecuted in the 2 Postea was sufficient and the other words that is such a day is but surplusage and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff and it was adjourned Michaelmas 1611. 9. Jacobi In the Common Bench. Peto against Checy and Sherman and their Wives Triâ— 9. Jacobi Rot. 1151. IN Trespasse and Ejectione firme the Defendants pleaded that one of the Defendants made agreement with the Plaintiff for the said Trespasse and Ejectment with satisfaction and demands Judgment if action upon which the Plaintiff demurred in Law and it was argued by Nicholls Serjeant for the Plantiff that the agreement was no plea though it be said by Keble in the 11. H. 7. 13. That though it be a Plea in Ravishment of Ward quare Impedit and quare ejecit infra terminum insomuch that they are actions personall But Wood denyed that insomuch that Inheritance is to be recovered and in Ejestione firme tearm shall be recovered and for that it shall not be spoken and of this is Wood expresly in the 13. H. 7. 20. b. That in Ejectione firme agreement shall not be a plea insomuch that the tearm is to be recovered which is the thing in demand And there also it is agreed that in Waste brought against Lessee for yeares in the Tenet agreement is good plea and so Vavasor intended if it be in the Tenet but not if it be brought against Lessee for life And also he intended that by Recovery in Ejectione firme more shall be recovered then the tearm only for by that the reversion shall be also reduced and for that the Inheritance is drawn in question and it is said in 11. H. 7. 13. that it shall not be a plea in Assise insomuch that there the Free-hold is to be recovered and by the same reason hee intended that shall be no plea insomuch that more is to be recovered then in Assise for there the Tenant only shall recover the free-hold and his damages but here the Tearm and the Inheritance also are reduced and revested And this is the reason also which is given in 11. H. 7. 13. b. by Fisher That if a man make a Lease for years rendering Rent and after brings Debt for the Rent behind the Defendant cannot wage his Law notwithstanding that the action is personall But this is more high in his nature as it is there said and yet there nothing shall be recovered but only damages for which a man may have satisfaction Also he intended that it was not well pleaded that is that such agreement was had between the Plaintiff and one of the Defendants and betwixt those shall be intended those two only and also Ipsum and Alios by his commandâ—ment and doth not shew that this was made by the other two by his commandement and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Shirley Serjeant for the Defendant that the Plea is good and that the nature of the Action is only Trespasse by force and arms and differs from a Quare ejecit but Ejectione firme differs from predict infra terminum and lyes against the immediate Ejector but Quare ejecit lyeth against him which hath title as he in reversion 7 H. 4. 6. b. Ejectione firme was brought by Executors of Land let to their Testator for years upon outing of the Testator by the statute of 4 Edw. 3. Chap. 6. which gives action for the Executors of goods taken out of the possession of their Testator and it seems to him also that proces of Outlawry lyes in an Ejectione firme but in Quare ejecit infra terminum only summons So it is 11. H. 7. 13. There is a great difference between Waste and this for there the Process is Distress and other speciall Process But so is it not here but only the Process which is in other generall actions of Trespasse and so is the expresse opinion of Keble in 11. H. 7. 13. That in ravishment of Ward Quare Impedit and quare ejecit infra terminum that agreement is a good plea and yet all these trench upon the Realty and in ejectione firme if the tearm expire hanging the action this shall not abate the Writ but the Plaintiffe shall have Judgement for his damages otherwise in a Quare ejecit infra terminum And it was resolved 20 Eliz. That if an ejectione firme be brought at the common Law of Lands in
are to be recovered agreement is a good Plea as in 47. Ed. 3. 24. and 10. Ed. 3. in Debt upon a Lease for yeares concord is a good Plea and 7. Ed. 4. 23. in Detinue for charters it is a good Plea and in 6. Ed. 6. Dyer 75. 25. it is a positive rule that in all Cases and Actions in which nothing but amends is to be recovered in Dammages there an agreement with an execution of that is a good Plea and for that in Detinue it shall be a good Barr So in Covenant it was adjudged in Blakes Case 6. Coke 43. 6. As where an Obligation is with a Condition to pay money at such a day the payment of another thing is good if the Obligation be to pay a certaine Sum of money But if a man be bound in a Sum of money to make another Collaterall thing the acceptance of an other thing Collaterall shall not be a Barr for money is to the measure and the price of every thing if a man be bound in two Horses to pay one acceptance of another thing shall be no Barr But the acceptance of such a Sum of money in satisfaction is good Barr for this is the just Estimation and measure of every thing see 12. H. 4 Where a man was bound in an Obligation with Condition that he shall make acknowledgement of the Obligation of twenty pound to the Obligee before such a day c. And agreements are much favoured for it is a Maxim and Interest of the Common-Wealth that there be an end of suits for by Concord small thing increase and by Discord great things are consumed and the beginning of all Fines is Et est Cordia talis c. and the 11. of Rich. 2. Barr. 242. In Debt upon a Lease for yeares the Defendant pleads that by the same Deed by which the Land is let the Plaintiff grants that the Defendant ought to repaire the houses lett when they are ruinous at the costs of the Plaintiff and he retaines the Rent for the repaire of the houses being ruinous and a good Barr And if it be a right of Inheritance or Free-hold that cannot be barred or extinct by acceptance of another thing though it be of other Land as of another Mannor as it is agreed in Vernons Case 4. of Coke A woman accepts Rent out of the Land of which shee is not Dowable in recompence of her Dower this shall not be a Barr 5. Ed. 4. 22. 3. Eliz. Dyer and he said that the book of 11. H 7. 13. is misprinted insomuch that it is reported to be adjudged But in truth this was not adujdged for then it would not say in 13. H. 7. 20. the residue before 11. H. 7. 13. And in the 16. of H. 7. warranty it is agreed that in wast against Lessee for yeares Agreement is a good Plea otherwise if it be against Lessee for life And if they have adjudged 11. H. 7. 15. which was so small a time before they would not have adjudged the contrary in 16. H. 7. and Hillary 6. Ed. 6. Bendlowes in wast against Lessee for yeares in the Tenet Agreement is affirmed to be good Barr And in the book of Reports in the time of H. 7. printed in time of H. 8. the yeare of the 11. of H. 7. there was no print at all And he then upon that inferrs that as well as a man might agree for Trees so well might he agree for Tearme and to the booke of 9. H. 5. 15. a. That release of one Plaintiff in an Action of wast is a good Barr he said that this is to be understood in wast of the Tenant and then it shall be a good Barr see in the 12. of Ed. 4. 1. a. Two joyne in an Action of wast and the one was summoned and severed the other recovered the halfe of the place wasted and in the 26. H. 6. 8. Agreement is a good Barr in an Action of wast and he intended that in all Actions by force and Armes where a Capias lies at the Common Law Agreement or Arbitrement are good Pleas as Ravishment of Ward which is given by Statute in lieu of Trespasse for taking of a Ward where a Capias lies at the Common Law and Agreement was a Bar and for that now Agreement shall be a Barr in Ravishment of a Ward And he intended that an Ejectione Firme which is Trespasse in his nature and the Ejectment is added of later times And in all their Entries this is entred Trespasse and severs the Trespasse from the Ejectment and the Ejectment will vanish and the Statute of 4. Ed. 3. chap. 6. which gives Action to Executor of goods carried away in the life time of the Testator extends to that which proves this to be Trespasse for by the Statute the Executors may have Ejectione Firme for Ejectment made to their Testator notwithstanding that ancient Demesne is a good Plea in that and in the 44. Ed. 3. 22. That is called an Action of Trespasse and so all the Entries are De Placito Transgressionis and in the book of Entries in Mayhme it is cited to be adjudged 26. H. 6. Trin. Rot. 27. that concord is a good Plea in an appeale of mayne 35. H. 6. 30. But in an Action in the realty it is no Plea otherwise in Quare Impedit for there nothing is to be recovered but that which is personall and he intended that Agreement by one of the Defendants in personall Action is a good Barr as in 36. H. 6. Barr concord made by the freind of one of the parties was a good Barr Statham Covenant accordingly and 35. H. 6. 〈◊〉 7. H. 7. One of the petty Jury in Attaint pleads agreement and good and in an Ejectione Frime Lease made to try Title is not within the Statute of buying of Titles if it be not made to great men but to a Servant of him which hath the Inheritance and cannot mainetaine or countenance the Action and Bracton fol. 220. Lessee for yeares hath three remidies if he be evicted that is Covenant Quare Ejecit infra Terminum against the Feoffee of the Ejector or an Ejectione Firme against the Immediate Ejectors and in Ejectione Firme the Tearme shall be recovered as 12. H. 4. 1. H. 5. and 11. H. 6. 6. Non-Tenure is a good Plea in Ejectione Firme ergo the Tearm shall be recovered 7. Ed. 4. 6. 13. H. 7. 21 and 14. H. 7. It is adjudged that the Tearme shall bee recovered in Ejectione Firme and so he concluded that the agreement shall be a good Barr because Wise men seeke peace Fooles seeke strifes And that Judgement shall be given for the Defendant which was done accordingly Mâ—hcaelmass 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Mallet against Mallet LANDS were given to two men and to the Heires of their two Bodies begotten and the one died without Issue and the remainder of the halfe reverted to the Donor and he brought an Action of wast
upon the Estate and to the Livery made after two Rent dayes incurred he intended that Livery is good that notwithstanding for the deferring of the Execution of a letter of Attorney shall not defeat the Lease or other meane act which amounts to a Command for the Lessâ—r takes the profits in the mean time and it is not like to Littletons case that if a man devise his land to his Executors to be sold and they take the profits and do not make Sale that the Heir may enter insomuch that the Executors have not performed the Condition and it was not the intent of the Devisor that they should take the profits in the Interim to their own use and he intended that the declaration was not repugnant for it is of the aforesaid Church and not of the Dean and Chapter aforesayd and also there need not such congruity as it were the Foundation of the Action insomuch that this is only Allegation of the truth of the matter see 1 H. 7. 18. For variance upon shewing in Deed and 17 Ed. 3. 33. b. and here the aforesaid shew that it is the same in substance though it vary in words and though that the name is altered yet are the same persons in substance and the same Body and though that it be as it is intended to be of another part yet it is but name and the Foundation then is not Issuable as if the King H. 8. had been the Founder and made speciall provision in the Foundation that after the Time of Ed. 6. it shall be said to be the Foundation of Ed. 6. this shall be good and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff see after adjudged Michaelmas 9. Jacobi 1611. In the Common Bench. The Bishop of Ely THE Bishop of Ely granted an Office with the Fee for the exercising of that if it be an ancient office it is a good grant and if the Fee be newly increased yet Foster Justice thought that the Grant shall be good for the Office and for so much of the Fee as hath been anciently granted with the Office Michaelmas 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Holcroft against George French IN an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit if the consideration be Executory then the Declaration ought to contain the time and place where it was made and after it ought ro be averred In Facto when it was performed or executed accordingly but if it be by way of Reciprocall agreement then the Plaintiff may count that in consideration that he hath promised for the Defendant the Defendant hath promised to do another thing for him there he need not that the Declaration contain time or place for the consideration or otherwise that it is performed and executed But if in the first case where it is executory that is also an averment that it is executed there if the Defendant plead Non Assumpsit generally and do not plead the speciall matter he cannot after take exception to that Count for the Default aforesayd where he pleads specially to that as in an action of Trover the Conversion ought to be averred to be in a certain place and so in submission and Arbitrement they are contained in the declaration it need not to expresse any time or place certain but if the Defendant pleads that the Arbitrators made no award or that the parties have not submitted themselves to their award there the Plaintiff may reply that the Arbitrement or Submission was made at such a place and this was agreed by all the Justices Michaelmasse 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench Sir Edward Puncheon against Thomas Legate IT was adjudged in the Kings Bench and affirmed upon a Writ of Errour in the Kings Bench that an action upon the case upon an Assumpsit made by the Testator is very well maintainable against the Executor and this was for Money borrowed and so the Count speciall but not upon generall Indebitatus Assumpsit but is good without any averment that the Executors have assets over the payment of Debts due by specialty and Legacies and he sayd that the Record of the Case of 22 H. 8. with this agrees and that the book in this is misprinted and so Coke cheife Justice who publickly reported this Judgment in the Common place sayd which was adjudged in the 11 H. 8. in this Court Note that Land of which a Writ of Right Close lyeth shall be assetts in a Formedon and it is a Free-hold and not a Copy-hold and so are all Lands in ancient Demesne 3 Ed. 3. 14 H. 4. It is no matter what is known to the Judge if it be not in the form of Judgment Pasche 1611. fol. 50. HAughton Serjeant for the Defendant argued that the entry of him in Remainder is not lawfull insomuch that he intended it is not any forfeiture of the Estate tayle and first he argued that the condition is not good but repugnant to Law and for that voyd and yet he agreed that Tenant in tayl may be distrayned from making unlawfull Acts but here the condition tends to restraine him from doing of things which are lawfull as if a man makes a Gift in tayl upon condition that the Wife of the Donee shall not be indowed or that the Husband of the Donee shall not be Tenant by the Curtesie or that a Feoffee shall not take the profits of the Land though that the profits may be severed from the Land as in 16 Ed. 3. Formedon was brought of the profits of a Mill yet the condition is voyd insomuch that it is against the nature of an Estate tayl or in Fee-simple to be in such manner abridged so if a man makes a gift in tayl upon condition that the Donee shall not make waste the condition is void for the making of wast is a priviledge which is incident to an Estate tayle and for that the condition restraynes the Tenant in tayle of a thing which the Law inables him to do the condition is yoyd so a Donee in tayle upon condition that he shal not make a Deed of Feoffment or Lease for his own life as it is agreed in Mildmayes Case so here when the condition restraynes Tenant in tayl of concluding and agreeing the which in him is not any wrong no more then if a man should make a gift in tayl upon condition that the Donee should not bargaine and sell the Land this is voyd insomuch that he doth not make any wrong or discontinuance So in the case here for the thing which is restrayned that is concluding agreeing is in it self a lawfull act and also this is only the affections and qualities of the minde that they cannot make an Estate conditionall if an open act be not annexed unto it but he agreed that if a man make a gift in tayle or a Lease for life of white acres upon condition that the Donee or Lessee shall not take the profits of Black acre this is
to whom the private damage is done may have action And he said that the Register contains many Writs for publique wrong when that is done to private men as fol. 95. A man fixes a pale crosse a navigable River by which a Ship was cast away and the Owner maintained action of Trespasse And fol. 97. A man brought Trespasse against one which cast dung into a River by which his Medow was drowned so if the River be infected with watering Hemp or Flax he which hath fishing there may maintain action of Trespasse and 2 H. 4. 11. Action of Trespasse by one for ploughing of Land where one had a common way and so it is 13. H. 7. 17. One brings an action of Trespasse against another for erecting a Lyme Kill where many others are annoyed by that So by an assault made upon a servant the Master and servant also may have severall actions and so in the other cases many may have actions and yet this is no reason to conclude any one of them that hee shall not have his action for in truth those are rather actions upon the Case then actions of Trespass for the truth of the Case is contained in the Writ Also in this case it doth not appeare that there are any other Commoners which have Common there and for that this Objection is not to the purpose and it appears by Heisman and Crackesoods Case 4 Coke 31. That Copy-holder shall have Common by prescription in the demesnes of the Lord and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Coke cheife Justice said that it was adjudged in this Court Trinity 41 Eliz. Rot. 153. b. between Holland and Lovell where Commoner brings an action upon the Case as this Case is against a stranger which pleads not guilty and it was found by verdict for the Plaintiff and it was after adjudged for the Plaintiff for insomuch that the Plaintiff may take them damage feasant that proves that he hath wrong and this is the reason that he may distraine doing dammage And by the same reason if the Beasts are gone before his comming he may have action upon his Case for otherwise one that hath many Beasts may destroy all the Common in a night and doe great wrong and shaâ—l not be punished and it is not like to a Nusance for that is publique and may be punished in a Leet but the other is private to the Commoners and cannot be punished in another place nor course and he also cyted one Whitehands case to be adjudged where many Copy-holders prescribe to have Loppings and Toppings of Pollards and Husbands growing upon the Waste of the Lord and the Lord cuts them and one Copy-holder only brings his action upon the Case and adjudged that it was very well maintainable notwithstanding that every other Copy-holder may have the same remedy And he said also that so it was adjudged in the Kings Bench Hillary 5 Jacobi Rot. 1427. in George Englands Case And 2 Edw. 2. b. Covenant 49. If a man Covenant with 20. to make the Sea banks with A. B. and every one of them and after he doth not doe it by which the Land of two is drowned and damnified and they two may have an action of Covenant without the others Quere for it seems every one shall have an action by himselfe But Foster and Wynch Justices seemed that the Plaintiffe ought to sue in his Court that the Beasts of the stranger escaped in the Common or were put in by the Owner for it may be they were put in by the Lord which was owner of the Soile or by a stranger in which cases the Owner of the Beasts shall not be punished But Coke and Warburton seemed the contrary and that this ought to be averred and pleaded by the Defendant in excuse of the Trespasse as in action of Trespasse why he broke his Close And so it was adjourned see Gosnolds case 490. see Judgment Pasche 1612. 10. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Henry Higgins against George Biddle IN Replevin the Defendant made Conusance as Bayliff to Sir Thomas Leigh and Daine Katherine his Wife intimating that Isabel Bradburn was seised of the place where c. in their demesne as of Fee and so seised the first of June 15 H. 8. gives this to the Lord Anthony Fitzherbert and Maud his Wife and to the Heirs males of their bodies which have Issue Thomas Fitzherbert Knight John Fitzherbert and William Fitzherbert Anthony and Maud dyed and the said place where c. discended to Sir Thomas Fitzherbert as Heire to the Donees to the Intayl and the said Thomas Fitzherbert the 5. of Aprill 6 Edw. 6. of that enfeoffed Humphrey Swinnerton Ralph Cotton and Roger Baily to the use of William Fitzherbert and Elizabeth his Wife for their lives and after to the use of Sir Thomas Fitzherbert and the Heirs of his body the remainder to the use of the right Heirs of the said William Fitzherbert William Fitzherbert dyed Sir Thomas Fitzherbert disseised the said Elizabeth and the said John Fitzherbert had Issue Thomas and dyed Sir Thomas Fitzherbert dyed without Heir of his body and the said place where c. discended to the said Thomas as Cousin Heir of the said Sir Thomas and Son and Heir of the said John Fitzherbert which enters and was seised to him and to the Heirs Males of his body as in his Remitter And the said Thomas Fitzherbert 4 of Novemb. 39. Eliz. by Indenture of Bargain and Sale enrolled in the Chancery within six moneths bargained and sold the said Land to Sir William Leighton his heirs and Sir William Leighton 5 of Novemb. 43. Eliz. by Indenture enrolled within six moneths for 4000. l. bargained and sold the said land where c. to Sir Thomas Leigh and Dame Katherine as aforesaid and so avowed the taking for doing damage And the Plaintiff for Barr to the said Avowry pleads that well and true it is that the said Sir William Leighton was seised of the said place where c. in his Demesne as of Fee as it was alledged by the Defendant But further hee saith that the said Sir William Leighton so being thereof seised 1 Decemb 44 Eliz. enfeoffed the Plaintiff in fee and by force of that the Plaintiff was seised and put in his Beasts into the said place where c. without that that the said Sir William Leighton bargained and sold the said Land in which c. to the said Sir Thomas Leighton and Katherine his Wife as in the Conusance hath been alledged by the Defendant upon which the Defendants joyn Issue and it was agreed by all the Justices that notwithstanding this admission of the Parties is an Estoppell by the pleading yet as well the Plaintiffe as the Defendant were admitted to give another evidence to the Jury against their own pleading that is that Sir William Leighton was not seised and so nothing passed by the bargain and sale and also
hath the Copy-hold Estate for life in remainder was the question And it was argued by Harris Serjeant that the Estate of Fines in the body of that binds all persons but onely some which have Infirmities and by the saving Rights Titles Claimes and Interests are saved But Title comes in the conditionall perclose of saving that is so that they pursue their Title Claime and Interest c. By way of Act or lawfull Entry within five yeares next after the said proclamations had and made So that in this case the principall matter to be considered is what thing is operated by the acceptance of the Bargaine and Sale for if by that the remainder of the Copy-holder be turned to right then insues that the Fine shall be a Barr And it seemes that this determines the first Estate for life and he agreed that it cannot be a surrender insomuch that there is a mesene remainder as it is 37. H. 6. 17. b. 4. H. 7. 10. But this Lease to commence at a day to come cannot be a surrender but shall be determined and extinct by acceptance of a new Lease as it is there and in 22. H. 7. 51. a. agreed and so it was adjudged in Hillary 30. Eliz. between Wilmottand Cutlers Case that if a Husband which was seised of a Copy-hold Estate in right of his Wife accept an estate for life this determines the copy-hold Estate which he hath in right of his Wife in possession So if Lessee for yeares accept an estate of one which hath no Estate yet this determines his Tearme as it was adjudged Hillary 31. Eliz. Rot. 1428. b. That if Lessee for yeares of a Lease made by the Ancester accept an estate of Guardian in Soccage this determines his Lease which he had of the Ancestor and upon that he concluded that in this case the acceptance of a Bargaine and Sale turnes the Copy-holder in remainder to a Right and then it appeares by Saffins Case 5. Coke 125. That he shall be bound though that he hath only Interest and so of Title also and he said that it appeares by Kite and Quarintons case 4. Coke 26. a. that a Right or Title may be of Copy-hold Estate for it is there said by Wray cheife Justice that it shall be with in the Statute of 32 H. 8. chapter 9. of buying of Titles and so concluded Dodridge the Kings Serjeant agreed that the sole question is if any thing be here done to turn the Copy-hold-Estate in remainder into a right for then he agreed that this shall be barred otherwise not and to that hee intended that the first Estate for life shall be sayd to be in Esse notwithstanding the acceptance of the Bargaine and Sale as to all estrangers and especially when it is to their prejudice as if Tenant grant Rent and after surrenders his estate now between the parties the Lease shall be extinct by the surrender but to the Grantee of the Rent it shall be sayd to be in Esse and if during his life he in Remainder also grants a Rent hee shall hold the Land subject to both the Rents though that the grants be both to one self sameperson so if he in Reversion grants his Reversion with warranty and after the Tenant for life surrenders and the Grantee be impleaded he shall never vouch during the life of the Tenant for life 5 H. 5. Comment 24 Ed. 3. And here also is a custome which preserves the Copy-hold Estate in Remainder and their particular Tenant cannot that prejudice and for that also it shall not be turned into a right as if a Copy-hold Estate be granted to one for life by one Copy and after the Lord grants another Estate for life by another Copy to another and then the first Copy-holder commits forfeiture he which hath the second estate cannot take advantage of that but the Lord shall hold it during the life of the first Tenant for no act made by the particular Tenant shall prejudice him in Remainder for otherwise many Inconveniencies would insue upon that as by secret conveyances or as if a grantee of a Rent charge grant that to the Tenant of the Land for his life the Remainder over the Remainder shall be good notwithstanding that the particular Estate bee extinct and drowned also he intended that the Copy-hold Estate is another thing then the land it self and for that the Fine shall not be a Barr no more then in Smith and Stapletons Case Com. Where a Fine levied of Land shal not be a Barr of Rent insomuch that it is another thing so in this case he intended that the fine shall not be a Barr of the Copy-hold Estate and concluded c. Wynch Justice was of opinion that the Fine shall not be a Barr to the Copy-hold Estate in Remainder for the acceptance of the Bargaine and Sale doth not determine the first Copy-hold Estate for life as to him in Remainder but only to the first Tenant and the Lord and betweene those he agreed that the Copy-hold Estate is determined as in Heydens Case by acceptance of a Lease for years and for that the Remainder shall not be turned to a Right and by consequence shall not be barred and for that he supposed that the reason that the Fine was a Bar in Saffins Case 5 Coke 123. b. was insomuch that the Lessor entered made a Feoffment and after levied a Fine and it is there agreed that the Feoffment turnes the Estate of the Lessee to a Right and for that the Fine shall be a barr and also there the Lease was by limitation of time to have a beginning but if a man makes a Lease for years to begin at a day to come and before the beginning of that makes a Feoffment or is disseised and Fine with proclamation is levyed yet he which hath future Interest shall not be barred for this is not turned to a Right and it was not the intent of the Statute of Fines to make a Barr of right where there was no discontinuance or Estate at least turned to right and this was the cause that at the Common Law Fine with Non-claime was no Barr but where they make alteration of possession and he cited Palmers case to be adjudged that a Fine of Land shall not be a barr for Rent where the case was Lessee for life Remainder for life of Rent The first Lessee for life of the Rent purchaseth Land and levies Fine of that and adjudged that this shall not binde them in Remainder of the Rent no more if he in remainder levy a fine that shall not prejudice the particular Tenant and so he concluded in this case that the Ramainder shall not be barred and that the Plaintiff shall have Judgment Warburton Justice accordingly and he argued that the Statute of Fines containes two parts The first to barr those which have present right and they ought to make their claim within five yeares after the Fine levied or otherwise they
shall be barred And the second those which have Right title or interest accrued after the Fine levied by reason of any matter which preceded the Fine and in both cases the Estate which is barred ought to be turned into a right or otherwise it shall not be barred the which cannot be here for the estate is given by the Custome and it is to have his beginning after the Death of the first Tenant and though that the first Tenant commit Forfeiture yet he in remainder cannot enter for his time is not yet come as in 45 Ed. 3. is a collaterall Lease with warranty to the Tenant for life in possession this shall not be a barr insomuch that it is made to him which hath possession so if a man make a Feoffment upon condition and the Feoffee levy a Fine with proclamations and five yeares passe and the condition is broken the Feoffee may enter at any time otherwise if the Fine had been levied after the condition broken and so if the Lord be intituâ—ed to have Cessavit and Fine is levied by the Tenant and five yeares passe he shall be barred and this was the cause of the Judgment in Saffins case insomuch as the Lessee had present interest to enter and this was altered into a Right by the Feoffment and then the Fine was a Barr but here he in Remainder hath no right till after the Death of him which was the first Tenant and then his right to the possession begins and then if a Fine had been levied with proclamation this shall be a Barr and so he concluded that Judgment should be entered for the Plaintiffe Coke cheife Justice accordingly and he agreed also that the sole question is if by acceptance of a Bargaine and sale by the first Tenant for life the Remainder be turned into a right and he sayd that right sometimes sleepeth but it never dyes but this shall be intended the right of the Law and not right of Land for that may be barred by Writ of Right at the Common Law and he intended that Copy-holdes are within the Statutes of Fines be they Copy-hold for life yeares in tayl or in fee for the third part of the Realme is in Copy-holdes and two parts in Lease for yeares and if these shall not be within the Statute then this doth not extend to three parts of the Realme and it is agreed in Heydons case 3 Coke 8. a. That when an act of Parliament doth not alter the Tenure Service Interest of Land or other thing in prejudice of the Lord or of the custome of the Mannor or in prejudice of the Tenant there the generall words of such act of Parliament shall extend to Copy-holds and also it is resolved to be within the Statute of 32 H. 8. Of Maintenance and also it is within the expresse Letter of this which containes the word Interest and Copy-holder hath interest and so also of Tenant by Statute Merchant then the question will be if the acceptance of a Bargaine and sale turnes that to a right and he intended that his Estate for life remaines though that it is only passive in acceptance of Bargain and sale and for that it shall not be prejudice more then if Tenant at will accepts a Bargaine and Sale for his Estate at will this notwithstanding remaines but if Lessee for years or life accepts a Fine upon conusance of right this is a forfeiture insomuch that it is a matter of record and it shall be an estoppel to say that he did not take Fee by that doth not admit the Reversion to be in another also insomuch that the Bargain and sale was executed by the Statute for this cause it shall not be prejudice as it was adjudged in the Lady Greshams case in the Exchequer 28 Eliz. Where two severall conveyances were made with power of Revocation upon tender of ten pound and adjudged by act of Parliament that a revocation was good and also that no license of alienation shall be made insomuch that it was by act of Parliament which doth no wrong and it is for the Trespasse for which the party ought to have license and if it be not Trespasse there need no license before hand nor pardon afterwards So if a man makes a Lease for yeares remainder for yeares the first Lessee accepts Bargaine and Sale this shall not turn these in remainder to prejudice Thirdly it seemes to him also that notwithstanding the acceptance of the Bargain and Sale the first Copy-hold Estate for life remains in Esse and is not determined For this differs from an Estate of Land for it shall not be subject to a Rent granted by the Lord the first Estate remaines till all the remainders are determined for the first tenant for life cannot surrender to the Lord also it is customary estate for by the Common Law this being granted to three successively this shall be determined and extinct for the third part for they three take into possession and the word successively shal be taken as void but here the Custome appoints that the remainder shall not have his beginning till the death of the first-Tenant and that they should take by succession and for that there is a difference between this customary Estate and other Estates at the Common Law and other surrenders for if a Copy-holder surrender to the use of another for life nothing passeth but for life only the Lord hath not any remainder by this Surrender and if this Tenant for life commits forfeiture he in reversion shall not take advantage of that and if at the Common Law Tenant for life remainder for life or in fee be and the first Tenant for life makes a Feoffment and after levies a Fine and resolved that he in reversion should not be bound till 5 years are incurred after the death of the 1. Tenant for life for then his title of Entry first accrues in apparancy and before that is in secrecy of which he in remainder is not held to take notice and so in this case he in remainder shall not be bound till five yeares are incurred after the death of the first Tenant and the rather insomuch as the first Estate remaines for that that the first Tenant was only passive and not active and so he concluded that Judgement shall be given for the Plaintiff insomuch that the Fine was no Bar and upon this concordance of all the three Justices in opinion no other Justices being present this Tearm Judgment was entered accordingly Pasche 1612. 10. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Danyell Waters against the Deane and chapter of Norwich IN covenant The case was this in 37 H. 8. the then Deane and Chapter of Norwich made a Lease to one Twaits for fifty yeares which ended 35 Eliz. in time of Ed. 6. The then Dean and Chapter surrendred all their possessions to the King which those newly endowed and incorporated by the name of Deane and Chapter of the foundation
of Ed. 6. and in the 8. Eliz. Salisbury then Deane and the then Chapter made a Lease to Thimblethorpe for 99. yeares to begin after the said Lease for fifty yeares made to Twaits And it doth not appeare by the pleading that Thimblethorpe entred But the succeeding Deane and Chapter in the 42. Eliz. made another Lease to Waters the Plaintiff for three lives rendring the ancient Rent quarterly with warrant of Attorney to make livery and it was not executed till after the end of three quarters of a yeare after the Sealing of it and when the time of three rent daies were Incurred And in this Lease the Deane and Chapter covenanted with Waters to acquit and save harmelesse the Lessee and the premises during the Tearme c. By reason of any Lease made by them or any of their Predecessors or by the Bishop And then the Plaintiff in his Court conveys the Lease made by Thimblethorpe to Doylye and that he intered and disturbed the Plaintiff and so assigned breach of covenant upon which this Action was founded upon which the Defendants demurr in Law And this was agreed by Dodridge the Kings Serjeant for the Defendants First that the Lease made to Waters was void and then the Covenants do not extend to charge the Defendants And he supposed the Lease to be void insomuch that the Attorney did not make Livery untill three Rent daies were incurred and the Lease was made as well for the benefit of the Lessor as for the Lessee for if the Lessee is to have the profits and the Lessor is to have the Rent And insomuch that the Livery was not made before a Rent incurred this tends to the prejudice of the Lessor and for that the Authority is countermanded and the Livery made after void for when a man hath a Letter of Attorney to make Livery he ought to make that in such manner as the Feoffer himselfe would make it and the Lessor cannot make that after a rent incurred for then he should loose that Rent Also Authority ought to be strictly pursued as in 36. H. 8. Dyer 62. 24. Letter of Attorney was made to three joyntly and severally to make Livery and reâ—…ved that two cannot do it see 11. H. 4. For it ought to be made joyntly or severally so here the Attorney ought to make the Livery as his Master will and that ought to be made before any Rent incurred And for this cause he intended the Lease to be void And then as to a Collaterall Covenant which is in effect no other but that the Plaintiff shall injoy the Land during the Tearme which is of an Estate which is nothing for if the Lease be void the Estate is nothing and the Lessee hath not any Tearme or Estate in the Land And he agreed that in the Record of Chedingtons Case 1 Coke 153. b. And in the Commentaries Wrotsleys Case 198. And 2. Eliz. Dyer 178. There is a difference betweene Tirminum Annorum and the time or space of yeares or the life of such a man but there is not any difference between a Tearme and an Estate Also he supposed that the words of the Covenant extend only to save the Plaintiff harmelesse of Leases made by these Defendants or any of their predecessors and this Lease was made to Twaits in time of H 8. Which was before their Corporation for they have been but named a Corporation in the time of Edward 6. and not before And then a Lease made in the time of H. 8. is not made by them nor by their Predecessors and so the Covenant doth not extend to that as it appeares by 8. Ed. 4. in case of prescription if Corporation be changed in manner and forme and the substance of their name remaine yet they ought to make speciall prescription then a fortiori in this case where the substance is changed and so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Defendants Nichols Serjeant for the first argued that the Livrey was well made for these Defendants shall be intended Occupiers and to have the profits of the Land till the Lessee entred or they waved the possession and so no prejudice and the Lessee shall not be charged with Rent till he enters or the Lessor wave the posaession as it was resolved in Bracebridges Case Com. 423. b. and in the Deane and Chapter of Canterburies Case there cited And for that the Livery shall be good and the Lessor not prejudiced by the deferring of it and then to the second that is the Covenant he agreed that if the Estate be created and Covenant in Law annexed to it if the Estate cease the Covenant also shall cease But if expresse Covenant be annexed then the Covenantor ought to have regard to performe it or otherwise an Action of Covenant lies against him notwithstanding that the Estate be avoided But here he intends it against him notwithstanding that the Estate be void But here he intends the Estate continues till Thimblethorp entred But admitting that he had entred yet the covenant shall bind the Covenantor as in 12. H. 4. 5. a. Parson makes a Lease for yeares and after is removed an Action of covenant lies against him and 47. Ed. 3. and 3. Ed. 3. If Tenant in 〈…〉 makes a Lease with expresse covenant and dies and the Issue outs the Lessee the Lessee shall have an Action of Covenant against the Executors of the Tenant in tayl and 9. Eliz. Dyer 257. 13. Tenant for life the Remainder over in Fee by Indenture makes a Lease without any expresse covenant and dies Lessee cannot have an Action of covenant against his Executors otherwise if there had been an expresse covenant See the booke and many Authorities there cited to this purpose and also he cited one Rawlinsons Case to be here adjudged that if a man which hath nothing in land makes a Lease and an expresse covenant for the injoying of that if he which hath right enters by which the covenant is broken Action of covenant lies upon the expresse covenant So that admitting that the Lease is void yet the covenant is good and shall bind the successors and so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Plaintiff and this case was argued at another day by Dodridge the Kings Serjeant by speciall appointment of the Judges and now he supposed that the Count containes that the same Dean Chapter which made the lease to Twaits in 37 H. 8. also made the Lease to Thimblethorp in the 18 El. w ch cannot be insomuch that the corporation was changed in the time of E. 6. for that cannot be the same Deane and Chapter for if a Prior Covent be translated into a Dean and Chapter and the Dean and Chapter will make prescription they ought to make that in speciall manner and not generally as Deane and Chapter as it is resolved 39. H. 6. 14. 15. and in 7. Ed. 4. 32. In Trespasse against the Abbot of Bermondsey it is
and before the originall purchased the Indentnre was by the assent of the Plaintiff and the Defendant cancelled and avoyded and so demands Judgment if action and it seemes by Coke cleerly that the Plea is not good without averment that no Covenant was broken before the cancelling of the Indenture Pasch 12. Jacobi 1612. In the Common Bench. Barde against Stubbing IT was moved in arrest of Judgment that the Venire facias wants these words Et habeas ibidim nemina Juratorum but the words Venire facias duodecim c. were incerted and it seems by all the Justices that it was good and that the first words are supplyed in the last and they are aided by the statutes of Jeofai es after verdict and so it was adjourned In Audita querela sued by the sureties upon an escape made by the principall they being in execution offered to bring the Money into the Court or to put in sufficient Sureties to the Court and so prayed that they might be bayled and it was agreed that if Audita querela be grounded by specialty or other matter in writing or upon matter of Record Supersedeas shall be granted before that the party be in Execution and if he be in execution he shall be bayled but if it be founded upon a matter in Deed which is only surmise he shall not have Supersedeas in one case nor shall be bayled in the other case and so was the Opinion of all the Justices In an Action of Waste for digging of earth to make Brick Estrepement was awarded and upon Affidavit that the Writ of Estrement was delivered to the Sheriff and that he gave notice of that to the party and he notwithstanding that continues to make waste attachment was awarded Pasch 12 Iacobi 1612. In the Common Bench. Fetherstones Case Trinity 1612. IN Ejectione firme The Plaintiff had Judgment and an Habere facias possessionem to the Sheriff of Coventry which returnes that he had offered possession to the Plaintiff and he refused to accept it and it seems that the Plaintiff cannot have Habere facias possessionem insomuch that it appeares by the Record that he hath refused to have the possession The case was A Dean and Chapter being Lord of a Maunor parcell of the Demesnes of the Mannor being severall adjoyned to the Common which was parcell of the wast of the Mannor and one Copy-holder which had Common in the sayd Wast puts his Beasts into the sayd waste to take his Common and they for default of inclosure escape into the sayd Demesnes by which the Lord brings his action of Trespass and upon this the Defendant pleads the speciall matter and that the Lord and all those whose Estate he had in the said place where the trespass is supposed to be made have used to fence the said place which is parcell of the Demesnes of the sayd Mannor against the Commoners which have Common in the sayd Common being parcell of the waste and also of the demesnes of the sayd Mannor and that the Beasts of the sayd Defendant escaped into the sayd place in which c for default of inclosure and so demands Judgment upon which the Plaintiff demurrs in Law In the agreement of which it was agreed by Hutton and Haughton the Serjeants which argued it whether a man by prescription is bound to make fence against Commoners as it is agreed in the 22 H. 6. 7. 8. 21 H. 6. 33. But the doubt which was made in this case by Haughton which demurred was for that that the Lord which by the prescription ought to inclose is owner of the soyle also against which he ought to inclose and so he ought to inclose against himself and for that he supposed that the pleading should have been that there is such a custome there and of time out of minde that the Lord shall inclose against the Common insomuch that by that the Copy-holder would bind the Lord and upon that it was adjourned c. Pasch 12 Jacobi 1612. In the Common Bench. Sir Henry Rowles against Sir Robert Osborne and Margeret his Wife IN Warrantia Charte the case was Sir Robert Osborne and his Wife levyed a Fine of the Mannor of Kelmersh with other Lands in Kelmersh to Sir Henry Rowles against all persons and this is declared for the Lands in Relmersh to be to the use of Sir Henry Rowles for life with diverse Remainders over and for the Mannor no use was pleaded to be declared at all and then a Writ of Entry in the Post was sued against the sayd Sir Henry Rowles which vouched Sir Robert Osborne and his sayd wifeâ— and this was declared for the sayd Lands to be to the use of the sayd Sir Henry Rowles for his life with other Remainders over which were declared upon the Fine of the Lands in Kelmersh only and of the Mannor of Kelmersh no uses were declared upon the Recovery also and upon this Recovery pleaded in barr the Plaintiffe demurred and it was argued by Dodridge Serjeant of the King for the Plaintiffe that the Plea in Barr was not good insomuch that it doth not appeare that the warranty which was executed by the Recovery was the same warranty which was created by the Fine and also the Fine was taken for assurance against the Issue in tayle and the Recovery to Barr the remainders and so one shall not destroy the other and for the first he sayd that a man may have of another severall warranties and severall causes of Voucher and all shall be together for warranty is but Covenant reall and as well as a man may have severall Covenants for personall things as well he may have severall reall Covenants for one self same Land as if the Father infeoff one with warranty and the Sonn also releases to the same Feoffee with warranty or if the Father infeoff one with warranty against him and his Heires and the Sonn release with warranty against all men the Feoffee may vouch one and Rebut against the other so of Warranty of Tenant in tayle and release of an Ancestor collaterall with warranty in Law and expresse warranty as it is agreed in 31 Ed. 1. Fitzh Voucher 289. And upon that he concluded that a man may have severall warranties of one selfe same man and the one may be executed and the other remaine notwithstanding that it be for one selfe same Land and he supposed the effect of these warranties are as they are used for if that may vouch generally and bind himselfe upon the Fine or upon his owne warranty or upon the warranty of his Ancestor notwithstanding that the voucher be generally as it is 31. Ed. 3. Warranty of Charters 22. So if he be vouched as Heire though that it were speciall but if he be Heire within age otherwise it is for that is a good Counter Plea that he was within age and so praied that the word might demur during his nonage 17.
a possibility only which cannot be granted surrendred or released and yet he agreed that if Lessee for life grant or demise the land all his Estate passeth without making of any particuler mention of it as it is agreed in 10. Eliz. Dyer And for that when the Lessee hath devised the Lands to his Father for his life that which remaines is only a possibility for it doth not appeare for what yeares the Sister shall have it and for that meerely uncertaine 7. Eliz. Dyer 244. The King Ed. 6. appropriated a Church to the Bishop to take effect after the death of the present Incumbent the Bishop after that makes a Lease for yeares to begin after the death of the Incumbent and void for the uncertainty for the Bishop hath no perfit Estate but future Interest which is meerely impossibility and with that agreed Locrofts Case in the Rector of Cheddingtons Case 1. Coke where Lessee for yeares makes assignement of so many of the yeares as shall be to come at the time of his death and void for the uncertainty insomuch that it is meerely possibility for that which may be granted or surrendred ought to be Interesse Termini at least And he supposed it could not be released insomuch that he to whom the release is made hath all the Tearme if he lived so long and so he concluded and praied Judgement for the Plaintiff Harris Serjeant for the Defendant argued that the first devisee had two Titles one as Executor and another as a Legatee and before entry and after that he had entred also the Law doth adjudge him in as a Legatee and before that he enter he may that grant over notwithstanding that he hath not determined his Election for the Law vests the property and possession of that in him before any entry but to make an election there ought to be some open Act done as it is agreed in Welden Eltingtons Case where that the first devisee which was Executor also made expresse claime to have the Tearm as Legatee and not as Executor and so vested the remainder also see Com. 519. b. And so in Paramore and Yardlies Case Lessee for years devises his Tearme to his Executor during his life to educate his Issues the which the Executor doth accordingly and this open act was resolved to be a good election and in Mannings case 8 Coke 94. b. The Executor which hath the 1. Estate devised to him saith that he to whom the Remainder was limited shall have it after his Death and this resolved to be a good Execution and election and it is there resolved that such Election made by the particular Devisee is a good Execution for him in remainder but here is not this Election to have this as Legatee nor Executor for there is not any overt Act made by which this may be done Secondly he conceived that this is no remainder but Executory devise as it is agreed in Mannings Case and that this may be done by Devise which cannot be done by the party by act Executed and for that he conceived that there is no possibility but an Estate Executed and vested in him which is Executor though there be no election made nor Execution of the Legacy and admitting that it is but a possibility yet he conceived that it is Propinqua possibilitas insomuch that the Tearme is longer then it may be intended that any man might live insomuch that Adam lived but 950. yeares and this is five thousand yeares which is longer then any man in the world ever lived and he said that it is agreed in Fullwoods Case that possibility may be released to a possession and with this agreed the opinion of Strange in the 9 H. 6. 64. And so warranty may be released which is meerly in contingency as it is agreed in Littleton and power of revocation may be extinct by release of him that hath the possession of the Land and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Defendant Nicholls Serjeant for the Plaintiff conceived that the Remainder is in Esse and not determined by the Release And first he conceived that the Remainder was executed insomuch that the Release was made at the Request of the Father which was the first Devisee for this shewes his assent and implies that he took notice of his Remainder and assented to it and he sayd it was adjudged in Doctor Lawrences Case that the speaking of these words by the Executors that is that they were glad of the Devise was a good Execution and assent of the Legacy Secondly He conceived that it is only possibility and for that cannot be released or granted and he saith that the Law hath great respect of possibilities that Estates may revert and for that it is adjudged in the 13 of Richard 2. Dower 55. If Tenant for life grants his Estate to him in remainder in tayl for his owne life the Tenant enters takes a Wife and dies she shall not be Indowed but the Tenant for life shall have it againe and it shall be as it had been let to a stranger and to this purpose also he cited 18. Ed. 3. 8. Counter-Plea of voucher 8. And it was adjudged in Middletons Case 5. Coke 28. a. that an Executor before probate of the Will may release a Debt but not an Administrator before Administration granted see Com. 277 278. Fox and Greisbrookes Case and in 6. Ed. 3. Lessee for anothers life rendring Rent the Rent was behind and the Lessor releases to the Lessee all Debts he For whose life dies and there the Release determines and discharges the arrerages for it is a duty and Debitum is Latine as well for Debt as for duty also release bars the Lord and Writ of deceit for reverser of a Fine levied of land in ancient Demesne as it is 7. H. 4 and yet Littleton saith that release of a futrue thing shall not be a barr and for that if Conusee of Statute Merchant release all his Right in the land yet he may extend the Statute 15. assis And so if a mad man release and after come to his wits and dies Quere if the Heire may have a Writ of non compos mentis And he said that it was adjudged in the 25. of Eliz. If an Infant levie a Fine and after he levies another Fine this shall be a Barr in a Writ of error for the reversing of the first otherwise of a release And here to the principall case to a release made by the Son in the life time of his Father without warranty And so upon all these cases he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Shirley Serjeant for the Defendant argued that the acceptance of Release by the first Devisee shall not be execution of the Devise as it was adjudged in Barramores and Yardleys case by the Education of the Issue or a Devise upon condition to pay money and the Executor pays it this is a good execution
But here the thing which makes the execution is only release which enures as Release And for that the accepting of the release it cannot be execution of a Legacy But if the Executor to whom the first Devise was made had had any Co-executor and he would not have suffered him to joyn in occupation with him that had been full Declaration of his Intent that he took it as a Devise and not as an Executor as it is agreed in the 10 El. 277. Dyer 50. And he said also that it hath been agreed to him that it is such a possibility that cannot be granted as it is agreed in Fulwoods case 4 Coke 66. b. And he said it is not like to Harveys Bartons case where two Joynt-tenants for life were and one made a Lease for years to begin after his death and dyed and his companion survived him and agreed to be a good Lease against the Survivor notwithstanding the Contingency And he conceived that this might be released and that it is not like to contingent actions insomuch that it is a release of right in Lands see 5 H. 7. 31. b. Colts Assise where it is said if Lord Mesne and Tenant are and the Mesne is forejudged by the Tenant and after the Lord releases to the Tenant and after by Parliament it is enacted that the fore-judger shall be void yet the release shall be good against the Lord and so of actions by Executor before Probate and 14 Ed. 3. Barr Release of Dower by Fyne doth extingush it and Althams case 8 Coke if it be made to the Tenant of the Land that shall be a Barr. And 21 H. 7. fol. the last Release to a Patron in time of Vacation shall be a Barr in annuity brought against the Incumbent and if the Lessee for years be outed and the Disseisor makes a Lease for years to a stranger and the first Lessee release to them both this is good as it is 9 H. 6. and yet regularly such release is not good without privity But insomuch that it is of right to the Land and to one which hath possession it is very good So Release by Copy-holder extincts his Copy-hold right as it is resolved 4 Coke amongst the Copy-hold cases and yet hee agreed that some possibilities cannot be released as in Albayns case power of Revocation if it be not to the Tenant of the Land insomuch that this is a meer possibility So if an annuity depend upon a condition precedent but where the returning of the estate is to the party himselfe as in Diggs case 1 Coke 174. a. And also the release in this case is the more strong insomuch that the estate in this is recited as in the case of 44 Ed. 3. in release of Ayde And so he concluded that admitting there be no election and execution of the Legacy by the acceptance of the Release then the title of the Defendant is good and if it be a good election execution Yet he conceived that all the tearm remains in the first Devisee and that the remainder is destroyed by the release and so prayed Judgment for the Defendant and so it was adjourued Pasche 1612. 10. Jacobi In the Common Bench. Manley against Jennings IN Debt upon an Obligation with Condition to performe observe fulfil and keep all Covenants Grants Articles Payments contained in a Lease c. The Lessee doth not pay the Rent at the day and the Plaintiff without making of any request begins a Suit upon the Obligation and upon this matter pleaded in Barr the Plaintiff replyed that he was not demanded and upon this the Defendant demurred And Harris Serjeant for the Defendant argued that when any penalty is annexed to a payment of the Rent be that annexed to the estate or otherwise yet it ought to be requested and without request to pay it no penalty shaâ—l be incurred as in 22 H. 8. 57. a. b. by Newton Ashton and Port where a difference is taken between an Obligation taken for payment of Rent generally without any relation to a Lease and where it is only for performance of Covenants and Issue taken upon the request and after demurrer joyned and the question if the Lessee ought to tender it 14 Edw. 4. 4. accordingly And in 21 Edw. 4. 6. a. b. Pigott and Bryan agreed that there shall be no penalty nor Obligation forfeited without request where the Obligation is for performance of Covenants and not precisely for the payment of Rent and so he concluded and prayed Judgment for the Defendant Nichols Serjeant for the Plaintiff conceived that the Lessee ought to make tender upon the Land to save the penalty and this shall be sufficient and the Lessor need not to make request and this is the Obligation for performance of Covenants for this doth not alter the nature of the Rent but if it be for payment of Rent precisely there the Lessee ought to seek the Lessor or otherwise for not payment he shall forfeit his Obligation for there tender upon the Land shall not excuse him And for that if a man makes a Lease for years rendring Rent at Michaelmass with nomine poene if it be not payed within 10 dayes after Michaelmass and within the 10. dayes and these differences appear and are agreed in 22 H. 6. 57. and 6 Edw. 6. Brooke tender 20. And he conceived that the Books of 14 Ed. 4. 4. 20. Ed. 4. 6. and 11 Ed. 4. 10. depends upon these differences that is that a man shall not distrain for Rent charge without Request insomuch that it is as a Debt which is due upon Request and admit that the case were that a man made a Lease for yeares the Lessee covenants to pay the Rent at the day with a nomine pene in default of payment of that and after the Lessee assignes his Interest to one which Covenants to pay the Rent and performe all the Covenants in the Lease he demanded in this case who shall make the request that is the first Lessor or the Lessee insomuch that it is penall to the Assignee of them both and so many Suits may arise upon that and also he sayd that it was ruled here upon a motion in arrest of Judgment that in Debt upon an Obligation to performe Covenants there need not to be alledged demand upon Solvit or non Solvit put in Issue for it may be pleaded that it was tendered or payd and so he sayd it is confessed by the Demurrer that the Obligation is forfeited and for that he prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff Coke cited Myles and Dragles Case where a man was bound for performance of a Will he need not to pay Legacy devised by that for which is no day assigned without request so if the Obligation be for payment of Legacy expresly and no day assigned and so it was adjourned Trinity 1612. 10. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Gravesend Case IN Debt the case was this that is the
defects and with this agreed the expresse Booke of 11 Edw. 3. Fitz. Ayde 32. and so he concluded that it should not be granted Warburton Justice doubted and insomuch that the granting of ayde where it is not grantable is no error but otherwise of the denying of that where it ought to be granted he would be advised But he conceived that the cause for which ayde is granted is not the feeblenesse of the Estate of him which prays it onely but to the intent that they may joyne together and one defend the other for Tenant for life may plead some Plea which he in reversion may plead saving the joyning of Issue in a Writ of Right and he had a Manuscript of the 11 Rich. 2. where Tenant for life the remainder for life the remainder for life was and the first Tenant for life had ayde of them both in remainder and so concluded Coke cheif Justice that aid ought not to be granted in this Case insomuch that he which is the first Tenant hath greater Estate then he in Remainder for his Estate in Remainder is more Remote and uncertaine and to the Book of 11 R. 2. He agreed that the ayd was granted of all in Remainder but there they in Remainder had Estate tayle and he sayd that ayd is to be granted in two Cases in personall Actions to maintain Issue and when Tenant for life prays in ayd of him in Remainder or Reversion without which they cannot answer nor plead nor Issue cannot be deduced but so it is not here for the first Tenant for life may answer and plead to the Issue as well without him in Remainder for life as with him for if Tenant for life Remainder in tayl Remainder in fee if the first Tenant for life be impleaded he shall have ayd of him in Remainder in tayl otherwise if the Reversion had been to the first Tenant for life with a mesne Remainder in Tayle 41 Ed. 3. 42 Ed. 3. 10 Ed. 3. And 11 Ed. 3. Receit 118. Tenant for life Reversion for life Remainder in fee was he in Reversion for life shall be received upon default of the first Tenant for life and if he will not then he in Remainder in fee shall be received and yet he shall not have Wast as it appears by 24 Ed. 3. for this destroyes the first Estate but the receit maintains and preserves it and he sayd that the 11 Ed. 3. Ayd 32. before cited rules this case and so of 4 H. 6. And so he concluded and insomuch that Warburton doubted of it it was adjourned Trinity 10. Jacobi 1612. In the Common Bench. Yet Rowles against Mason See before 57. WINCH Justice argued that the Defendant is not guilty and that the Plaintiff shall take nothing by his Writ for he conceived that the verdict is uncertaine insomuch that it is not found that Livery and Seisin was made upon the Lease for three lives of the Mannor but onely one Memorandum that it was made in the house of the Lord but it is not found that this House was parcell of the Mannor but after it is found that the Lessee by force of this was seised by which it is implyed that it was very well executed and this being in speciall verdict would be very good he conceived there were two principall matters in the Case First Upon the Bargaine and Sale of Trees if they be re-united to the Mannor or remaine undivided Secondly Upon the two customes the which he conceived depend upon a question for the first warrants the second And to the first When a man devises a Mannor for three lives and by the same Deed in another clause bargaines and sells the Trees and then insues the Habendum and this is of the Mannor only and limits Estate of that for three lives without mention of the Trees hee conceived that the Trees passe before the Habendum absolutely and it is not like to a Bargaine and Sale of a Mannor with Trees or Advowson appendant and here the purpose and intent appeares that they shall pass together and as appendant But in the first case they shall passe as a Chattell immediately upon the delivery of the Deed before any livery made upon this to pass the Mannor and if Livery had never been made yet he shall have the Trees see 23 Eliz. 379. 18 Dyer Where a man devises and grants a mannor and trees Habendum the Mannor for one and twenty yeares without mention of the Trees and yet by Windham Periam and Meade against Dyer the Lessee cannot cut and sell the Trees for there was all in one sentence that is the grant of the Trees and the Demise of the Mannor see the 8 Coke Pexells Case how a Grant shall be construed and where that shall be intended to pass Inheritance and where to pass but a Chattell where a man grants a Chattell and ten pound yearly to be payd and in 7 Ed. 4. If a man hath Inheritance and a Lease in one Town and he by one and the same Deed gives Grants Bargaines and sells all to one Habendum the Inheritance to him and his Heires this is no forfeiture of the Lease insomuch that the Fee doth not passe of that so in the Principall Case Fee-simple passeth in the Trees and Free-hold in the Mannor and he conceived that by the Demise over the Land and Trees are not re-united and this he collected out of Herlackendens Case 4. Coke and 12. Eliz. Bendlowes a man made a Lease for anothers life and bargaine and sold the Trees to him for whose life Lessee dyes he for whose life becometh occupant of the Land he shall have severall Estates one Estate in the Land and another Estate in the Trees and so in Ives Case 5 Coke 11. a. Lessee takes a Lease first of Land except the woods and after takes a Lease of the Woods and Trees and they remaine distinct and though that after there are generall words in the Lease that is of all Meadowes Pastures Profits Commodities c. That is not materiall for these shall be referred to all such things which belong to the Land and so he concluded this point that the Trees remain severall from the Land and do not passe to Hoskins by the Demise of the Copy-hold only and so he cannot take advantage of the forfeiture otherwise he did not doubt but that the particular Sum might take advantage of the forfeiture Secondly for the customes he conceived that the first that is that the Copy-holder for life might nominate his Successor and is good and so for the second that such Copy-holder may cut and sell all the Trees growing upon his Copy-hold and he conceived that the validity of the custome ought to be adjudged by the Judges and the Truth of that by the Jury and when it is found true by a Jury and that it hath such antiquity that exceeds the memory of man then this obtaines such priviledge as the
Common Law mâ—â— be done by Custome and that an Estate may be created by such nomination it appeares by the case where a Remainder is Limited to him which the first Tenant for life shall nominate and it is very good and to prove that the Custome is good he remembred the custome of Millam in Norfolke where he was borne that is that if any Copy-holder will sell his Land and agree of the price that at the next Court when a surrender is to be made the next of his blood and if he will not any other of his blood may have the Land and so every one shall be preferred according to the neerenesse of his blood and with this also agreed the Leviticall Law as it appeares Leviticus 25. chap. verse 15. which appoints this to be at the yeare of Jubile and the Common Law within one yeare after the Alienation and upon this he infers that if Custome may appoint Heire in the life of the party then a Fortiore he may appoint Successor after his death and he conceived that at the beginning the Copy-holders might have had absolute Fee-simple of the Lord and they rather made choice to have such Estate insomuch that they did not know if their Children would be towardly or not and for that content themselves with the nomination of a Successor only and so is the Custome at Hamm also in Middlesex if any Copy-holder will sell the next Cleivener which is he that dwelleth next unto him shall have the refusall giving so much as another will and he which Inhabits one the East part first and the South and the West and last the North shall be preferred is the only way in his course and there the Successor is nominated by the Heavens and by the quarters of the Earth and so is the custome in Glocester And if any Husband hath an Estate for twelve yeares his Wife shall have it for twelve years also and so ad Infinitum and this makes nomination and so of Free-hold and so if it be good without nomination it shall be good by nomination And if the Estate determine by the Death of the Tenant without nomination when the Lord revives the Copy-hold Estates the priviledge also shall be revived But he conceived that the Tenant cannot nominate part to one and part to another nor that divided in fractions And he saith that this point hath been adjudged in the Kings Bench by foure Judges against Popham 5. Jacobi between Ball and Crabb And so he concluded this point and to the second custome he said he would speake to that Transitive but not Definitve and that it hath been adjudged 45. Eliz. between Powell and Peacock that bare Copy holder for life could not prescribe to cut and â—ell the Trees otherwise of Tenant in Fee-simple for he hath them cherished and fostered And it is against common reason incongruent and against the Common Law that a Copy-holder for life may cut and sell the Trees and custome ought to have reason and congruence for 10. Ed. 3. 5. Leete cannot be belonging to a Church insomuch that it is Incongruent and so in Writes Case 2. Coke Tythes cannot be appurtenant to a Mannor insomuch that it is incongruent and a spirituall thing shall not be pertinent to a temporall and so è Converso And so in the 5. Assis 9. and Hill and Granges Case Com. Turbary cannon be appurtenant to Land insomuch that it is incongruent but it ought to be to a house so in time of Ed. 2. Tenant of the Mannor prescribes to have free Bull and Bare and it is not good for the reason aforesaid otherwise it is of the Lord of a Mannor and 9 H. 5. 45. custome in Leete to present common and adjudged that it it is not good insouuch that it wants congruity for it is not proper to the Court and upon this he concluded that bare Tenant for life cannot prescribe to cut Trees for it is not congruent that such an Estate shall have such a priviledge and this for three reasons First insomuch that Trees growing are parcell of the Inheritance Secondly in respect of the perdurablenesse of them for it shall be intended that they will indure forever and so will not his Estate for this is as a shadow as Job said and 't is absurd that shadow should cut downe the Tree And also it is for necessity of habitation and Plow and Husbandry And it is for the Common Wealth that Copy-holder of Inheritanc might cut them by such custome for otherwise he would not be incurraged to plant and preserve them And notwithstanding that in this Case the custome be generall that the Copy-holder may cut down all yet that shall have a reasonable construction avd that this notwithstanding he leave sufficient for House-boot as if a man grants Common without number yet the Grantor shall not be excluded but shall have his Common there for excesse shall not be allowed As if a man which distraines another for Rent he shall not take excessive distress the Lessee for life excessive Tallage of villaines nor upon excessive Fines of Copy-holders and so it was adjudged in Heyden and Sir John Lenthorps Case that the Lord shall not take all but leave sufficient for reparations and so was the opinion of Wray cheife Justice in the 33 of Eliz. In evidence to a Jury but here he is in nature of Tenant in Fee-simple and it shall be intended that he hath cherished the Timber and every Copy-holders Estate granted is as a new Grant and hath affinity with Tenant in Fee-simple and he agreed that if Lessee for life the Remainder for years Remainder for life be and the first Lessee for life makes a forfeiture he in Remainder for years shall take advantage of that and that it hath been adjudged that the Lord of the Mannor shall take advantage of forfeiture made by the Copy-holder without presentment made by the Homage and in one Bacon and Flotsims Case and so Lessee for yeares of a Mannor shall take advantage of Forfeiture notwithstanding the Imbicillity of his Estate but the principall matter upon which he relyed was that the Trees were severed from the Free-hold and if the Lessee dy his Executors shall have them insomuch that they are meer Chattells and this First in respect of the Words of the Lease that is demise and to farm let the Mannor but bargain sell give and grant the Timber Trees to be felled and carried away at his Will As if a man makes a Lease for years except the Wood and after grants the Trees the Lease determines the Lessor shall not have the Trees again Secondly They are in two divided Sentences and also in respect of divided properties for the Executor of the Lessee shall have them and Quando duo Jura concurrunt in una persona equum est ac si esset in diversis also past at severall times for the Trees pass by the delivery of the Deed and the Land
which the Executors are to be charâ—ed meerly as Executors there the Writ shall be in the Detinet but when the thing grows due in part upon the contract of the Intestate and part by the Occupation of the Administrator as in our case there it shall be brought in the Debet and Detinet he cited a Case which was adjudged 26 El. in the Common bench between Scrogs the Lady Gresham where it was resolved that the Lady Gresham was made chargeable to the Debts of her Husband by act of Parliament and Action of Debt brought against her in the Debet and Detinet and debated if this were well brought and after Argument adjudged that it was well brought in the Debet and Detinet for though she was not chargeable for the Debts of her Husband upon his own Contract yet where an act of Parliament hath made her chargeable and a Debtor and for that reason the Action shall be brought against her in the Debet and Detinet and to the principal case he cited the Case of 11 H. 6. 7. Where it it said by Babington Newton that if a man be Lessee for years and is in arrears for his Rent and makes his Executors and dyes and the Executors enter into the Land and occupy in this case for the Arrerages due in time of the Testator Action shall be brought against them in the Detinet but for Rent due in their own occupation the action shal be brought in the Debet and Detinet for that it rises upon their own occupation and with this agrees 20 H. 6. 4. And he sayd that he would demand this case of the Councell of the other part that is a man hath a Lease for yeares as Administrator and Rent incurrs in his time and he makse his Executors and dyes and Administration of the Goods of the Intestate is committed over to another against whom shall the Action be brought for the Rent that is against the Executors of the first Administrator or against the second Administrator and it seems cleerly to him against the Executors of the first Administrator for their Testator had taken the profits which case proves that they shall not be charged meerly as Executors or Administrators but as takers of the profits c. And Occupiers of the land And this was his second reason of the nature of Profits insomuch that they were raised by the personall labour of the Executor or Admistrator and are their Goods as he sayd and they have them not meerly as Executors or Administrators and for that the Action is well brought as it is and he sayd that the Heir for Debt of the Father shall be charged in the Debet and Detinet and yet this was the contract of his Father but he is charged in respect that he hath the land and the occupation and profits of that so here insomuch that the Executors have the profit of the Tearm by the same reason they shall be charged in the Debet and Detinet and he resembled the case to a case put in Fitz. Na. Brâ—… In his Writ of Debt where a woman sole hath a lease for years and takes a Husband and the Rent incurrs and the wife dies the Husband shall be charged in the Debet and Detinet for this rent and the reason is because he hath taken the profits so here the Administrator hath taken the profits and is not answerable for the Profits unless they amount to more then the rent is And by the same reason the action is well brought against him as it is The third and last reason was for the Inconveniency and to that he sayd if this Action be brought in the Debet and Detinet there is no inconvenience but if it should be brought in the Detinet only then should the Administrator be charged but of the Goods of the dead where if he be not charged of his own proper Goods peradventure he shall not be so carefull to pay his rent but would stop the Lessor in his Action which should be trouble and vexation and so by this reason also he concluded the Action well brought in the Debet and Detinet and this was gaynsayd by Towse George Crooke and Harris of the other part and it seems to them that it should be in the Detinet only insomuch that the cause of this Action growes of the contract of the Testator and the Tearm is Assets in their hands and the Administrator hath the Tearm as Administrator and by the same reason the Occupation shall be as Administration and by consequence he shall be charged as Administrator and not otherwise and then the Action shall be brought against him in the Detinet only and that he shall be charged as Administrator they cited the Book of 14 H. 4. 28. Where it is sayd if a man hath a lease for years and makes his Executors and the rent incurrs in their time and action of Debt is brought against them and they make default he which first 〈◊〉 all come by distress shall answer according to the Statute of 9 Ed. 3. chapter 5. which Book proves directly as they say that they are charged as Executors and not otherwise and then it followes that the Action should be in the Detinet so it seems to them that in all Actions where they are named Executors or Administrators that the Action shall be brought against them in the Detinet only but in this action they ought to be named Executors or Administrators for he doth declare of a lease made to the Intestate and for that it seems it shall be brought in the Detinet only and this was the reason of Yelverton Justice which was of their opinion only against the other Justices and to that which was sayd that an Action shall be brought against the Heir in the Debet and Detinet for the Debt of his Ancestor they answered that this is now become the proper Debt of the Heir but it is not so in the case of an Executor or Administrator And it seems to Towse that if an Administrator hath a Lease for twenty yeares and makes a Lease for ten yeares rendring Rent and brings an Action for this Rent that the Action shall be brought in the Detinet only for that this is a new contract made by the Administrator and he hath gained new Reversion because it was derived out of the Lease for twenty yeares and so this shall be of the same nature and the Rent shall be Assets in his hands and in proofe of this he cited the book in 17. Ed. 3. 66. Where an Executor sold the Goods of the Testator and the Vendee made an Obligation to them for the money and the Executors brought an Action of Debt upon the Obligation and this was brought in the Detinet only And the exception was taken because it was duty of their owne contract and for that the Writ should be in the Debet and Detinet and yet the Writ
awarded good because it comes in Lieu of Goods which they had as Executors and shall be Assets in their hands as the Goods should have been and for that it is well brought in the Detinet only And they said that in the principall case it shall be mischeivous if the Action shall be brought in the Debet and Detinet for it may be the Rent reserved is of more worth then the Profits of the Land will amount unto and that the Executors or Administrators have no other Assets now shall be the Executor or Administrator be charged with his own proper Goods which shall be mischeivous and the case of 10. H. 7. 5. and 6. that is direct in the point was often times cited and all these three things which were of councell with the Defendant informed the Court that they were of Councell with Hargrave when the Judgement given in the Kings Bench was reversed for Error in this very point and for this cause because the Action was brought in the Debet and Detinet where it should be in the Detinet only And so they praied that the Judgement should be hindered But by the whole Court except Yelverton And so it was adjudged that the Action was well brought as it is and especially for the reasons given in Hargraves Case 5. Coke 31. And to that which hath been said by Yelverton Justice that in all cases where Executors are charged by the name of Executors or Administrators that there the Action shall be against them in the Detinet only Flemming cheife Justice answered that â—rue it is in all personall things where they are named as Executors Action shall be in the Detinet But as it is an Action of Debt for Rent reserved upon a Chattell reall and an Executor is as an Assignee in Law and so charged as privy in Estate and not meerely as Executor and if he have no more Assets then the Rent which he is to pay he may plead nothing in his hands against all the World and to that that hath been said that the Executor hath been charged of his own Goods If the profits be not more then the Rent or the Rent more then the profits to this he said that in this case where the Executor hath the Tearme and hath not any other Assets that they may wave this Tearme And in Action of Debt brought against him for the Rent may plead to the occupation and that recover The reason of the diversity between this case and the case of 28. H. 8. Dyer 14. is plain for in an Action of Debt against the Termor himselfe Non habuit nec occupavit is no Plea for there was a contract between them and for this privity of contract is the Lessee charged though he did not occupy But in the case of an Executor the privity of the contract is gone and so may be a difference But yet it seemes if he have Assets sufficient to pay the Rent he cannot wave it And to the case 14. H. 4. 28. that hath been cited that doth speake nothing how the Action should be brought And the Justices have seen the record of Hargraves case and the Reversall of that And they said the same error which was in Hargraves case is in this case and for that bring your Writ of Error in the Exchequer chamber if you will for we so adjudge And then it was moved that the Lord Rich was Tenant in Tayle of part of the reversion and Tenant in Fee-simple of the other part and so it seemes that he ought to have two Actions because he hath as two reversions But it was resolved by all the Court that if a man have a reversion of part in Fee-simple and of the other part in tayl and makes a Lease for yeares rendring a Rent he shall have but one Action both being in the hands of one But otherwise it had been if the reversion had been in severall hands they should not Joyne in Debt and for that Fenner put this case two Coparceners are of a reversion and they make partition now the Rent is apportioned and they shall sever in Debt But if one dies without Issue and the part discends to the other Parcener now he shall have but one Action of Debt againe and so it is if a man makes a Lease of two Acres rendring Rent and after grants the reversion of one Acre to J. S. and of the other Acre to J. N. now they shall sever in Debt for this Rent but if J. S. and J. N. Grant their reversions againe to the first Lessor he shall have but one Action of Debt and so the exception dissalowed by all the Court and the Judgement given for the Plaintiff according to the Verdict Yates and Rolles THe case was this J. S. covenants by Indenture with J. N. I. D. and A. B. to enter Bond to pay ten pound to J. N. and J. N. dies and his Administrator brings a Writ of covenant and the question was insomuch that this ten pound was to be paid to J. N. if his Administrator shall have Action of Covenant or if the Action shall survive to the other two and it was moved by Stephens that the Action shall be well brought by the Administrator for this shall be taken as a severall covenant and this now is in nature of a Debt and enures only to him which shall have it also the payment of the money which is the effect of the covenant shall be to him only Ergo the Damages for the not performing of it shall goe to him also and by consequence to his Administrator But it was adjudged insomuch that this was a joynt covenant that this shall survive to the others and not well brought by the Administrator So also resolved that insomuch that the words are that he would enter Bond and doth not say to whom that this shall be intended to the Covenantees and though that the Solvendo is but to one of them yet that is very good as an Obligation made to three Solvendum to one of them is good by Fenner and by Williams Obligation to two Solvendum ten pound to one and ten pound to another both ought to joyne in Debt upon this Obligation and Judgement for the Defendant Sammer and Force THe Case was this The Lord of a Copy-hold Mannor where Copy holders are for life grants Rent-charge out of all the Mannor one Copy-hold Escheats the Lord grants that againe by Copy the question was If the Grantee shall hold it charged or not and by the whole Court but Fenner he shall not hold it charged because he comes in above the Grant that is By the custome the same Law of Statutes Recognizances or Dowers but the 10. of Eliz. Dyer 270. by the whole Court that he shall hold it charged but this hath been denyed for Law in a Case in the Common Bench between Swaine and Becket which see Trinity 5. Jacobi But to Coke Justice it seemed that
if a Copy-holder be of twenty Acres and the Lord grants Rent out of those twenty Acres in the tenure and occupation of the sayd Copy-holder and name him There if this Copy hold Escheat and be granted againe the Copy-holder shall hold it charged for this is now charged by expresse words Trinity 8. Jacobi 1610. In the Kings Bench. Goodyer and Ince GOodyer was Plaintiff in a Writ of Error against Ince and the Case was this Ince brought an Action of Debt upon an Obligation in the Common Bench against Goodyer and had Judgment to recover and by his execution prayed an Elegit to the Sheriff of London and another to the Sheriff of Lancaster and his request was granted and entred upon the Roll after which went out an Elegit to the Sheriff of Lancaster upon a Testatum supposing that an Elegit issued out to the Sheriff of London which returned Nulla bona and Quod Testatum sit c. That the Defendant hath c. in your County c. upon which Elegit upon this Testatum the Sheriff of Lancaster extended a forme of the Defendants in a grosse sum of a hundred pounds and delivered this to the party himselfe which sold that to another and now the Defendants brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error that this Elegit issued upon a Testatum where no Writ of Elegit was directed to the Sheriff of London and so this Writ issued upon a false supposall and upon that two points were moved in the Case First As this Case is if this were Error in the Execution or not Secondly Admit that it were Error if the Plaintiff shall be restored to the tearme againe or if to the value in Money and it was moved by Davenport of Grayes Inne that this was no Error and to that he took this difference That true it is when a man brings an Action of Debt in London and hath Judgment that without request of the Plaintiff he is to have his Elegit to the Sheriffs of London where originally the Action was brought and in such Case he cannot have Elegit to the Sheriff of another County without surmise made upon the returne of the first Elegit and the surmise ought to be true or otherwise it is Error but where upon the request the Elegit is granted to both Counties at the first and so entred upon the Roll It seems to him that insomuch that he may have both together that if the surmise be false that this is but a fault of the Clarke which shall be amended and shall be no Error and to that he cyted the Case of 44 Edw. 3. 10. Where an Elegit issued upon a Recognizance of a hundred Markes and the Writ of Extent was a hundred pounds and the Sheriff extended accordingly of the Land of the Defendant and he came and shewed this to the Court and praied that the Writ should abate and a new Writ to the Sheriff that he might have restitution of his Tearme and Thorp said this is but a misprison of the Clark and the Roll is good and he shall have the Land but till the hundred markes are Levied and after this you shall have restitution of the Land which case proves as he conceives that if the Roll warrant a writ in one manner and the Clark makes it in another manner that this shall not be Error and so in this case the Roll warrants an Elegit originally to the Sheriff of Lancaster and though that this is made upon a Testatum this shall not be Error because warranted by the Roll And to the second point he would not speake for if that were no Error the second point doth not come in question Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. in the Kings Bench. Marsam against Hunter IN Trespasse the case was this Copy-holder of a Mannor within which Mannor the custome was that the Copy-holders should have Common in the wast of the Lord The Lord by Deed confirmes to a Copy-holder to have to him and his Heires with the appurtenances and the point was insomuch that his Copy-hold was now distroied whether he shall have his Common or not And Davyes of Linclones Inne argued the Common is extinct and his reason was that this Common was in respect of his Tenure and the Tenure is distroid Ergo the Common and he cited the case of 5 Ed. 4. fol. ult Where the office of the King of Herraulds was granted to Garter with the Fees and profits Ab Antiquo and also ten pound for the office and there it is resolved if the office be determined the Annuity is determined also and the case in 7. Ed. 4. 22. b. Where an Annuity was granted to John Clark of the Crown and for Tearme of life and after he was discharged of the office and the oppinion of the Justices then was that the annuity was determined and in 19. Ed. 3. Assis 83. 12 Assis 22. A man gives Land to his Daughter and I. S. within the years of marrying in frank-marriage the Husband sues Divorce the marriage being dissolved the Wife from whom the Land first moved shall have the Land againe so in the principall case insomuch that this common was in respect of Tenure the Tenure being distroied the common is gone and this was all his argument and he prayed Judgement for the Plaintiff and another day Brautingham of Grayes Inne seemed that the common remaines for three reasons First of the nature of a prescription and to that there are three manner of prescriptions First personall prescription and in that Inhabitants may prescribe as for a way or matter of ease as it is said in 7. Ed. 4. 15. Ed. 4. and 18. Ed. 4. and 6. Coke Gatwoods case Secondly reall prescription and this is Inherent to the Estate and this is where a man prescribeth that he and all those whose Estate he hath c. Thirdly locall prescriptions an that is where a man prescribes to have a thing appendant or appurtenant to his Mannor and this is so fixed to the Land that whether soever the Land goes the prescription is concommitant unto it and it seemes to him that this common is annexed to the Land by prescription and so locall and cannot be seperated but alwaies shall go with the Land into who soever hands that comes but Dixit non Probant And for this he supposed that the custome of Copy-hold is that the Copy-hold shall discend to the youngest Son if the Copy holder purchase the Free-hold and the Fee-simple of the Copy-hold so that this is made Free-hold this shall discend to the youngest Son so if a Copy-holder by custome is discharged of payment of Tythes in kind so the office of the master of the Rolles hath many liberties pertaining to it and this is granted but Durante placito yet if the King grant that in Fee as he may yet he shall have all the Fees and Priviledges annexed to that and so it seemes to him that
and for these reasons he prayed a consultation and Yelverton to the contrary and he took a difference and sayd that he agreed that if the Wardens of the Church have once possession of the Church there in Action of Trespas brought for these Goods one Warden cannot release but this tax for which they sue is a thing meerly in Action of which they have not any possession of that before and there he cannot sue alone and for that this release shall barr his Companion And the Court interrupted him and sayd that cleerly consultation shall be granted and Flemming cheife Justice we have not need to dispute this release whether it be good or not and there is a difference where a suit is commenced before us as if Wardens of the Church brought Trespasse here for Goods of the Church taken and one Release then we might dispute if this release were good or not but when the matter is original begun before them in the spirituall Court and there is the proper place to sue for this Tax and not any where else we have nothing to do with this Release and for that by the whole Court a consultation was awarded Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench. Styles Case UPon a Motion made by Yelverton on the behalfe of one Styles the Case was this Styles had a Judgment in Ejectione firme and was put in possession by the Sheriff by an Habere facias possessionem and after the Defendant enters againe within the two weeks after Execution and the Writ was returned but not Fyled and Yelverton moved the Court for another Writ of execution and by Williams he could not have a new Writ of Execution but is put to his new Action and the Fyling of the Writ is not materiall for it is in the election of the Sheriff if he will Fyle or returne that or not but be sayd if the Execution had not been fully made as he sayd there was a Case where the Sheriff made an Execution of a House and there were some persons which hid themselves in the upper Lofts of the House and after the Sheriff was gone they came downe and outed those that the Sheriff had put in possession before and in this Case a new Writ of Execution was awarded but there a full Execution was not made and so the difference But the cheif Justice sayd That if the Sheriff put a man in possession and after the other which was put out enters in forthwith that in this Case the Court may award an Attachment against him for contempt against the Court. Hillary 7 Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench. Gittins against Cowper CUstome of one Mannor was That if any Copy-holder within the Mannor committed any Felony and this be presented by the Homage that the Lord may take and seise the Land a Copy-holder committed Felony and this was presented by the Homage and after the Copy-holder was Indicted and by Verdict acquit and the Lord entred and if his entry were lawfull or not was the question The points were two First If the Custome were good Secondly Admitting the Custome to be good if this Verdict and acquittall shall conclude the Lord of his entry And Walter of the Inner Temple argued that the Custome was good and that the Lord was not concluded by this Verdict And to the first point he sayd That it was a good Custome First insomuch it might have a reasonable beginning and for that he cyted the Book of 35 H. 6. where it is sayd that such Customes which might have reasonable beginning should be good and to that he cyted a Case which was adjudged as he sayd in 27 Eliz. and was one Delves Case and the Case was this A Quo warranto issued against Delves to know Quo warranto he held a Leet to which he pleaded that he was seised of such a Messuage and that he and all those whole Estate he hath in the said Messuage have used allwaies to have and hold a Leete there within the Messuage If this prescription that is to have a Leete appendant to a single Messuage was good or not was the question And it was adjudged insomuch that by resonable intendment it might be that this house was the Scite of a Mannor and the Lord granted that with the Leet the Prescription adjudged good and he sayd that many Customes are grounded upon the nature of the place and for that he sayd that this Mannor was adjoyning to great Woods and it might be that the Copy-holders committed Felonies and outrages and after fled into the Woods and there lived and yet injoyed the benefit of their Copy-holds and for that it was reasonable for the Lord to annex such a restraint and condition that is if they committed any Felony this should be a forfeiture of their Copy-hold and this should be a meanes to bridle them to commit such haynous and odious offences And that Customes ought to have a respect to the place he cyted the Case of 12 H. 3. where the Custome of the Isle of Man was That if any man stole a Hen or a Capon or such small matter that should be Felony but if he stole a Horse that should not be Felony for a man may privily convey away a Hen or might consume it but for the smalnesse of the place and being compassed with the water he could not so doe with a Horse So in 39. H. 6. That the married Wife of a Merchant in London may sue and be sued by the Custome and the reason is that London is the cheife City and place of Merchandise within the Realme of England and it is conceived that the Merchants cannot be alwaies resident there but sometimes beyond Sea or other where about their businesse and Affaires and for that it shall be reasonable that his Wife shall sue and shall be sued in his absence and in time of E. 1. Title Prescription the custome of Hallifax that if any Felon be taken with the manner he shal be forthwith beheaded and this was as it seems for the better suppressing the common Felonies there committed and so he concluded for this Reason that this custome might have such reasonable beginning and in respect of the place that should be a good custome His second Reason was that this might begin at this day lawfully Therfore this shall be good and for that he cited the case of 10 H. 7. 11. That if a man make a Feoffment upon condition that the Feoffee shall not commit Felony that this is a good condition but he sayd that he supposed that if the Feoffee commit Felony and the Feoffor enter into the Land and after the Feoffee is attaint of this felony that now the Lord shall enter by Escheate and his reason was that the Statute of Westminster 3. De quia emptores terrarum prohibits any man to make a Feoffment to the prejudice of the Lord to his Wardship or Escheat His third reason was that this
was a good Custome insomuch that this was annexed to an Estate created by custome and for that he cited one Skeggs case to be adjudged in 24 yeare of Eliz. and was thus that is The custome of a Mannor was that a marryed wife Copy-holder might surrender to the use of her last will and after might devise to her Husband and it was adjudged insomuch that this was annexed to her Estate which begun by custome this was a good custome and the 3 of Ed. 3. At the common Law such custome is voyd and after he cited a Judgment in the point given in this Court 23. of Eliz. Rot. 5014. or 504 or 5004. that the same custome was adjudged a good Custome after he answered some objections which might be made against this custome that is First for the uncertainty of the time when the presentment shall be by the Homage and to that he sayd that the Lord may make that when he will and the time doth not take away the offence and no prejudice upon that discends to the Heir but is to his advantage Secondly Because no number certaine of the Homage and that every tryall must be by twelve and to that he answered that we are not now in point of Tryall but only for the information of the Lord. Thirdly this is against the nature of a Court-Baron to inquire of Felonies and to that he said there is not any inquiry made here but only to inform the Lord and such a thing is not against the nature of the Court which inlargeth this Fourthly The offence is against the King and a common person shall not have the punishment of that to that he sayd the King shall not have any benefit of it for he shall not have any Escheat of Copy-hold lands for Treason or Felony Fiftly This is against the Kings Prerogative to that he sayd that Custome may be against the Prerogative of the King as if a man claim Waife or stray by prescription these are things given to the King by his Prerogative and yet Prescription for them is good and so he concluded this first point that the custome was good To the second point he conceived that this verdict and acquittall shall not conclude the Lord and for that he sayd that at the Common Law if a Verdict had been given and no Judgment upon it the party was not concluded to bring the same Action 18 Ed. 3. 35. Then comes the Statute of 2 H. 4. And this outs non-suit after verdict and yet if verdict be imperfect or finds a thing not in Issue there non-suit may be after verdict as it is sayd in 22 Ed. 4. 10. And if verdict be given in the point and Judgment upon that doth not conclude the party to have action of more high nature as it is sayd in 3 Ed. 3. and 3 Assise 1. and Hudsons ease in the 4 Coke and as it is in Tryalls of Land so it is in tryalls of life as 2 R. 3. 14. 7 H. 4. 34. Then if the party himself shall not be bound by verdict A fortiori a stranger shall not be also every Estoppell there ought to be a matter of estoppell for the Jury is not sworn to give their verdict according to the truth in Deed but according to the evidence to them given and then if faint evidence or no evidence be given it shall be hard that this shall conclude any of his right also there is no party to be estopped because a stranger as is aforesayd also the acquittall is in such manner that is that he hath not committed the Felony in manner and form as in the Indictment is alledged and this doth not answer the Custome because generall so it seems to him that this shall not be any conclusion to the Lord and so for both points the entry not congeable And Stevens to the contrary and it seems to him breifly that the custome was not good and he denyed the Rule that is that this might have reasonable beginning by agreement of parties shall make a custome good and for this Littleton saith in his chapter of villainage that if the Lord of one Mannor will prescribe to have Fine if any of his Tenants marry their Daughters without his license this is a void custome and yet it may be such agreement between the parties at the first and it seems the custome not reasonable for it is too generall that is if any Tenant and this doth not exclude Infants Secondly if any Felony be committed and this includes petty Larceny and Maime by involuntary means for these are Felonies and for that see 13 H. 7. 19. 6 H. 7. That in Appeal of Mayme a man shall count Felony and yet it shall be hard that a man shall loose his Land for these Felonies Secondly Homage cannot inquire of the fact of Felony but of the conviction of Felony and so it seems to him the custome ill and to the other point it seems that the Lord shall be concluded and to that that hath been objected that the Lord is a stranger to the verdict and for that cause shall not be estopped he said that the Lord is no stranger for in this case every man is party and every man may give Evidence for the King and he cited the case in the time and title of Mortdancester where the case was where a man was as principall for the Death of J. S. and another as accessary in receiving the Principall after the principall was out-Lawed and the Accessary hanged and the Lord seised the Land of the Accessary for Escheat after came the principall and reversed the Out-Lawry and was found not guilty and the Heir of him which was hang'd entred upon the Lord and adjudged insomuch that there cannot be an Accessary unless there be a principall that the entry of the Heir was lawfull in this case so he sayd in this case insomuch that the Copy-holder is acquitted by verdict and found not guilty and seems to him that the entry of the Lord should not be lawfull and by the whole Court the custome was good but they did not deliver any opinion upon the second point for they moved the parties to Composition Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench. Barwick and Fosters Case A Man made a Lease for two years at Michaelmas rendring two shillings yearly during the Tearm at the Feast of the annunciation of our Lady and Michaelmas or ten dayes after at the Feast of Saint Michaell in the last year the Rent is not paid the question was what remedy the Lessor hath for his Rent of this halfe yeare and the opinion of Flemming cheife Justice and Williams was that he hath no remedy And first they sayd as this case is the Lessee hath election to pay either upon the Feast or upon the tenth day after and that is for the benefit of the Lessee then he hath made his Election not to pay that at the Feast of Saint
Michaell then it is cleer that the Lessor hath no remedy by way of distress for the Tearm is ended before and by Action of Debt upon the Contract he hath no remedy as it seems as this case is for the Contract is that the Rent shall be paid yearly during the Tearm then when the Tearm is ended the contract is determined and for that the cheife Justice sayd That if a man makes a Lease at Michaelmas for a yeare rendring Rent yearely at our Lady day and the ninth of October which is after Michaelmas that the Lessor hath not any remedy for the Rent of the last halfe yeare for that is not reserved to be payd yearly according to the contract And Yelverton Justice agreed that the Lessee hath election as above but he saith when that is behinde the tenth day after Michaelmas then the Lessor shall bring his Action of Debt and declare that the Rent was behinde at the Feast of Saint Michaell and shall not make mention of the ten dayes after and Coke Justice sayd That it seems to him that the Lessee shall not have the benefit of these ten dayes after the last Feast for the words of the Lease are rendring Rent yearly during the tearme at the Feasts aforesayd or ten dayes after so that the Lessee shall have the benefit of these ten dayes during the tearme but not after then he shall not have these after the last Feast of Saint Michaell for then shall the tearme be ended And after in Trinity Terme 8 Jacobi The Case was moved againe and then Flemming cheife Justice conceived That the Lessee shall not have ten dayes after the last Feast and this upon construction to be made reasonably for otherwise the Tearm being ended the Contract should be determined with the Tearm and so the Lessor should be without remedy for his Rent and he sayd that reservations are not taken so strictly according to the letter And for that he cited the case of Hill and Granger in the Com. fol. 171. Where a man makes a Lease for a year And the Lease was made in August rendring Rent yearely at the Annunciation of our â—ady and Michaelmasse upon condition of Re-entry In this case the first payment shall be at the next Michaelmasse after the making of the Lease and not at the Annunciation of our Lady though this is first in words and this by reasonable construction for otherwise this word Yearely shall not be supplied and of this see the Action and so he said in this case Rent is reserved yearely during the Tearme at the Feasts of the Annunciation of our Lady or Michaelmasse or ten daies after he shall not have ten daies after the last Feast But Williams held his old opinion that the Lessor hath no remedy for the last halfe years Rent and it was adjourned Hillary 7. Jacobi in the Kings Bench. Grymes against Peacocke IN Terspasse for his Close broken The Defendant justifies that it was used within the Mannor of D. that every Farmer of such a house and averred that that had been allwaies let to Farme had Common in the Lords wast The house came into the hands of the Lord in Possession And he granted the house and the wast to J. S. in Fee J. S. Bargaines and Sells the house to J. N. with all Commons Profits and Commodities used occupied and pertaining to the same And after grants the wast to another If the Grantee of the house shall have Common in the wast was the question And Yelverton argued that the Common was gone for if he shall have Common this shall enure as a new Grant of a Common but this cannot so enure for two reasons First when a man will grant a Common he ought to shew the place in certaine where the Grantee shall have this Common or otherwise the Grant is void But here no place is shewed and for that it cannot enure as a new Grant of a Common Secondly If that be a new Grant yet this hath reference to the usage that is Quod Vsitatum est c. And this Vsitatum is void for it seemes to him that Lessee for yeares cannot alledge a usage for every Vsitatum ought to go in one selfe same currant not interrupted as in ths case of a Coppy-hold But here every new Lease is a new contract and so the usage is interrupted and then the Grant having the reference to the usage and that is void usage nothing shall passe by this Grant and for that in Long 5. Ed 4. 40. If a custome be against Law And that is confirmed by the Act of Parliament this is void confirmation for it hath reference to a void custome so here this Grant hath reference to the usage and for that it seemes to him that the Common is gone Hutton Serjeant to the contrary and that the Grantee of the Messuage shall have common for this usage is not a thing by strictnesse in Law appertaining to the Land but this hath gained his reputation that that shall passe very well in a conveiance by apt words And for that it will not be denied but if a man makes a Lease for years to one and grants him Common for all his Kine c. And after this Lease expires and he makes a new Lease and grants such Commons as the first Lessee had that this shall be a good grant of Common to the Lessee So he said in this case this grant of the house with all profits and commodities used occupied and appertaining to the said Messuage shall be said a grant of such Common which other Lessees of this Manner have used and this by reasonable construction in Law to make good the conveiances of Lay-men according to the common speaking for Benigne sunt Faciende Interpritationes Chartarum c. and for that he cited the case of Hill and Grange in the Comment Where the case was That a man made a Lease for yeares of a house and a hundred Acres of Land appertaining to that though the Land be not appurtenant to the house yet insomuch that this hath been usually occupied with the house this shall passe as appertaining to it and so 26. Assis 38. A man makes a Lease for life rendring Rent and after grants over the Rent to J. S. and dies The Heire grants and confirmes to the Grantee and his Heires the same Rent with clause of distresse and the Tenant for life dies now is the Rent reserved upon the Estate for life determined and yet this shall enure as a new grant of another Rent in quantity So in Sir Moyle Finches Case the case of uses and Durham in Ejectione Firme A Lease was pleaded of a Mannor whereof the feilds in which c. Were parcell And Issue was joyned Quod non Demiset Manerium And upon this Issue found it was that there were not any Free-holders but diverse Copy-holders and this was allwaies knowne by the name of a Mannor and it was adjudged that
this shall passe for him which pleads the demise of the Mannor Then if in Judiciall proceeding the Law makes such favourable construction to make that passe by a Mannor which is no Mannor in truth because it hath been usually known by the name of a Mannor then it seemes to him a Fortiore that no more beneficiall construction shall be made in conveiances which allwaies shall be construed to the intent and meaning of the parties and so it seemes to him that the Common remaines and Crooke Yelverton and the cheife Justice Flemming conceived that in reason he shall have the Common but they did not give any absolute opinion as to that But Williams Justice to the contrary and that the Lessee for yeares cannot have more then he contracted for in his Lease and then the Vsitatum void and the Lessees have taken that by wrong And this Grant having reference to a void and wrongfull usage is not good and it is adjourned Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench. Stydson against Glasse Stydson brought an Ejectione Firme against Glasse and upon speciall Verdict the case was this that is That one Holbeame was seised of the Land in question in Fee and made a Lease for life to Margret Glasse and after covenanted with John Glasse Husband of the said Wife Lessee that before such a day he would Levie a Fine to A. B. and to the Heires of A. of the same Lands which Fine should be to the use of the said Glasse for sixty yeares to begin after the death of the said Margeret Glasse with Proviso within the same Indentures that if the said Holbeame at a certaine day should pay to the said John Glasse a hundred pounds that then the Lease should cease and then of that the Conusees should stand seised to the use of the said John for his naturall life and after the said Holbeame disseised the said Margeret Glasse the Lessee and made a Feoffment to the use of himselfe and one Alice with whom he intended to marry and to the Heire of their two bodyes begotten the remainder to the right Heires of the Feoffor and after the sayd Feoffor and Alice intermarried and after the said Holbeam tendred a hundred pound to the sayd John Glasse the Lessee for years and after the sayd John Glasse assigned over his Tearme and after the sayd Holbeam by Deed indented and inrolled bargained and sold the said Land to the said John Glasse and his Heir and after Iohn Glasse dyed and the Inheritance discended to the said Margeret Glasse Lessee for life the Conusor dies his Wife enters and lets to the Plaintiff the Defendant enters upon him and the Plaintiff re-enters and brings Trespass against the Defendant which justifies as servant to the Assignees of the Tearm and if upon all the matter c. And it was argued by Nicholls Serjeant for the Plaintiff and he moved three points in the case First if by this feoffment upon such condition as this is had been Extinct at the Common Law or remaines to the Feoffor notwithstanding the feoffment for if he have interest in the Land then it is extinct by the Livery for it is given of the Feoffor and past out of him and yet the Feoffee cannot have and for that it is extinct but if it were but Authority as in 15 H. 7. Authority to sell the land of the Devisor then the Authority remaines and is not extinct by the Feoffment of the land so power of Revocation to a stranger which is but authority is not extinct by a feofment Albaines case Coke 112. a. But if it be right in Interest then it is extinct by the feofment as power of revocation to the Party himself resolved to the point in Albains case so of Title to a Writ of Deceit 38 Ed. 3. So of a title to be Tenant by the Curtesie 9 H 7. 1. But by 42 Edw. 3. by a Feoffment made by a Parson of Land of his Rectory the Tythes of that Land are not extinct but remaines notwithstanding the Feoffment for that it was collaterall to the title of the Land as the Cases of Authority are which were put before then if this power to alter a Lease by payment of a hundred pound be not any right nor Interest but a collaterall power and the authority not extinct by the Feoffment but remaines but admitting that it is in nature of an ordinary Condition and that before the Statute it should be extinct by the Feoffment for that it is the gift of the Feoffor and yet it is not transferable to the Feoffee If now by the Statute of 32 H. 8. which inables Grantees of reversions to take advantage of Conditions if the condition be not transferred to the Feoffees and so over to he to whose use that then by consequence this remaines to the Feoffor which was the he to whose use and then the tender of the money after well may alter the Lease it seems that so for before the Statute if a Lease for yeares had been made upon condition to cease and after the Lessor enters upon the Lessee and makes a Feoffment and the Lessee re-enter and breakes the condition the Feoffee shall take advantage of that condition being by way of ceasing of an Estate so after the Statute the Feoffee of the Lessor shall take advantage of the condition of Re-entry and of every other condition annexed to the reversion as well as of one condition to cease before the Statute and as well that every Grantee shall doe since the Statute for though that he comes in by Feoffment which is wrong to the Lessee yet after the re-entry the Lessee is in nature of a Grantee And he cyted the Case of Clyfford Error 7. Ed. 6. to be that Lessor entred upon his Lessee and made a Feoffment if the Lessee re-enter the Rent and the Condition are revived againe and the Feoffee shall have both see Cliffords Error 7. Ed. 6. Dyer the last case and 1. M. Dyer 96. 43. but there is not any such matter and for that it seemes that he hath another report of this case of Cliffords Error or otherwise he meant some other case and not Cliffords Error so is our case the condition being inherent to the reversion shall passe with the reversion be that by grant or feoffment and when the reversion is revived by the entry of the Lessee the condition shall be revived also and it is the more strong insomuch that the Condition is that upon the payment of the money the Lease for years shall cease and not that the Lessor shall re-enter that such Feoffee shall take advantage of a condition by way of ceasing of that at the Common Law 2. point and for the second point he would not argue against that that he took to be cleer and for that he conceived the Law to be against his Clyent in this point though that after the Disseisin and Feoffment the free-hold could not accrue
and fees c. And further granted the Herbage and Paunage and have not found that this was granted by the same Letters Patents and then if this be not granted by the same Letters Patents then there is not any grant of this to the Earle of Rutland because there is no receitall of the Patent by which the Herbage and Paunage was granted to Markham The fourth errour was that they have erred in point of Law and to that the point is but this the King grants the Herbage and Paunage of a Park to one for life and after reciting that grant and that the Patentee is alive grants that to another and doth not say when that shall begin and it seems to them that the Argument for the Plaintiffes in the Writ of errour that this was a voyd grant and so the Judgment erronious but I have not the Report of the Arguments of the Conncellors at the Barr but only of the Judges which moved two other errours in the case not moved by the councell at the Barr and Crooke Justice rehearsed the case as before And to the first errour he conceived that this is no errour and that for two reasons First He tooke a difference betweene a thing which abates the Writ by Plea as if a man brings an Assise against another and mesne between verdict and Judgment the Plaintiff dies this matter shall abate the Writ without Plea and for that if Judgment be given upon such verdict the Judgment is erronious but in our case an entry doth not abate the Writ without pleading that and now as this case is this cannot be pleaded being between Verdict and Judgment and for that it shall not be assigned for Errour see 19 Assise 8 Where this difference is taken and agreed Secondly Admit that this entry might have abated the Writ in Facto without Plea yet there is no such entry alledged which might abate the Writ in Facto without Plea for the entry is alledged that the Earl of Rutland entred to hunt and kild a Buck and took a shoulder of that for his fee and it seems that this is no such entry that shall abate the writ for he hath now entred to another purpose to hunt the which he could not do but the entry ought to have been alledged that he entred to keep for in every entry the intent of the Entry is to be regarded and to this purpose he cited the case of Assise of Freshforce Com. 92. and 93. Where entring into the Seller hanging the Assise of that to see the Antiquity of the House there was no Entry to abate the Writ and the case of 26 Assise 42. where the Disseisee hanging the Assise comes and sets his foot upon the Land but takes no profits and adjudged that he should recover notwithstanding so in this case the intent is not shewed that is that he entred to keep possession but to hunt nor was it such entry which should abate the writ and to that which is sayd that he kild a Buck and took the shoulder of that for his fee this doth not help for if that had been a Buck which he might to have kild by vertue of his Office he ought to have shewed his warrant for otherwise a Parker cannot kill a Buck if not that it be for his fee and then he shall have the Buck and not a shoulder only also it is alledged that he took a shoulder and doth not say the best shoulder or the right shoulder and this ought to be shewed in certain And so for he first Errour he couceived that this is no cause to reverse the Judgment and to the challenge he sayd that he would speake to that at the last and for that he now spake to the errours supposed in the grant And first to Markhams Grant where the Jury found the Queen Eliz. granted to him the keeping of the Park and by the same Letters Patents grant the fees and Wages and further granted by her Letters Patents and doth not say Easdem the Herbage and Paunage it seems to him that this is very well for two reasons First insomuch that there is a copulative which is this word Et and also a Relative which is this word Vlterius and this word conjoynes the matter precedent with the subsequent and the word Vlterius hath necessary relation to the same Letters Patents and so Ex precedentibus subsequentibus the Iury hath well found the matter Secondly these words are supplied in the second Patent for there the Jury have found that the Queene hath granted that to Marham by the same Letters Patents and so for these two reasons he concluded that this is no Error to reverse the Judgement And to the Patent made to the Earle of Rutland it seemes to him also that this is very good and all that he said in effect was that in construction of the Patents of the King such exposition is to be made that if any reasonable meaning may be conceived they shall not be defeated but shall stand good And so he said in our case that it is necessarily intended that this was also to begin after the Estate of Markham determined and for that good And he said that a man ought not to make a curious and captious interpretation of the Kings Patents for Talis Interpretatio injure Reprobatur And to the challenge that seemed unto him a principall challenge and this not being allowed where it ought to be allowed this is an error as it is said 8. of Assises 23. and for this error it seemes to him that the Judgement shall be reversed and to that he said he relied much upon the book of 11 H. 4. 25. which takes a difference between Debt and Trespasse for battery for the booke saith that a man may demand his Debt without giving occasion of any malice But Battery is an evill Action and there the book is resolved that it shall be a principall challenge and so he saith in Trespasse this being with force and Armes that c. And in 8. H. 5. in a Assise the Tenant challenges the array because he had an Action of Trespasse hanging against the Sheriff And there the array was affirmed because it appeares that the Defendant had brought this Action by Covin against the Sheriff which case proves as he said that if there be not any Covin this is a principall challenge and 38 H. 6. 7. accordingly and the case 28. Assise 11. where the Defendant in Assise challenged a Juror because he had an Action of Trespasse hanging against him and was outed by award and in 21. Ed. 4. 12. it is said where there is an apparent favour or apparent displeasure there shall be principall challenge and certainly though the Law may intend that a man may lawfully demand his right and without malice yet it appeares that the nature of men is perverse and froward and few Actions are begun without apparent displeasure especially
cited the book of 24 Ed. 3. Where a Tales was returned by the Sheriff of Middlesex and the party challenged the Jury because he sued the Sheriff for the death of his Servant and this was a principall challenge for in such case his life was in question the same Law in case of Maintenance and Champerty for the Law hath inflicted great punishment upon such Offences so these matters tend to utter subversion of his Estate and life but otherwise in Actions of Trespasse and so he concluded no principall challenge To the abatement of the Writ it seemes no Error First he conceived that there is no entry and for the reason that Crooke had given before that is because he entred to hunt and not to keep possession and hath not shewed any Warrant to kill the Buck and he cited the book of the 5. of Ed. 4. fol. 60. Where Babington brought an Assise of the house of the Fleete and hanging the Assise Babington came to the Jury within the house when they had the View with his Councell to shew Evidence for the view and this was not any entry to abate the Writ and so the entry to hunt is an entry for another purpose then an entry to keep possession not being by warrant as it is not found and for that no entry to abate the Writ But admitting that this had been an entry to abate the Writ yet being a thing which doth not abate the Writ without Plea and that cannot be pleaded as the case is he conceived was no Error but if it had been a thing which abated the Writ in Facto without Plea then to give Judgement upon a Writ abated is Error As if the party die hanging the Writ or if a woman sole brings an Assise and takes a Husband hanging the Assise or if the Plaintiff in a Assise be made Judge of Assise as the 15. of Assise in all these cases the Writ is abated in Facto without Plea But entry shall not abate the Writ without Plea and so it seemes to him no error But he conceived that there were two other errors for which he reversed the Judgement The first was that this Assise was de Libero Tenemento in Clepson and the plaint was of the keeping of the Park of Clepsom and of the Herbage and Paunage of the Parke aforesaid called Clepsom and made his Title for Herbage and Paunage of the Park of Clepsom and so he conceived that there is variance between the Plaint and the Title and Park of Clepsom and Clepsom cannot be intended one without speciall averment and for that he conceived it to be errour And to that he cited the case of twelve Assises two Where in attaint the first originall was of the Mannor of Austy and the Attaint was of the Mannor of Auesty and yet for that that the Attaint is founded upon the Record and not upon the Originall and the Record was of the Mannor of Auesty this was very good but the Booke saith that this variance between the Originall and the Record was sufficient to reverse the Record for errour and the case in 42 of Ed. 3. Where Scire facias was brought of Tenements in Eastgrave and the Fine was of Tenements in Deepgrave and for the variance the Writ abated and in the case of 5 Coke 46. Formedon was brought of the Mannor of Isfeild and the Tenant pleads in barr a recovery of the Mannor of Iffeild and this shall not be amended unlesse it appear that this is a misprision of the Clark or by other averment he cited also the case of 3 H. 4. 8. Scire facias upon garnishment in a Writ of Detinue of writings the Originall name John Scripstead and the Scire facias was made Iohn Shiplow and therefore agreed that he shall sue a new Scire facias so he said in the Principal case the Plaint being of Herbage and Paunage of Clepson Parke aad the title being at Clepsom Parke these shall not be intended to be the same Parke without averment and there in no averment in our case and for that such variance is such errour that shall reverse the Judgment The second errour for which he reversed the Judgment was that which was moved by Justice Crook that the Jury have not found any seisin of the Paunage for it seemed to him that a Horse could not take Seisin of paunage and for that he defined paunage and he sayd that Linwood title-Tithes saith the Paunagium est pastus Porcorum as of Nuts and Akornes of trees in the wood and Crompton saith that this is Pastus Porcorum and he saith that Paunagium is either used for Paunage or the Paunage it self and the Statute of Charta de Foresta saith that every Freeman may drive his Hoggs into our royall Wood and shall have there Paunage but he doth not say Horses or other Beasts but he conceived that if the Earle of Rutland had right in the Park that this had been sufficient seisin of Herbage and Paunage also for Hoggs will feed upon grass as well as upon Akornes and he cited the Book of 37 H. 6. saith that Seisin to maintain an Assise ought not to be of a contrary nature to the thing of which seisin is intended to be given but in one case only and that is where the Sheriff gives seisin of a Rent by a Twig or by a Clod of Earth and this is in case of necessity for the Sheriff cannot take the Money out of the purse of the Tenant of the Land and deliver seisin of that and for that he cited the case in 45 Ed. 3. Where Commoner comes to the Land where he ought to have Common and enters into the Land and the Lord of the Waste or the Grantor of the Common outs him he cannot have an Assise of his Common upon this outing for this was not any seisin of the Common so it is in this case the Horses cannot take Seisin of the Paunage and so there is no seisin or disseisin found by the Jury and then no Assise and this being after Judgment no abridgment may be of the Plaint and so for these last reasons he reversed the Judgment And at another day the case was rehearsed again and argued by Yelverton and Fenner Justices but I did not hear their Arguments insomuch that they spake so low but their opinions were declared by the cheife Justice and Yelverton affirmed the Judgment in all First he held that this entry shall not abate the writ Secondly admit that it is abated yet being between Verdict and Judgment shall not be assigned for errour Thirdly he held that no principall challenge Fourthly he held both the grants good Fifthly that Clepsam and Clipsam are all one and not such variance that shall make Errour And lastly that a Horse may well take Seisin of Paunage and Fenner agreed in all but he held that this was a principall challenge and not being allowed this
was Error and for this cause and another exception to the Record which was not much materiall he reversed the Judgment And at another day Flemming cheife Justice rehearsed the case and this argued and to the first matter he conceived First That it is no such entry that abates the Writ Secondly Admitting that it were yet this cannot be assigned for Errour And to the first matter he took this ground That every entry which may abate a writ ought to be in the thing demanded and for that he sayd if a man brings an Assise of Rent or common and hanging this Assise he enters into the Land this is not any Entry which will abate the Writ and he sayd that the Park and the keeping of the Park are two distinct things and for that the entry into one that is the Park will not abate the Writ for the keeping of that and to that which is sayd that he took a Fee that is a shoulder of a Buck that doth not make any matter for two reasons First he hath not shewed a Warrant he had to kill the Buck. Secondly the taking of the fee is no entring into the Office but the excercising of that but admit that this were an entry or the thing it self yet he sayd every entry into the thing shall not abate the Writ and to that he sayd that if this entry of the Earl of Rutland to hunt was no such entry that shall abate the Writ for his office was not to hunt and for that his entry being to another purpose it shall not be sayd an entry to abate the Writ and for that he cited a case which hath been cited as he sayd by Justice Yelverton that if a man have Common in the Land of J. S. between the Annunciation of our Lady and Michaelmas and the Commoner brought an Assise of his Common and at Christmas put in his Beasts and this shall not be any entry to abate his Writ for it cannot be intended for the same Common which case is agreed to be good Law and he cited the case put by Brooke in Assise of Freshforce before remembred Com. 93. Where hanging a Formedon the Tenant pleads in abatement of the Writ that the Demandant hath entred after the last continuance and upon the evidence it appears that many were cutting wood upon the Land and the Demandant comes into the Land to them and warnes them upon the perill that might ensue to them that they should do no more then they could do by Law and this was found no entry Also the case of 26. Assise before cited by Justice Crooke and he sayd that the Statute of Charta de Foresta chapter 11. willeth that every Arch-Bishop Bishop Earl or Baron comming to the King by his command and passing by his Forrest c. Was licensed to take one Beast or two by the sight of the Keeper c. Put case then that the King had sent for the Earl of Rutland and he had passed through this Park and had killed a Buck had this beene an entry to abate this writ Quasi diceret non for this was entry to another purpose so he sayd in the principall case the entry to hunt and so no entry to abate the Writ but admitting that this had been an entry which would abate the writ then let us see if this entry hath so abated the writ being Mesne between the Verdict and the Judgment it cannot be assigned for errour and to that he agreed the diversity before taken by Crooke and Williams where the writ is abated by Plea and without plea and he cited a Judgment in the Kings Bench between Jackson and Parker 2 Eliz. where in Ejectione firme the Plaintiff entred Mesne between Verdict and Judgment and this was assigned for Errour in the Exchequer Chamber and the Judgment notwithstanding affirmed and he sayd that if Memorandum had been made of it or if a Jury had found it and it had been prayed that that might be Recorded yet this had not been materiall and that that be not assigned for Errour And to the matter moved by my Brother Williams that there should be a variance between the plaint and the Title he conceived that there is no such variance that shall make the Judgment errronious and to that he examined the matter First that the Assise was of a Free-hold in Clepsom and his title is made of the parke of Clipson that that cannot be otherwise intended but that of necessity it ought to be the same park For first there is but one park by all the Record Secondly the plaint saith De parco predicto which hath reference to Clepsom park and there is but one park put in view by all the record Fourthly It shall be so taken according to the common speaking Fiftly when he hath made his plaint of the custody of the park of Clepsom and of the Herbage and paunage of the park aforesaid called Clepsom these words called Clepsom are but Idle and Trifles and that which is but Surplusage shall not annoy Also he said that J. and E. are letters which do not much differ in pronunciation and they are all one as I and he shall be pronounced as hi and he cited the Book of 4 H. 6. 26. Where in Debt variance was taken between the writ and the Obligation that is Quatuordecem pro Quatuordecim and this variance was not materiall but that the writ was awarded good and so he conceived that in this case the variance of Clepsom and Clipsom shall not be such a materiall variance that shall make the Judgment erronious and to the title First to Markhams grant that is where the Jury have found Quod ulterius concessit c. And doth not say Per easdem he held that good without scruple and this for the necessary relation that this had to any thing before granted for he sayd that this should be a strange and marvelous patent which begun in such a manner that is Et ulterius Rex concedit c. And there was not any thing granted before And for that he cited the case of 11 Ed. 4. 2. where Debt was brought upon an Indenture against the Abbot of Westminster and the Indenture was between the Abbot of the Monastry of the blessed Mary of Westminster and rehearsed divers Covenants for performance of which Covenants the Abbot of Westminster bound himself in twenty pound and doth not say that the aforesayd Abbot and yet good for it shall be intended the same Abbot for he is party to the Deed and the case of 10 H. 7. 12. Where in Assise of Common the plaintiff makes his plaint of Common appurtenant to his Free-hold in D. and shews for Title that he was seised of a Messuage and of a Carve of Land in D. to which the Common is appurtenant and that he and his Ancestors and all those whose Estates c. have used Common of pasture with ten Beasts and exception
taken to the title because he saith that he was seised and not saith that he is and yet good by this word Fuit for that shall be intended that he continues seised so he sayd that things which are necessarily to be intended though they be not so particularly expressed yet shall be good by Implication and so he concluded that this is no Error for which the Judgment shall be reversed And to the challenge he conceived that this is not any principall challenge and to that he put this difference that if a man brings an Assise of certain Land and hath an Action of Trespass hanging against the Sheriff for entring into the same Land there shall be a principall challenge to the Array but if it be for entry into other Land not in demand otherwise it is and what is principall challenge and what not he cyted the Bookes of 3 Ed. 4. 12. 6 Ed. 4. 1. 21 Ed. 4. 67. 14 H. 7. 1. 21. Ed. 4. 10. And to the point in question he cyted the Bookes before remembred by Crooke and Williams and no others and for that I omit to recite them and he agreed also that in actions which concern life Honesty Mayme Battery to say that he hath such action hanging against the Sheriff shall be a principall challenge but Trespass for entring into Land not for in Trespass there is no Land to be recovered also no damages but to the value of the Trespass And in Debt a man shall recover more then in Trespasse And yet it is agreed that this is no principall Challenge to say that he hath an Action of Debt hanging against the Sheriff as the Book of 11 H. 4. is which hath been remembred and for this I conceive it no principall challenge And to the seisin of the Paunages if a Horse may take seisin of that it seemes that yea for I conceive that the taking of seisin doth not consist in the eating or not eating of that of which the seisin is to be taken and for that he cited that if a man grant to me the Herbage and Paunage of his Parke and I come into the Parke and take the Grasse and Herbs into my hands or if I gather Akornes this is sufficient seisin for me to have Assise though that I do not eate the Grasse nor the Akornes and for that let us put the case that a man hath Herbage granted to him and he puts in his Beasts and before that they eate the grasse they are driven out none will deny but that that shall be good seisin for so is the Book of the 22. Assise 84. Where a man hath Common granted to him and he takes the Beasts of a stranger and puts them in and them forthwith drive out that shall be a good seisin of the Common to have Assise so that he said that the eating is not to purpose also he said Horses will eate Akornes as well as Cowes And he saith that in the Country where he inhabits being a Wood-land Country they will not suffer the Beasts to go into the Woods at a certaine time of the yeare and this is when Crabs are ripe for then their Beasts will eate Crabs and set their teethes an edge and then not being able to chew Akornes do swallow them whole and then those Ackornes being swallowed whole will grow in the Mawe of the Beast and so kill them And he saith that though that Horses be not so proper Beasts to take seisin of Paunage as Porkes are yet being put in for the same purpose if they are disturbed that shall be Seisin and Disseisin and it seemes to him that when things are granted to one that it shall not be strange to say that seisin of one shall be seisin of both and for that if a man grants all his arrable Land all his Meadow and all his Wood Livery and Seisin in one suffices for all but I conceive that this is in respect of the soyle which passeth and so are all of one self same nature and so he conceives that this is sufficient Seisin and Disseisin found to have Assise And lastly to the Title of the Earle of Rutland he said that this was good and to the Grants of the King he said two things are necessary in all Grants of the King that is a Recitall and a certainty and when a recitall shall be necessary and when not and he said that in all cases when a common person makes a Lease for years or for life and the reversion is conveied to the King if the King will make Estate to another he shall not recite this Lease for this not being of Record the King cannot take notice of it and so he shall not recite But in all cases when the King makes a Lease for life or for years and after will make a Grant to another he ought to recite the first Estate because that is of Record And Justice Yelverton as I heard of those which were next unto him put this case That if the King grants a Lease for yeares rendring Rent and after the King reciting the Lease grants that to another for years or grants the reversion to another and doth not recite the Rent which was reserved upon the first Lease that this second Grant shall be void for the not recitall And the cheife Justice cited one Phillpotts Case to be adjudged in the 2. of Eliz. That where the King made a Lease for one and twenty yeares and after reciting the said Lease grants the reversion to another and before that the second Letters Patents were sealed the first Lessee surrendred And said that the second Grant was adjudged void for the King intended to passe a reversion and now he shall have a Possession and all that which is said to be in case of Land Now let us see how it shall be in case of office and for that if a common person hath â—n office in Fee and grants that for life and after grants the Fee simple to the King and the King will grant that to another there he ought to recite the common persons Grant as well as if it had been his one Grant for there is not properly a reversion of an office as the Book cited by my Brother Williams sayd Secondly if the office be recited in Esse and be not in Esse the Grant is void as Blanyes Case is in the Lord Dyer 3 Eliz. 197. 47. And this sufficeth for recitalls Then for certainty of the Kings Grant it is said in the 2. R. 3. it is said that the Grants of the King ought to be made in certaine and for that where the King there Grants to Sir John Spencer that he shall not be Sheriff this was void for the incertainty of the place But if the Grant had been of such a County or such a County the Grant should be good Also there ought to be certainty of Estates as it is in 18. H. 8. Where the King gives Lands to
one and his Heires Males this is void for uncertainty of the Estate then it is so averred in our case if there be not sufficient recitall and certainty and to the recitall that is good without question for she recites that she hath granted that to Markham for ifâ— and Markham is yet alive and so the recitall good Then for the certainty he said that the rule is that if the certainty be declared by expresse words or if the King may reduce that to a certainty the Grant of the King shall not be defeated and for that he cited the case of Information of Mines Comment But if the King grant to me all Mines in the Land of J. S. There I shall have all Mines Royall for the Law saith the King cannot have other Mynes in the Soil of a Subject but Mines Royall and so there the Law supplies the Grant so that they be Mines Royall though not expressed in the Grant in certaine so he said in the principall case that the Queen hath expresly recited that she hath granted the Herbage and Paunage for life to Markham and that Markham was yet alive and after grants that to the Earle of Rutland and doth not say when that shall begin the Law saith that shall begin after the death of Markham for before that it cannot begin But if the Queen had exprest in the Letters Patents that this shall begin forthwith then this had been void as the Lord Gaudy said in Altonwoods Case 1 Coke fol. 51. And so he concluded the Title of the Earle of Rutland good So he affirmed the Judgement in all But Williams was very peremtory for the conceit of Paunage that it was not good Seisin But after Crooke Justice recanted his opinion of that and insomuch that there were three which concluded for the reversing of the Judgement And yet for every point there were three against two It was doubted if this Judgement should be reversed or not And they said that they would advise with the rest of the Judges and after that it was moved againe by Serjeant Nicholls in the next Trinity Tearme and Yelverton and the cheife Justices would have the Judgement affirmed but Williams Fenner and Crooke to be reversed and note well this President where Judgement was reversed and yet for every point there were three Contra two or foure Contra one see the first Judgement in the Common Bench Michaelmasse 6. Jacobi afterwards Termino Pasche 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Kings Bench. Trinity Colledge Case THE Case was this King Henry the eight Incorporated the Schollers of Trinity Colledge in Cambridge by the name of Masters Fellowes and Schollers Collegij Sanctae et Individuae Trinitatis in the Town and University of Cambridge and in the 6. Ed. 6. They made a Lease by the name of Master and Fellowes of Trinity Colledge in Cambridge leaving out the University And if this Lease were good or not was the question And Yelverton argued that this was not a good Lease and that for the misnaming of the Corporation And to that he said to every Corporation two things were incident That is name and place and if any of those fayl and be not certainly recited in a Lease the Lease shall not be good And he conceived that this Corporation is founded upon two places and that one of them That is the University is left out and for that cause the Lease is nothing worth for if a Corporation hath two names one of them cannot be omitted as it is in the first of Mary Dyer 96 97. and 4. Mary 140. and 150. 11. Eliz. Dyer 278. 35. H. 6. 5. and 6. No more then when it consists of two places one of them may be left out And for that if they had been incorporated by the name of Master and Fellowes of Trinity Colledge in Norfolke and Suffolke in a Lease they could not leave out Norfolke or Suffolke but both the places ought to be incerted And by him in the principall case if the Lease had been made by the name of the Master and Fellowes of Trinity Colledge in the Town and leave out the University of Cambridge without question this shall be void so here this being impliedly omitted shall be as strong as if it had been by expresse words excluded so in the making of every Corporation the intent of the Founder is to be considered and for that it seemes the intent of the King in placing that in both places was first to erect a Colledge and that to grace the Town and then he hath placed them in the University and this was for the instruction in good Arts and Learning and so for these benefits they have of both these places nor one nor the other may be left out And if the King had been incorporated by the name of Master and Fellowes of Trinity Colledge in Cambridge and in the Market place of Cambridge There though that the Market place was parcell of the Town of Cambridge yet it seemes to him that this cannot be left out for peradventure the Founder hath a speciall reason to place that there that is to have all things necessary for them more neer unto them Also where any stranger demands any possession of them in Precipe Quod Reddat or such like he ought to ensue them certainly and precisely Then a Fortiore where they depart with their possessions by their own Act there they shall not be unknowing of their one names And Walter of the inner Temple argued to the contrary and he conceived that the Lease is good and first he argued the ground which hath been taken of the other part that is that every corporation ought to be in a certain place and he conceived that there is a certaine place in this place that is the Town of Cambridge And to that that is said that this Corporation is founded upon two places he denied that all together for no more then one materiall Body may be but in one place Simul and Semel no more may it be in a Body Corporate which hath allwaies his resemblance to a Body naturall and for that he denied the case which hath been put of the other part of Norfolk and Suffolk And he cyted the opinion of the Lord Popham in Buttons Case in which the Lord North was Interested that a Corporation cannot be limited to a County as Probos Homines of such a County or Trinity Colledge in such a County but it ought to be restrained to some certaine place or one County or a Town But admit that the Corporation may be founded upon two places yet he faith that a University is not Locall but Personall And to this purpose he cyted two Records one in 48 H. 3. Which was this King H. 3. Intending to keep a Parliament at Oxford and knowing that the place was not sufficient to contain all those which should be there assembled and the Schollers together sent his Writ which was directed to the
Lessee for years or life surrender before the performance of the condition the Fee doth never increase as it is 14. H. 8. 20. and the Lord Chandois Case 6 Coke But the Estate tayl remaines after the condition performed and then hath the Fee dependant upon the Estate tayl and that there is a necessity that there shall be an office as it was in Nicholls Case in the Com because of the right and that after the condition performed then the Fee shall vest Ab Initio and this corporates together partly by the Letters Patents and partly by the performance of the condition and so it is in Butler and Bakers case that it is not a Grant in futuro but one immediate Grant to take effect In futuro see 2. H. 7. for the execution of Chantrey and Grendons Case in the Com. and 2. H. 7. If the King grant Land to J. S. for life the remainder to the right Heires of J. R. which is in life the remainder is good as well as in case of a common person and so he seemed that Judgement shall be given for the Plaintiff Walmesley Justice agreed that it shall be remainder and not reversion as if Lands begin to the Husband and the Wife and to the Heires of the Body of the Husband the Husband dies this is a remainder in the Heires Males and not a reversion for it cannot grow higher and it was not in the King as one distinct Estate before the Grant and Formedon in remainder lieth for it and though it be misrecited yet it shall be good and ayded by the Statute of Misrecitalls and grant of a thousand is suffered to convey the reversion of a thousand by the common Law and if the recitall were that it was a reversion depending upon the Estate tayl it was good without question and the King may grant five hundred reversions if he will and that the last Damus is ex certa scientia et mêre motu nostris Damus et concedimus that if the Patentee pay twenty shillings Tunc sciatis quod nos de ampliori gracia ea certa scientia et mero motu nostris concedimus c. and that the word Volumus will amount to a Covenant or a Release as 32. H. 6. The King by his Patent by these words Nolent that he shall be impleaded and this amounts to a release and so words which intends expresly words of Covenant may be pleaded as a Grant in case of the King as it is 25 Ed. 4 So is a common person license another to occupy his Land this amounts to a Lease of Land if the time be expressed so if a man grants to another that he shall have and injoy his Land to him and his Heires that by that Fee passeth And if the King grant reversion to begin at Michaelmasse the Grant is void for that it is to begin totally at Michaelmasse and doth not looke back to any precedent thing But if it relate to any precedent Act then that shall be good by relation and shall passe ab Initio see Com. Walsinghams Case 553. b. that in such case the performance of the condition divests the Estate out of the King and there is no difference in this case betwixt the King and a common person and agreed in the case of Littleton Where a man makes a Lease for yeares upon condition to have Fee that the Fee shall not passe till the condition be performed and with this agrees 2. R. 2. But if a man makes a Charter of Feoffment upon condition that if the Feoffee injoy the Land peaceably for fifteen years that the Feoffment shall be void In this case the Fee-simple determineth by the performance of the Condition and in this case the Fee passeth ab Initio by the Livery as in 10. Assise 18. Assise 1. 44. Assise 49 Assise And he agreed that the words Habeat et Teneat the Reversion passes and this is good Fee-simple and this refers to the first Damus et Concedimus and so concluded that he seemed that Judgement shall be given for the Plaintiff Coke cheife Justice accordingly and he conceived that there are two questions upon the substance of the Grant And to the first objection that hath been made that is that reversion was granted and increase of an Estate cannot be of a reversion and in all these cases which have been put they are of an Estate in possession and so is the case of Littleton also and he agreed that it shall not be good if it be not good ab Initio that though there be not other words then Reversionem predictam That it shall be good And to the second point upon the former He conceived that the Grant is but a Grant and that the condition is but precedent Limitation when the Estate of Fee-simple shall begin and so it is said by Montague in Colthurst and Brinskins Case in the Com. And further he saith that there are four things necessary for increasing an Estate First that it ought to be an Estate upon which the increasing Estate may increase Secondly the particular Estate ought to continue for otherwise it is grant of a reversion in Futuro Thirdly That the Estate which is to increase ought to vest by the performance of the Condition for if there be disturbance that it cannot then vest then it can never vest Foutthly that both the Estates as well the particular Estate as the Estate which is to increase ought to have their beginning by one self same Deed or by diverse Deeds delivered at one self same time And to the first and to prove that he cyted 44 Ed. 3. Attaint 22. Lessee for yeares upon condition to have Fee granes his Estate the Fee doth not increase upon the performance of the condition for then it shall passe as a Reversion and so the particular Tenant surrenders his Estate as it is sayd 14. H. 8. For if the Privity be destroyed the Fee will never increase but there is no such â—ycity but that if the substance of the Estate remains though it doth not remain in such form as it was at the first Reversion the Estate may well increase as if Lands be given to the Husband and wife and to the Heirs of the Husband upon the Body of the Wife to be begotten the Wife dies and the Husband is Tenant after possibility of Issue extinct yet he may well perform the condition for the Estate remaines in substance and with this agrees 20 H. 6. Ayd and so it is if a Lease be made to two for years upon condition to have fee one dies the other may perform the Condition and shall have Fee-simple as it is agreed by 12. Assise 5. the reason is that the privity remaines and the Estate also in substance Thirdly As to that also it seems that it ought to vest upon the performance of the condition which is the time limited for the beginning of the Estate and if it do not vest
then it shall never vest and if it do not vest without Office in this case it shal never vest at all but it is for the Honour of the King that his grant shall have his effect and 49 Ed. 3. 16. Isabell Goodcheaps case she devised her Lands to her Executors to be sold and dyes without Heir the King hath that by Escheat yet the Executors may sell it and for that divest the Estate out of the King and so was the Lord Lâ—vells Case and the reason is for the necessity for the Prerogative of the King shall do no wrong and there need no continuance of the Estate of the part of the Lessor but of the part of the Lessee and for that if the Feoffor make a Feoffment or grant his Estate this shall not make prejudice or alteration of the Estate and for that if the King refuse to receive the Money yet if it be tendered the Fee-simple shall vest in the Patentee and the simple upon that shall shall increase see 31 Ed. 1. Feoffments and Deeds B. 32. Quid Iuris Clamat be And to the fourth it seems also that both the Estates ought to be created and granted by one self same Deed or by divers delivered at one time Quia quae in continenti fiunt pro uno habeantur reputentur as if a man makes a Lease for years upon Condition to have in tayl upon condition to have in Fee this second condition is void for it ought to be all one Crant and cannot be intire upon the privity of the first grant and it is not material though that the first Estate be drowned upon the performance of the condition as if the King makes a Lease for life the Remainder in tayl upon condition that if the Tenant for life pay twenty shillings that he shall have Fee this shall be a good Grant and the Fee well vested by the performance of the condition though that the particular Estate for life shall not be drowned And to the second point that is that the Grant of the King shall not be good for that that it is by the words Reversion aforesaid he agreed that if the King makes a Grant to one intent that shall not enure to another intent But this shall enure to the intent for which it is made Vt res magis vale et quam periat and it is for the dishonor of the King to make an unconscionable Grant And to the Objection which is made that the King is not understanding of Law to that he answered that the King is Caput Legis and for that shall not be intended to be ignorant of it and for that if a grant may have two intendments one to make the Grant good the other to make the Grant voyd it shall be intended and expounded in the better sense that is to make the Grant Good and not to make the Grant voyd for this was Iniquae expositio and also he sayd that the Grant shall be good for the first word Concedo though it had not been subsequent also as if a man grant a Rent charge and if it be behinde that the Grantee may distrain for the first Grant and the Grant is not of a Reversion In futuro but grant that if the condition be performed that then the Fee doth pass In futuro and it seemed to him that it was a good devise to prevent that the Estate tayl should not be discontinued by Fine nor otherwise untill the Condition were performed and so of recovery also for if the King grant an Estate tayl and after grants the Reversion in tayl this second intayl is within the intent of the Statute and when the Issue of the first Tenant in tayl shall not be barred the Estate of the Tenant in tayl in Remainder shall not be barred see the Lord Barkleys case in the Com. fol and 7 Ed. 4. and as to the pleading he sayd that when the Issue is offered which depends upon matter in Law there is no necessity to take travers upon the matter in Law for it doth not belong to lay men to decide the matter in Law and for that he concludes that the Grant in substance is good and in form exquesite and that the Issue in tayl in Reversion shall not be barred for Quod non in principio valet non valebit in accessario and that Judgment ought to be for the Plaintiff which was done accordingly IN Ejectione firme against Gallop after Verdict and Judgment for the Plaintiff a Writ of Habere facias Possessionem was awarded and executed and returned and fyled and after the same Defendant re-entred and outed the Plaintiff and Attachment was awarded and it seems that if the Writ had not been returned that then a new Writ shall be awarded and the Attachment was awarded upon Affidavit IN Action upon the case against Trotman the words were Thou sayest thou art an Attorney but I think thou art no Attorney but an Attorneys Clark in some Office but if thou be an Attorney I will have thee pickt over the Barr the next Tearme and thy Eares nailed to the Pillory and it seems that these words are not Actionable IN waging of Law of Summons in Dower In petit Cape there ought to be two summons only and if it be Grand Cape then there ought to be two Summoners and two Veiwers and Summons upon the Land is sufficient to give notice of the Demandant of the thing demanded and the day in Court That in Waging Law the Lord Coke sayd that the Defendant himself ought to swear De fidelitate and elevâ—n others which are named in the Statute of Magna Charta chapter Testes fideles ought to swear De credulitate IF Tenant for life be the Remainder in tayl to another the Remainder in Fee to the Tenant for life and the Tenant for life releases to the Tenant in Tayl the Release is good to passe the Remainder in Fee to the Tenant in Tayl for to this purpose the Tenant in tayl hath sufficient possession upon which the Release may enure but it shall not be good to pass the Estate for life and 19 H. 6. and 9 H. 7. If Tenant in Tayl in Remainder Disseise Tenant for life he doth not gain Fee-simple by Fulthorp but if there be Grand-Father Father and Sonn and the Father makes a Feoffment the Grand-Father dies the Father dies the Sonn is barred so if the Sonn had levied a Fine being Tenant in tayl 33 and 39 H. 6. 43. a. 21 Ed. 4. Discontinuance Pasch 7 Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Warbrooke and Griffin BEtween Warbrooke and Griffin a Guest brought a Horse into an Inne in London to be kept the which stayed there so long till he had eaten out his Worth and then the Inn-Keeper caused the said Horse to be prysed and then sold him according to the custome of London and it seems well he might do it and that the Sale was
all their Study is practise and that if they have no practise of themselves then they attend upon others which practise and apply themselves to know the nature of Simples And to third objection that in London ought to be choyce men for the Statute appoints that they shall be examined by the Bishop and Deane and four others at least and for that there is a more strict course for them then in other places to that it is agreed But he said that in the University there is a more strict course then this for here he ought to be publickly approved by many after that he hath been examined and answered in the Schooles to diverse questions and allowed by the Congregation house And 35. H. 6. 55. Doctor is no addition but a degree quia gradatim et progressâ—one Doctrine provenit to that and that Doctor is teacher and that he was first taught by others as Scholers afterwards he is Master and Doctor dicetur a docendo quia docere permittitur and they are called Masters of their faculty and that the Originall of Doctor came of the Sinagogue of Jewes where there were Doctors of Law and it appeares that they had their ceremonies in time of H. 1. And when a man brings with him the Ensigne of Doctrine there is no reason that he should be examined againe for then if they will not allow of him he shall not be allowed though he be a learned and grave man and it was not the intent of the King to make a Monopoly of this practise And to the second point that he propounded it seemes that the Justification is not good which is Quia non comperuit upon Summons he was amerced and ordered that he shall be arrested and being arrested being examined if he would submit himself to the Colledge he answered that he was a Doctor and had practised and would practise within the sayd City as he conceived he might lawfully do and for that shewing of this case he was committed to prison and he conceived two things upon the Charter First That it doth not inhibit a Doctor to practise but punisheth him for ill using exercising and making and may imprison the Emperick and Imposter and so prayed Judgment for the Plaintiff and after in Hillary Tearm in the same year this case was argued by all the Justices of the Common Bench and at two severall dayes and the first day it was argued by Foster Daniell and Warburton Justices at whose Arguments I was not present but Foster argued against the Plaintiff and Daniell and Warburton with him and that the Action of false imprisonment was well maintainable And the second day the same case was argued again by Walmesley Justice and Coke cheife Justice and Walmesley argued as followeth that is that the Statute of 3. H. 8. was in the negative that no person within the City of London or seven Miles of that take upon him to exercise or occupy as Physitian or Chirurgion c. And he doth not know in any case where the words of the Statute are negative that they admit any Interpretation against that but one only and that is the Statute of Marlebridge chapter 4. Which provides that no Lord shall distrain in one County and the beasts distrayned drive into another County in which case though that the words are uegative yet if the Lord distrain in one County he may drive the Beasts to his Mannor in another County of which the Lands in which the distresse was taken were held but it is equity and reason in this case that the Statute should admit such exception for it is not of malice but for that that the Beasts may remain within his Fee but in the principall case there is not the like reason nor Equity And also the King H. 8. in his Letters Patents recites as followeth that is Cum Regij officij nostri munus arbitremur ditionis nostri hominum felicitati omni ratione consulere id autem vel imprimis fore si Improborum conatibus tempestive occurremus apprime necessarium duximus improborum quoque hominum qui medicinant magis avaritiae sue causa quam ullius bonae conscientiâ— fiducia profitebantur c. By which it appears that it is the Office of a King to survey his Subjects and he is as a Phisitian to cure their Maladies and to remove Leprosies amongst them and also to remove all fumes and smells which may offend or be prejudiciall to their health as it appears by the severall Writs in these severall cases provided and so if a man be not right in his Wits the King is to have the Protection and Government of him least he being infirme wast or consume his Lands or Goods and it is not sufficient for him that his Subjects live but that they should live happyly and discharges not his Office if his Subjects live a life but if they live and flourish and he hath care as well of their Bodyes as of their Lands and Goods for Health for the Body is as necessary as vertue to the minde and the King H. 8. to express his extraordinary care of his Subjects made the said Act in the third year of his Reigne which was the beginning of his Essence to that purpose and by the Common Law any Phisitian which was allowed by the University might practise and exercise the sayd faculty within any place within England without any dispensation examination or approbation of any but after the making of the sayd Act made in the third year of King H. 8. none may practise exercise or occupy as Phisitian or Surgion within theCity of London and seven miles of that if he be not first examined approved and admitted by the Bishop of London and the Dean of Paules for the time being calling to them foure Doctors of Phisick or Chirurgions c. And that no practiser may occupy or exercise the sayd faculty out of the sayd Precincts if he be not first examined approved and admitted by the Bishop of the Diocess or in his absence by his Vicar generall every of them calling unto him such expert persons in the said faculty as their discretions thinks convenient and the reason of this difference as he conceived was for that that in this City and the sayd Precincts the King and all his Councell and all the Judges and Sages of the Law and divers other men of quality and condition live and continue and also the place is more subject unto Infection and the Heir more pestiferous and for that there is more necessity that greater Care diligence and examination be made of those which practised here in London and the precincts aforesayd then of those which practise in other places of the Realm for in other places the People have better aire and use more exercise and are not so subject to Infection and for that there is no cause that such care should be used for them for they are not in such danger and
Secondly 〈◊〉 one fidei consonum Thirdly consentaneum rationi Fourthly Pro communi utillitate regis civium comodum aliorum ibidem confluentium But all the question was upon the remedy for it was agreed that the custome shall be good But it was doubted by Foster and Danyell that there was no good returne for it was but as recyted and it was not averred and positively said that there was such a custome and to prove that the case of 28 H. 6. was cited where in debt upon an Obligation the Defendant demands Oyer and upon the view saith that it appeares by the said Obligation that two others were joyntly bound with him not named Judgement of the Writ and 24. Ed. 4. Where it was pleaded as it appeares by the Letters Patents of one King and in 11. H. 4. in returne of a Sheriff But Coke answered and took a difference between returne upon a Writ of priviledge and upon which no Issue may be joyned nor demurrer and that it is but for an Informer of the Court and other pleads And for this it seemes to him that it is good as to that and he conceived that by the Grant of the King the custome is destroied for the King by his Grant cannot add nor diminish any thing of the custome no more then of Prescription and exceptance of Grant shall be extinguishment of one as well as of the other as it appeares by 8. H. 4 25. H. 7. 5. 38. H. 8. B. Prescription 7 R 2. But to this the Lord Coke gave no answer and for that it seemes they were no Grants but confirmation rather of customes and they further denied that the customes are confirmed by the Statute of 7. R. 2. for this is only for the confirmation of Magna Charta and of all former Statutes and of Charta de Foresta and the liliberties of the holy Church and there is not any mention of the customes of London but to this the Lord Coke answered that they ought to credit their returne and for that it seemes that it is a private Act and they ought to adjudge of that as it is made as 7. H. 6. 6. And if it be false the party greived may have an Action upon the case so it was agreed that the custome that no forrainer shall hold any shop nor sell in any shop by retayl and that they may make By-Lawes for the ordering of their ancient customes are good customes without any confirmation by Act of Parliament or Grant of the King or otherwise And if any thing happen De novo that they can apponere remedium with the restrictions aforesaid for the Lord Coke saith that London is Antiqua civitas and was of great fame and reckoning amongst the most ancient Cities for it was said by Anianus Marcellinus which wrote 1200. yeares past that London was then Opidum vetustum and Cornelius Tacitus in vita Neronis saith that then there was under the Romans Government there was here Negotiorum copia commercia maximorum celebris and he well knew for he was here seven years and married the Daughter of Agricola who was ancient Guilda Mercatoria and for that it was well governed and continued in good Order for Vbi non est ordo ibi est infirmium sempiternus Horror confusio and Gilda is a Saxon word and is the same for Fraternitas and Northfolk and diverse other places in the Country the name continued but this is another sence for Gyld fignisies to pay and for that it is sometime demanded if a man inhabite in a place gildable or within Franchise and the Place gildable is subject to scot and Lot and all other charges but the Franchises are places exempt but no person which is of a Gyld or fraternity may be exempted not by the Grant of the King nor otherwise but shall be subject to all the charges of the Gyld and Fraternity and the King cannot make any man free of their Guyld when that is created for there are but three waies to make a man free of that First by Birth which is the most eldest Secondly by Service which is of merits Thirdly By redemption which is power which only remaines in the Maior and the Court of Aldermen in this case in London and such Gyld can never have beginning but by Grant but by prescription as the custome of Gavelkinde that a man may devise his Lands or that the Land shall discend to the youngest Son and that the King cannot make any stranger free of such Gyld or Fraternity appears in Rotulo patentium 32 Ed. 3. Where the King by his Letters patents granted to one Iohn Faulchon that he should be frank and free of the City of London and that he should keep an Apothecaries shop there but the Patentee could not have his Freedome by this grant and for that the King wrote his Letters to the Maior and Aldermen and requested them to make the sayd Faulchon free of the sayd City and upon that it was done accordingly but not upon the Grant and so it was adjudged in Darcies case 44. Eliz. Trinity that if the King grant to one the sole making of Cards in England and that none shall bring any Cards into England to be sold but the patentee and it was adjudged that though none may may have Park or Warren and such other matters of Pleasure without the Kings Grant and though that playing with Cardes be but a matter of Pleasure yet the making of them is a matter of profit and the bringing of them into England is a matter of Trade and the inhibition of that is hinderance of Trade and makes a Monopoly that the Grant was voyd and 3 Ed. 3. 3. Iohn of Sudfords Case where the Case was a Free-holder levied a fold upon his Soyl and Freehold of his own and the Defendant spoyled it and broke it aed upon that the Plaintif brings a Writ of Trespass the Defendant justifies that he was Lord of the Town and there had been a usage there and had been of time out of memory c. That no man of the same Town ought to levy a fold without the agreement and leave of the Lord And for that that the Plaintif had done it the Defendant pulled it down as wel to him it was lawfull and it seems a good custome and with this agrees 5 Ed. 3. Iohn de Hayes case and 10 and 11 Eliz. Dyer 279. 10. prescription by the Maior Sherif and Citizens of York Goods forraine bought and forrain sold shall be forfeited and that he may seise them it was adjuged a good prescription but the King by his Letters Patents cannot give such power to them And Coke was cleerly of opinion that the case was not within the Statute of 9 Ed. 3. chapt 2. 25 Ed. 3. 11 27 Ed. 3. 11. And it was agreed by them all that a Merchant or any other man may sell Goods in grosse as he may sell a hundred tun of
but hath nothing in the Soyl according to the 14. H. 2. and 3. H. 6. 45. Ives case 5. Coke 11. So if a man make a feoffment of land except the Woods all woods are except by that and if Woods be cut and after grow againe in the same place this is also excepted But if woods after grow in another place this shall not be excepted for it was no wood in Esse at the time of the feoffment so if a man grants to another to dig Coles in his Soyl this is but to take profit and the Soyl doth not passe as it is agreed in 11. Eliz. Dyer 245. And it was said by Hutton Serjeant that he had seen an Ejectione Firme brought upon a Lease of Vsura terra But it was agreed by Coke cheife Justice and Foster that the Statute of 22. Ed. 4. chap. 7. was repealed by the Statute of 35. H. 8. for this is the negative and for that is repeal of a former Statute but if the last had been in the affirmative otherwise it should be and it was also agreed that this was not within the Statute of 35. H. 8. for that appoints of what age the wood shall be when it shall be inclosed and by this recompence is given to the Commoner but here it is not averred by pleading of what age this wood was which was inclosed and for that it was adjudged that the Action is not maintainable against the Commoner see Pasche 8. Jacobi for another argument at the Bar and also by the Judges Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Vivion against Wilde A Man was bound in an Obligation to another with Condition to stand to abide and performe the award of two Arbitrators and before the award by his writing the Obligor revoked the authority of one of the Arbitrators And it was agreed by all that this Obligation is become single without Condiion and yet it was not pleaded that the Arbitrator had notice of the revocation before the award made And yet for that it was pleaded that Revocavit it was agreed that that implies notice for without notice it is no revocation But it was agreed that if a man submit himselfe to the award of another and after he revokes his authority But before the Arbitrator had notice of that he makes the award the award is good and shall be performed so if a man make a Feoffment and Letter of Attorney to make Livery And before Livery made he revokes the power of the Attorney But before notice the Attorney makes Livery this is good but if the Feoffor makes a Lease or feoffment to another before the Livery made by the other this is a Countermand in Law and shall be good without notice for Fortior est dispositio legis quam hominis But where a man makes actuall revocation of the authority and before notice the other executes his authority and in pleading the other pleades Quod revocavit the other party may reply Quod non revocavit and give in evidence that he hath no notice of that before the execution of his authority and this is good for without notice it is no revocation where revocation is the act of the party The case is entred Trinity 7. Jacobi Rotulo 2629. Vivion against Wild. Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Smallman against Powys A Man made a Lease for life rendring Rent and after the Lessor by Indenture in consideration of fifty pound deviseth and granteth the Reversion to have from the day of the date for 99. yeares rendring a Rent also which was lesse then the first Rent and the Grantee of the reversion destraines for the rent reserved upon the Lease for life being behind and the sole question in this case was if the reversion shall passe without Attornment and it was said that in all cases where a use may be raised by the Common Law and that it shall be performed by order of Chancery that in these cases the use shall be executed by the Statute of 27. H. 8. of uses and one case was cyted by Harris Serjeant 14. and 15. Eliz. where the Brother was Tenant in tayl the remainder to his Sister in tayl the Brother by Deed which was Indented in parchment but made in the first person and no mention of Indenting in the Deed and the Deed was Inrolled withâ—… three moneths and after Livery and Seisin was made and it wâ—… adjudged that the Deed enures as a Bargaine and Sale and that nothing passes by the feoffment so that it was no discontinuance but that the Sister might enter after the death of her Brother without Issue Coke cheife Justice said that it was a good Bargain and Sale though that the words Bargain and Sell were not in the Deed but he conceived if a Letter of Attorney be incerted in the Deed so that it may appear that the intent of the parties is that it should not enure as a Bargain and Sale but as a feoffment there it is otherwise so if a man covenants to stand seised to a use if it be in consideration of money and the Deed is inrolled there this shall enure well as Bargain and Sale as it was adjudged in Bedels case 7. Coke 40. a. but the Statute of 27. H. 8. of inrollments doth not extend to a Tearme for the words of the Statute are that no freehold shall passe c. But it seemes in the principall case that the Statute of uses executes the use which is raised by this Grant and that the Grantor shall stand seised c. And all the Justices insisted strongly upon the Limitation of the Estate from the day of the date of the Grant and the Reservation of the Rent immediatly and upon this concluded that it was the intent of the parties that the Grantee should have the Rent reserved upon the first Lease and should pay the Rent reserved upon his estate and that when words of diverse natures are incerted in one conveiance the Grantee hath election to use which of them that he will as it appeares by Sir Rowland Haywards case and by Danyel if a man makes a Bargain and Sale in english and makes Livery Secundum forma Chartae this shall not be good But if it be in Latine otherwise it is for this word Vendo is compounded of Do and it is an apt word for Sur. that Livery might be made And agreed all that the reversion passes well without Attornment and that these words Demise and Grant shall be taken and enure to a Bargain and Sale and Judgement was given accordingly A man made a Lease for yeares to two if they lived so long and it was resolved by the Court that this determines by the death of one of them according to the resolution in Bradwells Case 5. Coke 9. a. and Judgement was given accordingly and there the case of Trupenny was recited which was this Lands was let to one for one and
twenty yeares if the Husband and wife and the Issue male of their Bodies so long live and it was there adjudged that the Lease doth not determine during the lives of any of them for in this disjunctive it is referred to an Intiâ—e Sentence and is as much as if he had sayd if the Husband or the Wife or the Issue of their Bodies so long live Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Borough of Yarmouth THE King John by his Letters Patents granted that the Burrough of Yarmouth should be incorporated and the grant is made Burgensibus without naming of their Successors and also he granted Burgensibus teneri placita coram balivis and in pleading it was not averred that there were Bailiffs there and it was objected that the Burrough cannot be incorporated but men which inhabite in that but to that it was resolved that the Grant is good and the Lord Coke sayd that he had seen many old Grants to the Citizens of such a Town and Good and so that the Grant Burgensibus that the Bâ—rrough should be incorporated being an old Grant should have favorable construction but the doubt was for that that it was not averred that there were Bailiffs of Yarmouth and if a Grant to hold Pleas and doth not say before whom the Grant is voyd according to 44 Ed. 3. 2 H. 7. 21 Ed. 4. and for that it was adjourned But the opinion of all the Court was that the Grant made Burgensibus was good without naming of their Successors as in the case of Grant civibus without more Note that Executors or Administrators shall not finde speciall Bail for the Debt of the Testator though that the debt be for a great sum as three thousand pound or more for it is not their Debt nor his Body shall not be lyable to execution for that 43 Ed. 3. Suit was commenced hanging another Writ it is a good Plea though that the Writ was returnable in the Common Bench and the last Suit was begun in a Base Court but if so be and doth not appeare to this Court that the Plaintiff begun suit in a base Court for the same Debt for which the Suit is here begun Attachment shall be awarded see 2 H. 6. 9 H. 6. but this ought to appear to the Court by Affidavit c. Hillary 7 Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Chapman against Pendleton IN second deliverance the case was this A man seised of a house and fifty Acres of Land held by Rent fealty and Harriot service enfeoffs the Lord of three Acres parcell of the Land and after infeoffs the plaintiff in this Action of three other Acres and upon this rhe sole question was if by this Feoffment to the Lord of parcell Harriot service is extinct or not Harris Serjeant conceived that the Harriot remaines for he sayd that it is reserved to the Reversion of the Tenure but it is not as anuall Service but casuall and it is not like to rectify for that it is incident to every service And by 43 Ed. 3. 3 It is no part of the service but Improvement of the service And Bracton in his Tractate De Relevijs 2 Booke 2 7. saith that Est alia prestatio vocata Harriot c. Que magis fit de gratia quam ex Jure and it is not like to a releife see the Booke at large and he agreed that if the Tenant had made fifty severall Feoffments to fifty severall men that every of them shall pay a severall Harriot as it appears by Bruertons Case 6 Coke 1. a 34. Ed. 3. Harriot 1. 2 Ed. 2 Avowry 184. 〈◊〉 Ed. 2. Ibidim 206. 11 Ed. 3. Avowry 101. 24 Ed 3. 73. a 34 Assise 15. 22. Ed. 4. 36. 37. 29 H. 8. Tenures 64. But he grounded his Argument principally upon Littleton 122. 223. Where it is sayd that the reason why Homage and Fealty remaine if the Lord purchase part of the Tenancy is for that that they are of annuall Services and it seemed to him that Littleton is grounded upon 7 Ed. 4. 15. Extinguishment 2. 8 Ed 3. 64. 24. Ed 3 B. Apportionment last case which accords the reason and upon this he concluded that for that that the Harriot is not annuall it shall not be extinct by the Feoffment but remaines but he agreed if a man makes a Lease for years rendring Rent and parcell of the Land comes to the Lord the Rent shall be apportioned if it be by Lawfull means as it appears by 6 R. 2. F. Quid Juris clamat 17. Plesingtons Case and 24 H. 8. Dyer 4. 1. Rushdens case by which c. Nicholls Serjeant that it hath been agreed that it is intire service and that then he concluded upon that that it shall be of the nature of other intire services as it apperrs by 2 Ed. 2. Avowry 184. and 34 Ed. 3 F. Harriot 1. 5. Ed. 2. Avowry 206. And he agreed that in the case of Littleton the Homage and Fealty remain and the escuage shall be apportioned but this is not for the reason alledged in Littleton that is for that that they are not annuall services but for that that the Homage is incident to every Knights service and as the Lord Coke sayd fealty is incident to every service in generall and the Tenant shall make Oath to be faithfull and loyall to his Lord for all the Tenements which he holds of him and the reason for which the Escuage shall be apportioned is for that that it is but as a penalty which is inflicted upon the Tenant for that that he did not make his services as it appears by the pleading of it and shall be apportioned according to the Assesment by Parliament and by 22 Ed 4. It appears that this purchase by the Lord is as a release and if the Lord release his services in part this extincts the services in all and he sayd there is no difference where an intire service is to be payd every third or fourth year and where it is to be payd every year as to that purpose and yet in one case it is annuall and in the other it is casuall and yet in both cases if the Lord purchase parcell of the Land of the Tenant all the intire services shall be extinct and gone though that they are to be performed every third or fourth year by which c. Foster Justice that the Harriot is entire service and for that though that it be not annuall it shall be extinct by purchase of parcell of the Tenancy by the Lord as if a man makes a Feoffment with warranty and takes back an Estate of part the warranty is extinct as it appears by the 29. of Assise so if a man hold his Land by the service to repaire parcell of the fence of a Park of the Lords and the Lord purchase parcell of the Tenancy the Tenure is extinct as it appears by 15 Ed. 3. And it is
agreed in the 21 H. 7 In Kellawaies Reports by Frowick that there is no difference between Harriot and Releife and Releife shall be extinct and so he concluded that the Harriot is extinct Danyell Justice accordingly and he said that this purchase shall be as strong as release And if the Lord hath released the service intire for part it shall be extinct for all and if Tenant holds by Suite to the court of the Lord and the Lord purchase parcell of the Tenancy the Suit is extinct as it appeares by 27. H. 7. and Fitz. Na. Bre. And so concluded that the Harriot service is extinct by the purchase aforesayd Warburton accordingly And saith that in Littletons Case the Homage and Fealty shall remain for they are personall services and for that shall remaine intire and of Rent shall be an apportionment by the Statute of Westminster 3. De quia emptores terrarum But for other intire services by the purchase of the Lord be they annuall or casuall and they are extinct and 21 Edward 4 was a Suite for a Hawke which was kept back twenty yeares and so for Suit if the Tenants make a feoffment to diverse they shall make but one Suit but they all shall make contribution to the Suit but if the Lord purchase parcell he cannot make contribution And though that the Homage and Fealty are personall services the Horse and Hawke are of the nature of land so the Harriot is of his goods and if the Tenant hath no goods the Lord shall loose it and for that he concluded as above Walmesley accordingly And he said if a Tenant hold by intire services of two Lords and one purchase parcell of the Tenancy all the intire services shall not be extinct but the other Lord which did not purchase shall have them for Res inter alios acta nemini nocere debeat To which Coke cheife Justice agreed and he said if Harriot custome be due peradventure it shall not be extinct by purchase of parcell of the Tenancy for that is personall and it is not Issuing out of land but for intire services which are Issuing out of land he said there is no difference betwixt annuall services and casuall services which are intire and so he concluded as above Coke cheife Justice accordingly and he said there is no difference between annuall intire services and casuall so that they are services to be paid at the death or alteration of every Tenant or otherwise but he said there is no doubt but that Rent service shall be apportioned though that the Lord purchase parcell be that in the Kings case or of a common person and this by the common Law without the aid of any Statute for there is not any Statute that shall aid that if it be not remedied by the Common Law and he said that some Intire services may multiply as if a man holds by payment of a payre of gilt Spurrs or of a Hawke or a Horse or others such like and makes a feoffment of parcell the Feoffee shall hold by the same intire services But if the Tenant hold by personall services as to cover the Table of his Lord or to be his Carver or Sewer at such a Feast or such like these personall services cannot multiply if the Tenant makes a feoffment of part for by this the Lord may be prejudiced for peradventure at his house he will not include them but he may distrain every of them to make the service And he saith the reason for which Knights service shall be apportioned is for that it is for the publick good and for the good of the Common Wealth But so are not the other personall services and in the principall case he conceives that if the Tenant had made a feoffment first to a stranger and after the stranger had infeoffed the Lord that by that all the intire service shall not be extinct for by the feoffment of the estranger was severence of the services and he holds by a Harriot as well as his Feoffor and for that nothing shall be extinct but the Harriot due by that parcell of which the estranger was infeoffed and he agreed with Walmesley that a Harriot custome shall not be extinct where the custome is that every Tenant shall pay a Harriot for there it is paid in respect that he is Tenant and custome shall not be drowned by unity of Tenancy and Signiory And for that he concluded that the Harriot for that that it was intire service though that it were casuall and not annuall that yet it shall be extinct and Judgement was given accordingly Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Michelborne against Michelborne UPON a motion made for consultation upon Prohibition awarded It was said by the Lord Coke that no Subject of the King may trade with any Realme of Infidells without licence of the King and the reason of that is that he may resinquish the Catholick faith and adhere to Infidelisme and he said that he hath seen a licence made in the time of Ed. 3. where the King recited that he having speciall trust and confidence that his Subject will not decline from his Faith and Religion licenced him ut supra And this did rise upon the recitall of a licence made to a Merchant to trade into the East Indies Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Reade against Fisher IN debt the Defendant exhibits his suit in the Court of Requests and there the Plaintiff in that Court denied that the debt was paid and the Court of Request awarded an Injunction and upon Information of that this Court awarded a Prohibition to inhibit the Suit there Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Mors against Webbe IN Replevin the case was this A man was seised of two Virgates of Land and prescribed that he and his Ancestors and all those whose Estates he hath in the said Virgates of Land have used to have common in the feilds c. That is when the feilds are fallow all the yeare and when they are sown with Corn or otherwise severall when the Crop is mowed and removed for two Horses four other Beastes and a hundred and twenty Sheep as appertaining to the said two Virgates of Land The Defendant traverseth the prescription and upon this they are at Issue and the Jury found that there is such prescription But further they say that the Plaintiff made a Lease of six Acres parcell of the said two Virgates of Land in one of the feilds of c. with the Common of that thereunto belonging for the Tearme of ten years and the Beastes for which the Replevin was brought were in another feild of c. And if the prescription be suspended or remaines they praied the advise of the Court and it was agreed that common appendant and appurtenant was all one to the severance for if such a Commoner grant parcell of that Land to which the Common
is appurtenant or appendant the Grantee shall have Common Pro Rata but if a commoner purchase parcell of the Land in which he hath Common appurtenant that this extincts all his Common And it was agreed that Common may be appendant to a Carve of Land as it appeares by the 6 Ed. 3. 42. and 3. Assise 2. as to a Mannor but this shall he intended to the Demesnes of the Mannor and so a Carve of Land consists of Land Meadow and Pasture as it appeares by Tirringhams case 4. Coke 37. b. And Common appendant shall not be by prescription for then the Plea shall be intended double for it is of common Right as it appeares by the Statute of Morton chap. 4. And the common is mutuall for the Lord hath Right of Common in the Lands of the Tenant and the Tenant in the Lands of the Lord And it was urged by Nicholls Serjeant that the Common shall be apportioned as if it were Rent and that the Lessee shall have Common for his Lease and then the Lessor hath no Common appurtenant or appendant to the two Virgats of Land and for that the Prescription was not good Coke cheife Justice if it had been pleaded that he had used to have Common for the said Beasts Levant and Couchant upon the said Land there had been no question but it should be apportioned for the Beastes are Levant and Couchant upon every part as one day upon one part and another day upon another part and for that extinguishment or suspention of part shall be of all as if a man makes a Leafe of two Acres of Land rendring Rent and after bargaines and sells the reversion of one Acre there shall be an apportionment of the Rent as well as if it had been granted and attornment And he agreed that if a man have Common appurtenant and purchase parcell of the Land in which he hath Common all the Common is extinct but in this case common appendant shall be apportioned for the benefit of the Plow for as it is appendant to Land Hyde and gain And in the principall case there was common appendant for it was pleaded to be belonging to two Virgats of Land and for commonable Beastes And he conceived also that the prescription being as appertaining to such Land that this shall be all one as if it had been said Levant and couchant for when they are appurtenant they shall be intended to Plow Manure Compester and Feed upon the Land And also he conceived that the right of Common remaines in the Lessor and for that he may prescribe for after the end of the Tearme shall be returned and in the intermin he may Bargain and sell and the Vendee shall have it and shall have common for his Portion And Walmesley Justice agreed to that and that during the Tearme the Lessor shall be excluded of his Common for his proportion Foster Justice agreed and that the possession of the Lessee is the possession of the Lessor but he conceived when the Lessor grants to the Lessee six acres of Land in such a feild where the Land lies and then the Beasts were taken in another feild And so they agreed for the matter in Law and also that the pleading was ill and so confesse and avoid the prescription But upon the traverse as it is pleaded the Jury shall not take benefit of it and Judgement was given accordingly Termino Pasche 7. Jacobi 1609 In the Common Bench. THOU art a Jury man and by thy false and subtill means hast been the Death and overthrow of a hundred men for which words Action upon the case for slander was brought and it seemed to Coke cheife Justice that it did well lye if it be averred that he was a Jury man and so of Judge and Justice for Sermo relatus ad personam intelligo debet de qualitate persone as Bracton saith and in the like Action brought by Butler it was not averred that he was a Justice of Peace and resolved that an Action upon the case doth not lye But Walmesley Justice conceived that an Action doth not lye for one Juror only doth not give the Verdict but he is joyned with his Companions and it is not to be intended that he could draw his Companions to give Verdict against the truth and false and subtill means are very generall Warburton Justice agreed with Coke and conceived that the Action well lies being averred that he was a Jury man as if one calls another Bankrupt Action well lies if it be alledged that the Plaintiff was a Tradesman and it is common speaking that one is a Leader of the Jurors and a man may presume that other Jurors will give Verdict and may take upon him the knowledge of the Act. Walmesley conceived that the Action did not lye for that the words are a hundred men which is impossible and for that no man will give any credit to it and for that it is no slander and for that Action doth not lye no more then if he had sayd that he had kild a thousand men But Coke Warburton Daniell and Foster agreed that the number is not materiall for by the Words his malice appears and for that they conceived that the Action doth well lye Pasch 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Denis against More ANthony Denis Plaintif in Replevin William More Defendant the case was this Two joynt Lessees for life were the Remainder or Reversion in Fee being in another person he in Reversion grants his Reversion Habendum the aforesaid Reversion after the death surrender or forfeiture of the Tenant for life it hapneth that the Lease determines for the life of the Grantee and Remains to another for life and resolved that this shall be a good grant of the Reversion to the first effect of Possession after the Deaths of the Tenants for life according to the 23 of Eliza. Dier 377. 27. And it shall not be intended to passe a future interest as if it were void of the other party and so was the opinion of all the Court see Bucklers case 2. Coke 55. a. and Tookers case 2. Coke 66. Upon a Fine the first Proclamation was made in Trinity Tearm 5. Jacobi And the second in Michaelmas Tearm 5. Jacobi And the third in Hillary Tearm 6. Jacobi where it should be in Hillary Tearm 5. Jacobi And the fourth and fifth in Easter Tearm 6. Jacobi And this was agreed to be a palpable Errrour for the fourth Proclamation was not entered at all and the fifth was entered in Hillary Tearm 6. Jacobi where it should have been in Hillary Tearm 5 Jacobi and it shall not be amended for that it was of another Tearm and the Court conceived that this was a forfeiture of the Office of the Chirographer for it was an abusing of it and the Statute of 4. H. 4. 23. and Westminster 2. Are that Judgement given in the Kings Court shall stand untill
in Prison and agreed that if 2 Precipes are contained in one Originall there shall be but one satisfaction But if one be taken by Capias and remains in Execution Capias shall be awarded against the other and he shall remain in Prison till satisfaction be had for execution is no satisfaction as it is said in 29 H. 8. b. Execution 132. adjudged See 4 Ed. 4. 38. 5 Ed. 4. 4 H. 7. 8. And Hillaries case 33 H. 6. And to the third that is that the Debt remains after the taking of the body in execution and agreed that when execution is made of goods or lands no Debt remains but otherwise it is of execution of the Body as it appears by 29 H. 8. before cyted B. Execution 132. and 41 Assis 15. where a man was condemned in Damages in Trespass and committed to Prison by Capias and escaped the Gaoler dyed the Plaintiff prayed debt against his Executors and could not have it for they are not charged without specialty and the Plaintiff alleadged that the Defendant was vagrant in the County of M. and prays Capias to the Sheriff of M. to take him and it was granted for his remedy against the Sheriff was determined and this proves also that the Debt remains after escape scire facias is licet Judicium redditum sit tamen executio restat ad huc facienda de debito for the body is but as a pledg the form of the Writ in the Register Capias ad satisfaciendum and not in satisfaction which proves that there is no satisfaction but upon the payment of the money his body shall be delivered out of Prison this is execution with satisfaction for there are two Executions that is Medius finalis the first is the Capias the second Satisfaction which is Vltimus Finis And it is a good rule quod nihil videtur factum ubi aliquid restat faciendum and here is aliquid faciendum that is Satisfaction for in all acts there is a beginning progression and consummation Consummation in this case fails Mors est horendum divortium which is the act of God And when the act of God hath delivered him which lyes in prison for his own default it is no reason that the Plaintiff should be prejudiced 43 Ed. 3. 27. A man enfeoffs the Father with Warranty which infeoffs an estranger which enfeoffs the son the father dyes the son may vouch for it is the act of God And to the Mischiefs nec crudelis creditor nec delicatus debitor sunt audiendi for they play at Bowls and keep Hospitality in the Prison Or if a man be arrested and makes a tumult and is slain in indeavouring to break the Prison and breaks his Neck it is no reason that he by such act should defraud the Plaintiff of his Debt the opinions against him are coupled with absurdities as 7 H. 6. 8. Martins opinions is also imparted with absurdity 33 H. 6. 48. The opinion of Lacon is also coupled with another absurdity and 22 Assis b. Execution is also coupled with absurdity that is if the Defendant escape this determines the debt and is satisfaction and 15 Edw. 3. Quare Impedit 174. in Writ of Right of Advowson the Plaintiff hath Judgment and habere facias sesinam in the life time of the Incumbent and after his death sues Scire Facias the first is Execution but not with satisfaction and the last is satisfaction for by this he hath the fruit of his Judgment So 19 Ed. 3. Execution 12. a younger statute is extended and Liberate sued executed and returned And after an elder statute is extended and after satisfaction of that he that hath the youngest may sue Scire Facias and have execution of the youngest So of Beasts distrained and put into the Pound and there dye he which distrayned may distrayâ— again for this is no satisfaction of his Rent 14. H. 4. 4. 15 Edw. 4. 10. 11 Eliz. Dyer 280 And so Capias ad computandum is not Accompt nor Capias ad acquietandum Acquital Register 30. 39. 285. And it is said in Bract. lib. 7. Chap. 17. Sunt brevia Magistralia fâ—rmata the first are made by Masters of the Chancery the others which are Originall by Cursitors which are founded by acts of Parliament and cannot be changed without Parliament and as Fitzherbert in his Preface to his Na. Bre. saith that every Art and Science hath certain Rules and Foundations to which a man ought to give faith credence and the Writ of Fieri facias being founded upon a Statute and the form that executio adhuc restat facienda he saith that this was the Judgment of the Parliament that the first Execution was not Satisfaction But as the Writ is also in the Register 245 That where a man is condemned in Trespasse and committed to prison detinendum quousque he satisfie the party by this it appears that he is but a pledge And Fitz. Na. Bre. 63. 65. 67. and Register If a man be taken by Capias Excommunicatum ad satisfaciendum parendum Clavibus Ecclesiae and is delivered by Writ which issues improvide another Writ of Capias shall be awarded And to the matter of Election he agreed that if Elegit were awarded the party cannot have Fieri facias nor Capias for there is Entry made quod Elegit sibi executionem de meditate But when Fieri facias or Capias is awarded no entry at all is made But if any of them are returned executed then he cannot resort to another Processe and with this difference agrees all the Books of 15 H. 7. 15. 21 H. 7. 19. 30 Ed. 3. 24. 31 Edw. â—3 Process 52. 19 H. 6. 4. 34 H. 6. 20. 45 Edw. 3. 19. 50 Edw. 3. 4. and 5. 18 Edw. 4. 11. 20 Edw. 4. 13. 11 Eliz. Dyer 296. And to the case of Williams and Cuttrys cyted to be adjudged 43 Eliz. the which he cyted as Lambs case he said in this was many apparent Errors in forme of pleading so that the matter in Law cannot come to Judgment 35 H. 6. Prisot seemed that by the law of God the Imprisonment of the body of a man was no satisfaction for by that the Creditor may sell his Debtor and his Children for the payment of his Debts Matth. chap. 18 vers 24. 4 Kings 4 Chap. vers 1. Matth. chap. 5. Luke chap. 12. And so he agreed with Foster in opinion and concluded that the death of the Defendant in the action of Debt was no satisfaction nor determination of the Processe nor of the election But that the Plaintiff may have new Execution against the Executors and by consequence that Judgment shall be given for the Plaintiff in the Scire facias but no Judgment was given for that there was equality of opinions that is Coke and Foster against Walmesley and Warburton Danyel being dead and for that it was adjourned Pasche 8. Jacobi 1610. See Hillary 7. Jacobi the beginning Chalke
action is well maintainable Vi armis as Quare Impedit for disturbance by word or presentment by word And it is also found that the Defendants did take all the profits and that the Deputy of the Plaintiff came to the usual place where the Court was kept and that could not be intended to be out of the Mannor And so for these reasons he concluded that Judgement should be given for the Plaintiff And Coke cheife Justice argued to the same intent that is that the Plaintiff ought to have Judgment And first he conceived that the Patent is good notwithstanding the uncertainty that the Mannors are not named in what Counties they are either in England France or Ireland for the Mannor is named very certain by which it may be granted though it be in the Kings case as it appears by 32 H. 6. 20. where the King grants all Mannors Messuages c. which were parcell of the possessions of I. S. attaint and good And such grant was made to Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolke and adjudged good though that the person of a man is more incertain then the Mannor yet Id certum est quod certum reddi potest And 39 Ed. 3. 1. in the Abbot of Reddings case where a grant was made to the Abbot and his Successors that the Prior and Covent shall take the profits in time of vacation Fitz. Na. Bre. 33. b. And 23 Ed. 3. 20. The King grants to the Queen the Barrony and all Mannors c. till Iohn of Gaunt be able to govern himselfe and that shall be intended till the Law intends him able to govern himself and Mannor is very certain of which a view shall be awarded The second exception which was taken to the grant was for that that it was to take effect at the ful age of the Earl And after it is recyted in the Patent that he was of full age before the making of the Patent and so by consequence the Patent is to take effect from the time that it was past And to that he said that it shall be intended to the profits of the Office only for it appeares by the Patent that the Queene had granted it to another during his Minority That is the office And to the third mattter That is if hee cannot make a Deputy then he hath forfeited the said Office by the not using of it And to that he said it appeares by Waltons case 10 Eliz. Dyer fol. 270. That if a man grants a Fee pro concilio impendendo or keeping of Courts the Fee shall not be forfeited without speciall request to the Patentee to give Councell or to hold his Courts for hee doth not know if the Grantor will have his Courts held or not and so it is 39 H. 6. 22. Brewens case where it is also agreed that it shall be no forfeiture of an office without speciall request to hold the Courts or to give Councell But in the case of the Queen otherwise it is for she ought not to make demand in case of Rent nor Condition though that it be within the Statute of 32. H. 8. And yet it was argued in Sir Thomas Hennages case that if the King make a Lease for years upon condition to cease this shall cease without office upon the breaking of the Condition but a Lease for life shall not cease without office though that the Condition be broken And so if the King grants an Office for life this shall not be avoided without Office And he doubted the case of the Lease for yeares And also he agreed that the Grantee of a Stewardship cannot make Deputy to exercise his Office without speciall words in the Patent But if the Office be granted to him and his Heires or to him and his assignes it is sufâ—â—cient without other words to make a Deputy And also he sayd that the word Steward is the name of an Office and is derived of Steed and Ward which are Saxon words and intend the Keeper of the place which the party himselfe ought to hold and it appeares by Cambdem and Lambert And so the word Senescalls also signify for this is but a Custos sive officiarius loci See Fleta liber 2. chap. 72. Senescallum providebit Dominus circumspectum fidelem Modestum pacificum qui in consuitudinibus c. Jura Domini sui teneri c. Quique balivos suos instruere potest Cujus officium est curia maneriorum c. And a Deputy is a person authorised by the Officer in the name and right of the Officer and for all that he doth the Officer shall answer for he is but as a shaddow of the Officer But assignee is in his own right and he shall answer for himselfe and forfeiture by assignee of Tenant for life shall not be forfeiture of the reversion 39. H. 6. And he agreed that a Marshall Steward Constable Bayliff and such like cannot make Deputies without speciall wordes in the Grant as it appeares 39. H. 6. 11. Ed. 3. 10. Ed. 4. 14. 17. and 7. 21. Ed. 4. Nevills case in the Com. and Littleton And to the exceptions which have been taken to the Writ and Count he saith that an Action of Trespasse which is founded upon the case doth not lye Vi et armis where the point and cause is Action is supposed to be made Vi et armis and for that he takes difference between Causa causans and Causa causata for where the matter which is supposed to be done Vi armis is not the point of the Action But the cause of the Action there lies very well Vi armis But wherein the point of Action is supposed to be made Vi armis there the Writ shall abate As if a man brings an Action of Trespasse for casting dung into a River by which his Land is drowned in this case an Action of Trespasse upon the case Vi armis lyeth very well for here the casting in of the Dung is but Causa causans And the drowning of the Land is Causa causata 8. R. 2. And so disturbance to hold a Leet by which he hath lost his offerings 19. R. 2. 52. And the Earle hath election to have Trespasse or Assise though it be not Manurable As if a man prescribe to have seven pence of every Brewer which sells strong Beer for disturbance to have the seven pence Action upon the case lyes for this disturbance is Dissesin 15. Ed. 4. 8. 14. Ed. 3. 4. 1. Ed. 5. 5. 19. R. 2. Action upon the case 51. And to the objection which hath been made that disturbance found by the Jury is not the same disturbance which is mentioned in the Count for in the Count the disturbance is supposed to be made Vi Armis but the Jury do not find any distubance to be made Vi Armis But this notwithstanding it seemes that the Count is good As if a Sheriff enters a Franchise and executes
a Writ this is disturbance and Action upon the case lies And so in Quare Impedit And also he sayd that the Earle cannot make a Deputy but by writing as it is resolved 28. H. 8. Br. deputy 17. Where it is sayd that Deputation of an Office which lyes in Grant ought to be made by Deed and not by Word But here the Jury have found that the Earle hath made his Deputy this shall be intended in lawfull manner and cannot be but by writing And also he agreed that the Habendum mentioned in the third Grant shall extend only to this Grant which is his proper Grant that the Office of the Habendum And it appeares by Wrotsleys and Adams case Comment 17. That the Office of Habendum is to make certain the Estate and not the thing granted for this is the Office of the Premisses of the Deed And if the Habendum in the third Grant had had reference to the second Grant this would make the Grant void And in Grants of the King other construction shall be made as it was adjudged in the Court of Wards Michaelmasse 28. and 29 Eliz. between Brunkar Plaintiff and Robotham Defendant where the case was the King Hen. the 8. had two Mannors whereof diverse Lands of one Mannor extended the other Mannor and then the King granted one Mannor and all his Lands in the same Mannor Nec non omnies singulas Terras c. In the same Town and adjudged that the Lands which were parcell of the other Mannor which was not granted passe by this Grant though that they are in the other Mannor in the same Town and he denyed that the words Precipientes volentes shall be taken as a Grant for they are not spoken to the Patentee but to other Officers which are strangers to the Grant But if the thing granted had been a Chattell that a Covenant might enure as a Grant and 10. Eliz. Dyer 270. 22. The King Phillip and Queen Mary granted for them and their Heires and Successors to A. B. That he and his Factors and Assignes might Tavern and keep a Tavern c. Commanding all Mayors and Sheriffs c. and other Officers and Subjects and their Heires and Successors to permit and suffer the said A. B. during his life to hold and use a Tavern and to sell Wine without Impeachment and it seemes that the Grant is void for that that there is not any time limited for how long it shall indure and the mandate in the last clause shall not make any limitation for by the death of the Prince this altogether ceaseth for Omne mandatum morte mandantis expirat And for that all Proclamations made in time of the Raign of Queen Eliz cease and determine by her death And to the person of the Earle he said that it was a Maxime that Honour and Order shall be observed and that was a common saying of the said Queen and for that it was not her intention that this Maxime should be broken and that the said Earle should exercise the said Office in person but she intended the said Earle should overlook the said Mannor and place here a sufficient able man to exercise the said Office because he should answer for the misdemeanour of such a Deputy is the forfeyture of the Office and he saith that the Dignity of an Earle was the most high Dignity in this Realm that any Subject doth possesse till the 11. Ed. 3 The black Prince was the 1 Duke and Aubry de Vere the 1 Marquess in the 11. R. 2. and Beamount the first vicount in the time of H. 6. And none of these Dignyties are above an Earle in degree but only in precedency for Bracton lib. 1. chap. 8. saith Quod Comites dicunter a socitate quia Comitantur Regem And in ancient time none were made Earles but only those which were of the blood Royall and this is the reason that they are called Consanguinij Regis and also they may be called Consules a Consulendo Tales enim Regis sibi associunt ad consulendum regendum populum Dei And at their creation the King gives to them a Robe and Cap which signifies Councell and Corronet which signifies the greatnesse of his Blood and Honour and also sword Vt sit in ntrumque tempus as well ready for War as peace And for that it should be unfit that one of such Honour State and Dignity should be imployed in holding of Court Barons and there sit to enter Plaints and have a peny for every Plaint for his paines and to make Copies and such like base imployments which are Vividae rationes which was not the intent of the Queen that he should exercise the said Office in person and the Law requires conveniences in all Grants as in 12. and 13. H. 8. One licensed a Duke to come and hunt in his park and the Duke came with his Servants and many others of his Retinue and hunted there and it was adjudged that the Grant was sufficient to warrant his hunting in this manner in respect of the conveniency for it is not fit and convenient that the Duke should go alone and 21. Ed. 3. 48. The Bishop of Carlile sued the Executors of his Predecessor the Ornaments of the Chappel of the sayd Bishoprick and then recovered and though that the sayd Chappel was in the private House of the sayd Bishop yet it was thought fitting that such Chappel should be adorned with convenient Ornaments and that these Ornaments should go in succession to the Successors and not to the Executors and if conveniency be so required in all these cases then by the like Reason such inconveniency shall not be admitted that the Earl should be Clark to Suitors as every Steward is And for that he conceived that the Grant is good And that the sayd Earl may exercise this Office by a Deputy as well as if a Common person grant an Office of Fostership to the King he may exercise that by any party or grant it over though therebe no words of deputation in the Grant and this in respect of the quality of his person and in many other cases an Earle or another Noble man shall be priviledged as in 3 H. 6. A Noble man shal not be examined upon his Oath in account And 48 Ed. 3. 30. He shal not be sworn upon Inquests which is to serve God and his Country Register 179. And if a common person be in debt to me a hundred pound I may have a Capias and arrest his person for this Debt but if the King create him Baron or Earl then his person is so privileged that that cannot be attached for this Debt and this is without wrong to me as it appears by the Countesse of Rutlands case 6. Coke And if a Baron be returned of a Jury and if Issue be taken if he be a Baron or not this shal be tryed by Record whether he be a Baron or not 35 H. 6. 46.
Condition repugnant voyd 138. Condition in rei in persona diff 139. Covenant where it lyeth 160 Covenant express and implyed or in Law how they differ 162. Copihold customes 197. Covenant P. Administrator 207. Covenant joynt surviveth ibidem 208. Church-Wardens not interessed in church Goods 210 Consultation awarded 216. Challenge for favour 229. Challenge to the Array for action against the Sheriff 230 Consultation awarded 26 Citation for defamation 28. Charter part beyond sea where to be sued 34. Citation out of the Deocess 34 Consultation granted 26. Clerk of a Parish who shall nominate him 38. Covenant destroyed 56. Common Recovery 75. Custome 76. Incertain voyd 85 Voyd for inconveniency 86 Copyhold what Authority 77 Its nature and reason 79 It is within the statutes which speaketh of Lands and Temements 79. 80 It s severall customes 86 87 Consuetudo sola quia non totaliter disallowed 86 Customes unreasonable voyd 87 Commission to the councell in Wales 119 Caveat to a Bishop 119 Coram non Judice where 127 Commoner cannot have an Action of Trespass 147 Chase in possibility not grantable 173 Cinque Ports the custome of taking the Body of a man in Withernam not good 195 196 197 Common of a Copy-holder destroyed by confirmation 211 Corrody granted 211 Common Law where voyd 38 Clam delinquens c. 288 Covenant express doth qualifie covenant in Law where 212 213 Covenant in Law not binding Executors where 214 Copihold custome 12 15 Custome ought to be reasonable 217. Custome in the Isle of Man 217 Custome of London 218 Custome of Hallifax 218 Copyhold custome for a married-wife a Devise to her Husband 218 Court Baron cannot inquire of Felonies 219 Condition entire not to be apportioned 227 Challenge principal what is what is not 240 Cestercians their Priviledge 20 Contra formam collationis to who given 22 Contract made in the straites of Malico 30 Custome for thithing 30 Cpoihold anciently villinage 44 Corporation cannot be limited to a county 244 Certificate of a Bishop 301 Charta de foresta 325 D DEfamation Sint ex officio 28 Debt Sur Judgement 39 Debt Sur Award 48 Sur Judgement 39 40 Damages in dower 41 Devise of lands how taken 74 That executors shall sell c. 100 Devastavit where 81 83 Damages uncertain therefore a fine certain for them voyd 86 Debt Sur bill P. memorand 97 Debt Pur fees P. attorney 99 Devise of lands in cap. and the stat of 32 and 34 H. 8 expounded 105 106 107 Deed without date 107 Dower 118 execution in it 141 Debt against an Administrator 118 Dower ass by the Sheriff without jurors good 141 Damnum five injuria 148 Debt against an administrator 153 Debt sur oblig pur Pf. cove 167 176 177 Debt 177 178 pur penalty of a by-law 179 Demurrer sur evidence 183 Ddvastavit 185 Debet detinet for Rent against an administrator 202 203 Damages found intire where it is error 272 Defendant entred after the habere fac poss executed 216 Dower recompence what 132 Delapidation suit for it 27 Dreprivation for drunkenesse 37 Debt P. executor 283 against executors 183 Demurrer in ejectione firme 128 Discontinuance 142 Dower of tyth wooll 143 Devise of a lease 172 Devise to a corporation 246 Debt against an administrator during minolity 248 Debt against executors 274 Duress where 276 Distress a quasi action 289 Devise enures to bargain and sale where 291 Devise of a Tearm 308 E Ejectione firme 40 Shall not abate if the Tearm end 131 Estrepment 401 68 Election by an Executor 51 Executor refuseth when too late 58 when good ibid Ejectione firme 74 102 103 Accord with satisfaction good 130 131 Elegit 97 sur testatum 208 Extent sur stat 122 Executrix during nonage 144 Ejectione firme 168 172 168 223 Election by an executor of a legacy 173 Executor de seu tort who 184 Executor de seu tort 184 185 Executors two joyntly sued one confesse the action good 286 Elegit sur testatum where it is necessary 207 Ejectione firme Judgement in it 216 Estoppell 219 Escheate 220 Election implicit 220 221 Error sur judgement in assise 230 Entry to abate an assise what what not 235 236 Ejectione firme and a good bar where 133 Executor sued and also the heire 67 Executrix during nonage 144 Expresse covenant qualifies covenantin law 212 213 Exposition of usage 222 Estate increasing sur condition when it ought to vest or not at all 251 Error in ve fa. and hab corp 274 Essoyn day is a day in term 279 Entire services casuall 293 295 Error in prolcamation 300 Error in writ of dower 300 Common of Estovers 329 F FOrm edon lieth for copy-hold lands intayted 43 44 Forgery by Scrivener who lost his eares for it 50 Franchise the lord shal answer for his baily 50 Feme covert what she may do sans Boron 71. how punishable 9495 Fealty seisin of ser au 99 Fine amended where 101 Feoffment to a son for valuable consideration 102 Forstaller regrator and ingrosser who 109 False imprisonment 124 Feme covert how she is bound by joyning with her husb 140 141 142 Fine where it binds 154 155 Fradulent conveyances within the stat 13 Eliz. 188 Fraude what by the statute 27 Eliz 190 Fyling a writ not materiall where 216 Formedon in remainder 274 Frank almoigne gift to the Templers 21 Formedon in discender 79 Fyne and ransome 113 False imprisonment action for it 255 Fyne error in it 270 Fyne by deb potest of an infant 271 Freedome of London how many ways obtained 286 287 Forfeiture of office of the Chirographer 300 G GRants how construed 193 Grant of common extinct 222 Grantee of a reversion of what conditions he may take advantage of by the common law of what by statute 32 H. 8. 228 Generall pardon 37 Gravi queâ—ela 72 Grant le roy when not good 252 Grant le roy incorporate a burough 292 Grant of a reversion 299 Grant del roy of alnage 301 302 303 304 Grant del portership 330 Grant Pro concilio impendendo 336 Grant P. Letters Patents 333 H HAb corp granted to a brâ—wnist counted 3 Heretick his censure 4 High commissioners their jurisdiction 4 5 14 15 16 18 19 Harriot unreasonable 89 Hab. fac poss the Shereffs officers poss the plaintiff refuseth 168 Harriot service 187 Habere fa. possessionem in ejectione firme 216 Hab. corpus and prohibition to the high commissioners 18 Hospitall of St. John of Hierusalem 21 Hab. corpus granted 36 Husband and wife where they shall joyn 66 67 Hab. corpus and prohibition 271 Harriot an entire service 294 ISsue imperfect 47 Justification for calling one perjured 49 Judgment in Debt 76 preferred before a statute c. 81 Innuendo shall not help the Action 84 Jus accrescendi where it holds not 99 Information sur le statute 5 Ed. 6. Chapt. 14 108 109 110 Jurors non concluded by Pleas of the parties 150 Information for
a Book that ought not be given in evidence the Court above cannot remedie it except it be returned with the Postea A release to Tenant at sufferance void Commoner cannot chase the Lords Cattell if the surcharge be Common The Statute of 13 Eliz. for non-residence a generall law Where Husband and Wife shall be joyned and where severed in Action The Venire facias vicious no damages in Partition If the Jury find a man guilty in Trespass for a foot where it is layd in an Acre good enough and so in all Actions where damages onely are to be recovered Nota. Error assigned because in trespass nothing was entred of the Fine c. where it was a continued trespass and part of it was layd to be after the Pardon Nota. Nota. If the verdict find the tenure in substance though not in manner and form it is good intrespasse Difference between Replevin and Trespass In a writ to enquire of damages the Plaintif is not bound to prove the property of goods but the value only Where of his own wrong without such cause shall be a good issue and where not The Defendant prescribed for a passage over Land and naught it should have been for a way Nota. If the Lord cut the Wood in which the Commoner hath Estovers he shall have an Action of the Case but not an Assise Nota. Nota. Nota. An action will not lie for the counter-part of an Indenture without a speciall grant Nota. A man cannot Justifie the digging of a mans ground in hunting a Badger Nota. Nota. One Venu out of two places in the same County Whether a Copyholder may lop the trees growing upon his Copy-hold and held he might The Copy-holder is in by custome which is above the Lords estate The Copy-holder shall have trespas upon the Case against the Lord for cutting down of trees Nota. Nota. Nota. Nota. Nota. Nota. Waste in the Tenuit for digging of Sea coals Custodes Brev. Capital Prothon Sedi ' Prothon Try ' Prothon Cliri ' Warr. Cliri argenti Regi Cliri Error Cic. lib. 1. de Invent. Rhet. Prohibition upon the statute of 23. H. 8. Chap. 9. Prohibition to the High Commissioners High Commission Prohibition Joynt prohibitions and severall Counts Prohibition upon the statute of Symony upon the stat of 31. Eliz. Prohibition upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. for the dissolution of the Hospitall of Saint Johns of Jerusalem For not setting forth Tythes Husband sue only Prohibition to the Cort of Requests Against Forreiner for Ornaments for the Church and for Sextons wages Admiralty Contract for retaining of Tithes Admiralty Prohibition At the Archess discussed in right of Office Prohibition Admiralty for staying ships for Ballast High Commissioners and their power in Ministring Oâ—th and taking obligation High Commission Clandestine marriage Admiralty Coâ—rt if a thing done beyond Sea shall be there tried Agreement by word â—…p back tithes Where a Prohibition shall be granted without Action hanging High Commissioners Alimony Adultery Houghton Shirley Barker Court of Admiralty's Jurisdiction Admiralty Prohibition Modus decimandi Prohibition to a Court Baron Replevin 2. Executors one refuses Waste 2. Executors one refuses Bargaine and sale upon Condâ—… Ravishment of Ward Mich. 〈◊〉 Jacobi Rot. 213. Common of Pasture Trespasse Ejectione firmae Common Recovery Judgement in Debt Accompt See the beginning fol. Debt by Executor Administrators during the minority of the Executor Action upon the Case for words Replevin Attornement of Tenant being under age of 21. yeares Shirley Harris Harris Montague Hutton Surrender after Statute acknowledged Executors sued and also the Heire Court of Equity Debt upon a Bill Harris Shirley Fealty gives Seisin of all annuall Services Atturney brings Action of Debt for Fees Survivor doth not hold amongst Merchants to have all Award void Action upon the Case for words Devise that Executors shall sell Land A Towne incorporated with the consent of the greater part Action on the Case for slander Action upon the Case for suing one in a Court which hath no Jurisdiction Prescription for Common for Beasts without number Priviledge out of higher Court Fine amended Feoffinent to a Son and Heir for a valuable consideration Avowry Teste of a Venire facias amended after verdict Ejectione firme Ejectione firme Dodridge Houghton Replevin Grant without date Obligation Accompt Information Dodridge Hanghton Montague Dodridge Dower Debt against Administrator Commission to the Councell in Wales Caveat to a Bishop If administraon to the next of blood cannot be repealed Action for words Trespasse for breaking a House and taking a Cow Haughton Barker Barr not good Copy-hold intailed Extent upon a Statute Summons in Dower Patent of a Judge of the Common bench Action upon the case for slander Haughton Barker Periured Actionable Trespasse for imprisonment Dodridge Hutton Coram non judice Judgement void Shirley Wynch Foster Arbitrement Lease by the Dean and Chapter of Norwich Hutton Haughton Office granted by a Bishop Assumpsit Wilt of Right Haughton Nicholls Dower of titâ—e of Wooll Attachment Executrix during nonage Nicholls Harris Copy-holder Harris Dodridge Coke Replevin Waste Informer Lybell Debt against Administrator Copy-hold Coke Revocation of Uses Dodridge Nicholls Dodridge Nichols Wynch Warburton Coke Common Recovery Obligation to perferme Covenants Arrest of Judgment Audita querela Wast Estrepement awarded Ejectione firme Refusall Lord of a Mannor inclose the Demesnes adjoyning to the Common Warrantia Charte Dodridge Nicholls Devise of a Lease Dodridge Harris Assent to a Legatee Remainder of a Chattell Sherley Debt by Obligation Request is necessary for his Rent though that he have a bond for performing Covenants Nichols Debt Wynch Warburton Debt against Executors Davis What acts doe make an Executor De son tort what not Barker Warburton Wynch Trespasse Harriot Nicholls Harris Coke 253 Eliz. Dyer 193. a. Wrensfords case accordingly Warberton Wynch Release Cinque Ports Tenant for life with warranty Nicholls Haughton Wynch Warburton Ayd granted Coke Wynch Verdict uncertaine Falkland What is so called Warburton Coke Quod non occupantur conceditur Debt against Administrator for Rent in the Debet and Detinet Chibborne Detinet onely 2. Heire charged in Debet and Detinet 3. Towse Crook and Harris Joynt Covenant shall survive Copy-holder shall hold charge Error Elegit Testatum where no Writ had issued Confirmation to a Copy-holder destroys Common Expresse Covenant qualifies Covenant in Law Prohibition Defendant re-enters after Possession delivered by Habere facias possessionem Custome among Copy-holders Nonsuit after Verdict Reservation of Rent Michaelmasse or ten dayes after Grant of Common extinct Exposition of Usage Ejectione firme Errour Abatement of a Writ by entry Markhams Grant Earle of Rutlands Patent Challenge Earl of Rutlands Patent Challenge Abatement Errour Variance Seisin Abridgment of the Plaint in Assise Yelverton Fenner Challenge prin Flemming What matter shall be assigned for Error after Judgement Variante Challenge Seisin Misnaming of a Corporation Walter Yelverton Fenner Flemming Prohibition Prohibition A married Wife cannot make a Letter of Attorney Replevin Warburton Justice Walmesley Re-entry after possession executed Slander of Attorney Grand Cape Petit Cape Waging Law Release Inn-Keeper in London Action of false Imprisonment Serieant Harris the younger Walter Walmesley Coke Priviledge Assise View Coke Walmesley Challenge Errour in a Fine Barwick Returne of Writs Idemptitas nominis Fine Infant Tayle Maintenance Habeas Corpus Prohibition Trespasse for Slander Party Jury of two Counties Action upon the Case for Slander Errour Covenant for Rent Continuance Assumpsit Consideration Debt against Executors Errour Ve. fa. hab Carpus Formedon in Remainder Challenge Partition Dures Action upon the case for slander Prohibition Will. Devise Priviledge Postea 218. Adjournment of Tearm Infant levies Fine brings Errour Action upon the Case Action upon the Case Debt for Obligation Hutton Dodridge Court Sheriff committed to the Fleet. Grant of a Rent Priviledge of London Harris Hutton Where the Owner of Wood may Inclose Hutton Arbitrement Submissior Revocation Devise and grant â—enures to bargaine and Sale Harris Lease to determine upon Limitation Grant of the King that the Burrough should be incorporated Bayle Suit begun hanging another Writ Casuall intire Services Harris Nicholls Foster Dauiell Warburton Walmesley Coke Trade with Infidels without License Prohibition to the Court of Requests Approvement of Common Walmesley Foster Action upon the Case for Slander Bankrupt actionable Grant of Reversion Error in Proclamation Forfeiture of Office of a Chiroghapher Release Error in a Writ of Dower Copy-hold Certificate of the Bishop Minister Arrested Grant of the King of Alnage Haughton Dodridges Statutes how to be understood c. Account Devise of a Teerme Award Submission Arbitrement Where the death of the Defendant in Execution shall be satisfactory Dodridge Certiorari Outlawry Hutton Foster Debt upon escape against whom Warburton Land extended at too high rate Walmsley Coke Harris Haughton Foster Justice Warburton Walmsley Coke Charta de Foresta Assise Office Trespasse Estovers Boote its signification c. Nicholls Walmesley Coke Fee when forfeited Trespass Grant le Roy.
he had notice of the words which his Brother spoke but that this ought to be specially averred and the Count contained that the Defendant justified the aforesayd scandalous words to be true as in these English words following That which my Brother c. and it seemes that this was not sufficient Michaelmas 1611. 9. Jacobi In the Common Bench. Sir Richard Buckley against Owen Wood. NOte It was sayd to be adjudged between these parties that if a man exhibits a Bill in the Srarr Chamber which containes diverse slanderous matters whereof the Court hath no Jurisdiction that an Action upon the Case lyeth so if the Plaintiff affirme his Bill to be true action upon the Case lyeth upon that as it was adjudged upon that as it was adjudged in the same Case Michaelmas 9. Jacobi 1611 in the Common Bench. Patrick against Lowre IN Trespasse the Defendant justifies for that that he was seised of a House with the Appurtenances and prescribes to have Common in the place c. for all manner of Beasts Levant Couchant upon the sayd House and good prescription notwithstanding it doth not containe certaine number and it shall be intended for so many of the Beasts which may be rising and lying down upon the said House and if he put in more they may be distrayned doing Damage and so is the usage and prescription in all Burroughs that is to prescribe to have the Common by reason of the House but the matter upon which Nicholls the Serjeant which moved it insists was the uncertainty that is what shall be sayd rising and lying down upon a House for he thought beasts could not be rising and lying down upon a House unlesse that they are upon the top of the House but to that it was resolved that infomuch that here the common was claymed to the House it shall be intended that it was a curtillage belonging to the House and if it be not that ought to be averred of the other party and then the Beasts shall be intended to be rising and lying upon the Curtladge and if it had been alledged yet it shall be intended so many of the Beasts which may be tyed and are usually to be maintained and remaining within the House for it was agreed that rising and lying down shall be intended those Beasts which are nourished and fed upon the Land and may there live in summer and winter and also Beasts cannot be distrained if they be not rising and lying down upon the Land and receiving food there for some reasonable time but some thought that beasts could not be rising and lying down upon a house without a Curtilage Note that it was agreed that all proceedings in inferiour Court after a Writ of Priviledge delivered out of this Court are void and before no Judge and if they award Execution this Court will discharge the party of Execution Note that a Fine was levyed between Charles Lynne and VValter Long and the Foote of the Fine was Longle and it was amended Michaelmas 9. Jacobi 1611. In the Common Bench. Hamond Strangis Case THe Father for a valuable consideration infeoffs his eldest son and Heir and adjudged that this was not within the statute of those who infeoff their eldest Sons nor a valuable consideration In Avowry the Defendant avowes upon the person of the Plaintiff in a Replevin and the Plaintiff traverses the Tenure upon which they are at issue and at the Nisi prius it is found for the Plaintiff and agreed that this was aided by the Statute of Ieofailes for this is out of the statute of 21 H. 8. and as it was at the common Law or if the Defendant avow upon the person of a stranger the stranger hath no plea but out of his fee which was mischeivous the which was aided by the statute of 11 H. 8. 19. for he thought he would have traversed the Seisin The Teste of a Venire facias was the twelfth of June returnable tres Trinitatis which was the same day that the Teste was and after Verdict it was moved to be amended and to be made according to the Roll the which was done accordingly see 7 Ed. 4. for returning of Distring as which was amended after Verdict and Crompton one of the Prothonotaries sayd that a Venire facias bare date in the vacation after the Tearm returnable in the Tearme before and it was amended according to the Roll and the principall case was the Roll was upon the entering of the issue therefore you shall cause to come here twelve good and lawfull men who neither c. within three weeks of Michaelmas and the return of the Venire facias was made accordingly Michaelmas 9. Jacobi 1611. in the Common Bench. John Weekes Plaintiff Edward Bathurst Defendant ALSO in Ejectione Firme upon the Joyning of the Issue the Defendant pleads not Guilty and it was entred and the aforesaid Lessor likewise where it should have been and the aforesaid Plaintiff likewise and it was amended See this Case afterwards here the Case was the Defendant pleads that he is not guilty as the aforesaid Weekes which was the Lessor above against him hath declared and upon this he puts himself upon the Countrey and the aforesaid Weekes likewise where it should be the aforesaid John likewise and after verdict upon solemne argument this was amended by Coke Warburton and Foster and Foster cited 11. H. 7. 2. 26. H. 6. to be directly in the point and 14. Ed. 3. Amendment 46. Ed. 3. Amendment 53. and Warburton seemed that first that is Wekes for the aforesaid Wekes c. Is not materiall and the last shall be amended insomuch that this doth not alter any matter of substance Coke seemed that this was amendable the same Tearme by the Common Law if it were before Issue see 5 Ed. 3. 7 H. 6. Which was immediately before the statute of 22 Ed. 4. but in another tearme it was not amendable by the Common Law nor the statute of 14 Ed. 3. doth not extend to that for this doth not extend to a Plea Roll 46 Ed. 3. 13. accordingly but the statute of 8 H. 6. extends to any misprision in the Plea Roll or in the Record and makes that amendable 26 H. 6. Amendment 32. 9 and 10. Eliz. Dyer 260 261. And the difference is where there there is an Issue that gives power to the Justices of Nisi prius to try that then another Misprision shall be afterwards amended and he said that it was adjudged between Sir William Read Lezure in the Exchequer that a Commission of these words and the aforesayd Plaintiff likewise shall not be amended but in the principall case here they all agreed that it shall be amended and it was amended accordingly Michaelmas 1611. 9. Jacobi in the Common Bench. Prowse against Worthinge Leonard Loves Case IN an Ejectione firme speciall Verdict the case was this Leonard Loves the Grand-Father was seised of a
the Arbitrator awards that one party shall enter into Bond to another for injoying of certain Lands and doth not say in what Sum and adjudged void for the uncertainty and so in this case by which c. But it was answered and resolved that the Arbitrement was good And to the first objection it was resolved and agreed that every award ought to have respect to both parties if it be not a matter which concernes one party only and neither recompence nor acquittall due to the other party in which case the award shall be good And it was resolved in the principall case that the award was made of both parties for one was to have money and the other though there was no expresse mention that the other should be discharged of his Assumpsit yet the award was a good discharge in Law and may be pleaded in Bar upon an Action brought upon the Assumpsit and so it was for both parties And to the second objection it was agreed that where submission is with Ita quod c. as above that there the Arbitrators ought to make arbitrement of all the variances and controversies referred to their arbitrement and if they do make no arbitrement of all the matters of which the submission is made the award is void but if the submission be generall as of all matters in variance or controversie between them There if the Arbitrator makes his award of all matters which are known to him the award shall be good As my Lord Coke conceived though that there are other matters in variance of which the Arbitrator hath no notice as if divers Creditors sue a-commission upon the statute of Barkrupts and an another person to whome the Bankrupt was indebted doth not come in as a Creditor nor give notice to the Commissioners that the Bankrupt was indebted to him he shall not take benefit of the commission for the Commissioners cannot releive those Creditors of which they have no notice as it appeares by the case of Bankrupts in 2. Coke And to the third objection it was answered and resolved that the award was good notwithstanding that no place be expressed where the money shall be paid for in Law that ought to have resonable construction and the party ought to have reasonable time for the payment of that but Foster conceived that it is not good for it seemed to him that if the award shall be good that the Obligation of submission shall be immediatly forfeyted for that there was neither time nor place where the money should be payd but this was answered with the Bookes of 3. H. 7. 16. Ed. 4. Where it is said that if an Arbitrator award that one party shall pay such a sum of money at such a day and keeps the award in his Pocket till such a day be past that yet the Obligation shall not be forfeyted And so it was resolved and adjudged by all the other Justices that the award was good and Judgement was entred accordingly Hillary 7. Jacobi 1609. In the Common Bench. Foster against Jackson RICHARD Foster Plaintiff in Scire Facias against Anno Jackson and Myles Jackson Executors of Thomas Jackson upon Judgement had against the said Thomas in an Action of Debt The Defendants pleades that the said Thomas Jackson the Testator was taken upon a Capias ad Satisfaciendum awarded upon the sayd Judgement and in execution for the sayd Debt by force of the said Capias and there died in execution and so demands Judgement c. And the sole question was if the said Testator being in execution for the said Debt by force of the said Capias and there dies if this be satisfaction of the Debt or not And Dodridge the Kings Serjeant which argued for the Plaintiff in the sayd Scire Facias conceived that it is no satisfaction but that notwithstanding the Debt remaines for the words of the Writ are Capias ad satisfaciendum and all others Executions as Fire Facias and Eligit are satisfactory But the Capias is but a restraint of his liberty till he hath satisfied the Debt and for that it is no plenary satisfaction but only restraint of his liberty which the Law more respects then Goods or Lands and for that Custodia ought to be Salva stricta So by this the party may be Inforced to pay his Debt Salva to the party so that by this the party may be safely detained till he hath satisfied the Debt and Stricta to the King so that by this Justice may be satisfied and for that Bracton saith that it is only to compell the party to make satisfaction And it is resolved in the 33. H. 6. 47. That it is no satisfaction but that the Body should remain as a Pledge till satisfaction a were made or as return Irreplevisable and yet neither the one nor the other are satisfaction And the words of the Writ are Capias ad satisfaciendum the party but if he will satisfie then there is no reason that the Defendant shall be Imprisoned by the Writ But if he will not pay then he shall continue in Prison Quousque satisfecerit by which it appeares that the Imprisonment is no satisfaction and it appeares also by the Register and Fitz. Na. Bre. 246. b That if a man recover Damages of Trespasse before the Justices of Oyer and Terminer and hath the party in execution by force of this Judgement now if the parry which is in execution dies in Prison he which recovered may sue Certiorari to the Justices to remove this Record into the Kings Bench that the Justices there may make upon that Record as the Law will in such case And it seemes by this that the party shall have execution by Elegit or by Fieri Facias for it is not reasonable as it is there sayd that the death of him which died in Prison shall be satisfaction to the party which recovered but Fitzh here saith Tamen quere for he doubted of that but in the Register there is a speciall Writ of Certiorari to this purpose that is to remove the Record into the Kings Bench so that the Justices may do there upon that as the Law will and if the Law will not allow the party to have new execution it were in vain to have such Certiorari for other course cannot be taken and the end of every suit is to have payment and so is the Judgement that the Plaintiff should recover his Debt and so is the Writ and the count and the Capias also and to the end of Justices in Suum cuique tribuere And the party hath not any of these ends if the death of the Defendant in prison shall be satisfaction and in the 47. Ed. 3. Fitz. execution 41. Persey said that if in Trespasse the Plaintiff recover and the Defendant is taken for the Kings Fyne if he pray that the Defendant continue in Prison till he have made agreement with him perchance he shall not