Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was said by Dyer and Brown Iustices That if a Man deviseth by his Will to his Son a Mannor in tail 2 Cro. 49. Yelv. 210. and afterwards by the same Will he deviseth a third part of the same Lands to another of his Sons they by this are Ioynt-Tenants And if a Man in one part of his Will deviseth his Lands to A. in Fee and afterwards by another Clause in the same Will deviseth the same to another in Fee they are Ioynt-Tenants XXVIII Drew Barrentines Case Mich. 8 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was Drew Barrentine and Winifred his Wife were seised of the Mannor of Barrentine which is Ancient Demesne and holden of the Lord Rich as of his Mannor of Hatfield levy a Fine thereof Sur Conusans de droit c. by which Fine the Conusee rendreth the said Mannor to the said Drew and Winifred in special tail the Remainder to Winifred in tail the remainder to the Countess of Huntington in tail the remainder to the Heirs of the body of Margaret late Countess of Salisbury the remainder to the Queen in Fee It was moved by Bendloes Serjeant If the Lord Rich being Lord of the Mannor might reverse this Fine by a Writ of Disceit and so Recontinue his Seignory and he said That he might and thereby all the Estates which passed by the Fine should be defeated even the remainder which was limited to the Queen for by it the Fine shall be avoided to all intents Welsh Iustice Such a Writ doth not lie For by the remainder limited to the Queen by the Fine all mean Signories are extinct Then if it be so Disceit doth not lie If the Tenant in Ancient Demesne levieth a Fine and afterwards the Lord Paramount who is Lord of the Mannor doth release to the Conusee and afterwards the Lord of the Mannor brings a Writ of Disceit he gains nothing by it And if the Tenant in Ancient Demesne levieth a Fine of it and dieth and the Heir confirmeth the Estate of the Conusee and afterwards the Lord by a Writ of Disceit reverseth the Fine yet the Estate of the Conusee shall stand But all these cases differ from our case For in all those cases another act is done after the Action given to the Lord but in our case the whole matter begins in an instant quasi uno flatu and then if the principal be reversed the whole is avoided For the whole Estate is bound with the Condition in Law and that condition shall extend as well to the Queen and her Estate as to another And if Lands is Ancient Demesne be assured to the King in Fee upon Condition Now during the possession of the King the nature of the Ancient Demesne is gone but if the Condition be broken so as he hath his Land again it is Ancient Demesne as it was before and so the Estate of the Queen is bounden by a Condition in Law. XXIX Mich. 8 Eliz. In the Dutchy-Chamber NOte It was holden by Welsh in the Dutchy Chamber That whereas King Edw. the 6th under the Seal of the Dutchy had demised Firmam omnium tenentium at Will Manerii sui de S. That nothing but the Rent passed and not the Land for Firma signifies Rent as in a Cessavit de feodo firmae But the Clerks of the Court said That their course had always been to make Leases in such manner But Welsh continued in his Opinion as aforesaid And further he said That this was not helped by the Statute of Non-recital or Mis-recital c. for that here is not any certainty For sometimes Firma signifies Land sometimes Rent XXX Mich. 8 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THis Case was holden for Law by the whole Court Two Coparceners are and one of them dieth her Heir of full age she shall not pay a Relief for if she should pay any at all she should pay but the moyety and that she cannot do for a Relief cannot be apportioned for Coparceners are but one Tenant to the Lord. XXXI 8 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Action upon the Case was brought for stopping of a Way The Plaintiff declared That the Duke of Suffolk was seised of a House in D. and Leased the same to the Plaintiff for life And that the said Duke and all those whose Estate c. have used time out of mind c. to have a Way over the Lands of the Defendant unto the Park of D. to carry and recarry Wood necessary for the same House from the said Park to the same House and further declared That the Defendant Obstupavit the Way It was moved by Carns That upon this matter no Action upon the Case lieth but an Assise because that the Freehold of the House is in the Plaintiff and also the Freehold of the Land over which c. is in the Defendant But if the Plaintiff or Defendant had but an Estate for years c. then an Action upon the Case would lie and not an Assise All which was granted by the Court. Post 263. It was also holden That this word Obstupavit was sufficient in it self scil without shewing the special matter how as by setting up any Gate Hedge or Ditch c. for Obstupavit implyes a Nusans continued and not a personal disturbance as a Forestaller or in saying to the Plaintiff upon the Land c. that he should not go there or use that Way for in such cases an Action upon the Case lieth But as to any local or real disturbance Obstupavit amounts to Obstruxit And although in the Declaration is set down the day and the year of the Obstruction yet it shall not be intended that it continued but the same day for the words of the Declaration are further by which he was disturbed of his Way and yet is and so the continuance of the disturbance is alledged And of such Opinion also was the whole Court. Leonard Prothonotary said to the Court That he had declared of a Prescription habere viam tam pedestrem quam equestrem pro omnibus omnimodis Cariagiis and by that Prescription he could not have a Cart-way for every Prescription is stricti juris Dyer That is well Observed and I conceive that the Law is so and therefore it is good to prescribe habere viam pro omnibus Cariagiis generally without speaking of Horse-way or Cart-way or other Way c. XXXII Stowell and the Earl of Hertfords Case Mich. 8 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Formedom in the Remainder by John Stowel and R.R. against the Earl of Hertford the Case was That Lands were given to Giles Lord Daubeney in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of J.S. who had Issue two Daughters Agnes and Margaret and died The Donee died without Issue and the Demandants as Heirs of the said Agnes and Margaret brought a Formedom in the Remainder And it was awarded by the Court That the Writ should
See the Case 14 Eliz. in Dyer L. Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Tottenham and Bedingfields Case Owen Rep. 35 83. IN an Accompt by Tottenham against Bedingfield who pleaded That he never was his Bailiff to render accompt the Case was That the Plaintiff was possessed of a Parsonage for Term of years and the Defendant not having any Interest nor claiming any Title in them took the Tythes being set forth and severed from the 9 parts and carried them away and sold them Vpon which the Plaintiff brought an Action of Accompt And by Manwood Iustice the Action doth not lie for here is not any privity for wrongs are always done without privity And yet I do agree That if one doth receive my Rents I may implead him in a Writ of Accompt and then by the bringing of my Action there is privity and although he hath received my Rent yet he hath not done any wrong to me for that it is not my Mony until it be paid unto me or unto another for my use and by my Commandment and therefore notwithstanding such his Receipt I may resort to the Tenant of the Land who ought to pay unto me the said Rent and compel him to pay it to me again and so in such case where no wrong is done unto me Hob. 32â— I may make a privity by my consent to have a Writ of Accompt But if one disseiseth me of my Land and taketh the profits thereof upon that no Action of Accompt lieth for it is meerly a wrong And in the principal case so soon as the Tythes were severed by the Parishioners there they were presently in the Plaintiff and therefore the Defendant by the taking of them was a wrong doer and no Action of Accompt for the same lieth against him And upon the like reason was the Case of Monox of London lately adjudged which was That one devised Land to another 1 Len. 266. and died and the Devisee entred and held the Land devised for the space of 20 years and afterwards for a certain cause the Devise was adjudged void and for that he to whom the Land descended brought an Action of Accompt against the Devisee And it was adjudged That the Action did not lie Harper contrary For here the Plaintiff may charge the Defendant as his Proctor and it shall be no Plea for the Defendant to say That he was not his Proctor no more than in an Accompt against one who holdeth as Gardian in Socage it is no plea for him to say that he is not Prochein Amy to the Plaintiff Dyer The Action doth not lie If an Accompt be brought against one as Receiver he ought to be charged with the Receipt of the Mony and an Accompt doth not lie where the party pretends to be Owner as against an Abater or Disseisor but if one claimeth as Bailiff he shall be charged and so it is of Gardian in Socage Latch 8. And it was agreed That if a Disseisor assign another to receive the Rents that the Disseisee cannot have an Accompt against such a Receivor LI. 15 Eliz. In the Court of Wards NOte That this Case was ruled in the Court of Wards That where Tenant of the King of Lands holden by Knights Service in chief made a Feoffment in Fee of the same Lands to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his younger Son in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffor and died his eldest Son within age That the Queen should have the Wardship of his body and of the third part of the Land and when the eldest Son comes of full age that the younger Son should sue Livery and pay Primer Seisin according to the rate and value of the whole Land viz. of the third part as in possession and of the two parts as a Reversioner For the remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffee is in truth a Reversion for the Fee simple was never out of him because there is not any consideration as to that nor any Vse expressed And because Livery shall not be sued by parcels the younger Son shall not be suffered to sue Livery of the third part presently and respite the residue as to the two parts in Reversion until the Reversion fall but he shall sue Livery presently as well of the two parts in reversion as of the third part in possession and if the eldest Son had been of full age at the time of the death of his Father the younger Son should pay Primer Seisin as to the third part the whole value of it for one year as in possession and as to the two parts the moiety of the value of a year as of a Reversion LII Oliver Breers Case 15 Eliz. In the Court of Wards OLiver Breer who was Tenant in Chief by Knights Service made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of A. his eldest Son and Heir for life and after to the use of the first begotten Son of the said A. in tail and afterwards to the use of the second Son of the said A. c. and for default of such issue to the use of the right Heirs of the Feoffor Oliver died the said A. his Son being of full age It was holden by the Council of the Court of Wards That he should pay for his first Primer Seisin a third part as in possession and two parts as a reversion See the Case before LIII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte 1 Roll. 626 This Case was moved to the Iustices in the Court of the Kings Bench A Man had Issue two Daughters by divers Women and being seised of Lands in Fee he made his Will and by the same Devised That his Wife should have the moyety of his Lands for years and that his eldest Daughter at the day of her Marriage should enter into the other moyety his eldest Daughter married and died without Issue And the Question was Whether her Vncle should have that moyety or the fourth part of the whole Land. Catline conceived and said That when the Devise which was made to the eldest Daughter that she might enter after certain years is not the Inheritance in her presently and the other words void So he said here That it is not a purchase in the eldest Daughter but both the Daughters should enter in Common as one Heir to their Father until the Marriage and then the Inheritance which was once settled in them should not be removed Southcote Iustice said There are no words of Limitation of any Estate that the Daughter should have after the Marriage and therefore the Devise was void and if he had limited that the Daughter after Marriage should have it for life the Fee-simple is vested in her before and then she cannot have it for life And he said That if a Lease be made to the eldest Daughter for years by the Father and afterwards
shall be taken in Iudgment of Law That the Executors have Assets to the value of the whole 100 l. And although the Executors were compelled by the Award to make the release yet it was their own act to submit themselves to the Arbitrament LXXVIII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Court of Wards NOte It was Ruled by Kellaway and Wilbraham in the Court of Wards That where the Kings Tenant of Lands holden by Knight service in Capite made a Feoffment of the same Land to the use of himself for life and after to the use of his younger Son in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffor and died the eldest Son within age That the Queen should have the Wardship of his body and of the third part of the Land and when the eldest cometh at full age the younger shall sue Livery and pay Primer Seisin according to the rate of the value of the whole Land viz. of the third part as in possession and of the two parts as a Reversion For the remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffor is in truth a Reversion For the Feesimple was never out of him because there was not any Consideration as to that nor any use expressed And also because that Livery shall not be by parcels the younger Son shall not be suffered to sue Livery of the third part presently and respite the residue as to the two parts in Reversion until the Reversion fall but shall sue Livery presently as well of the two parts in reversion as of the third part in possession And if the eldest Son had been of full age at the time of the death of his Father the younger Son should pay Primer Seisin as to the third part of the full value of it for one year as in possession and as to the two other parts the moyety of the value of a year as a Reversion And at that time Breers Case was vouched which was Oliver Breers Tenant in Chief by Knights Service made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and after to the use of A. his Son and Heir for life and after to the use of the first begotten Son of A. in tail and after to the use of the second Son of A. c. and for default of such Issue to the right Heirs of the Feoffor Oliver died the said A. his Son being of full age It was ruled by the said Council of the said Court of Wards That he should pay for his Primer Seisin a third part of the Land in possession and two parts as a Reversion LXXIX Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Post 56. THe Case was A Man was seised of a Pasture in which was two great Groves and a Wood known by the name of a Wood And also in the same Pasture were certain Hedge-Rowes and Trees there growing Sparsim Leased the same by Indenture for years And by the same Indenture bargained and sold to the Lessee all Woods and Vnderwoods in and upon the Premisses And further That it should and might be lawful to the Lessee to cut down and carry away the same at all times during the Term. Harper Iustice The Hedge-Rowes did not pass by these words Hedge-Rowes sparsim Dyer The Hedge-Rowes shall pass for the Grant is general All Woods Mounson contrary For the words of the Grant may be supplyed by other words It was moved further If by these words the Lessee may cut them oftner than once And by Harper Manwood and Mounson He can cut them but once Dyer contrary And so it should be if the words had been Growing upon the Premisses And this word Growing although it sounds in the present Tense yet it shall be also taken in the future Tense if the word tunc had not been alledged for it is a word of restraint The Case which was argued in the Chancery 27 H. 8. where I was present was such The Prior of St. John of Jerusalem Leased a Commandry Provided That if the said Prior or any of his Brethren there being Commanders will dwell thereupon then the said Lease to be void It was doubted If that did extend to the Successors for the word Being is in the present Tense And yet it was holden by Fitzherbert That it should be taken in the future Tense and so extend to the Successors Otherwise if the words had been Nunc Being LXXX Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Man seised of Lands in Fee devised 1 Len. 101. That his Wife should take the profits of his Lands until Mary his Daughter and Heir came to the age of 16 years And if the said Mary died That J.S. should be her Heir Manwood The Daughter after she hath attained the age of 16 years shall have the Land in tail For Devises ought to be construed according to the intent of the Devisor so far forth as any certainty with reason may be collected but no intent shall be taken against all reason and certainty It is certain That the Daughter shall not have the Land in Fee for that shall descend to her without any Devise And these words If she dieth cannot be intended a Condition for it is certain she shall die But if the words had been That after the death of Mary J.S. should be his Heir in such case Mary had had but an Estate for life for there it is limited what Estate she should have And when it is said J.S. shall be his Heir it shall be meant his Collateral Heir so as the Estate tail remains in the Daughter Mounson and Harper to the contrary and that she shall have but for life And by Mounson If Mary had been a stranger to the Devise she should take nothing And this Case was put by Barham Serjeant A Man deviseth 100 l. to his youngest Daughter 100 l. to his middle Daughter and another 100 l. to his eldest Daughter and that all these sums shall be levied of the profits of his Lands It was holden by the better Opinion of the Court in this Case That the youngest Daughter should be first paid and then the middle and then the eldest Daughter and that was said to be Coniers Case LXXXI Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was The King granted to the Bishop of Salisbury That he should have Catalla felonum fugitivor ' and Fines and Amercements of all Tenants and Resiants within the Mannor of D. which Mannor the Bishop Leased for years and that the Lessee should have all profits and hereditaments within the same Mannor Manwood Iustice conceived That the Lessee should have the Post Fines For all things have a being somewhere although they be not visible As Rents Fines have their being in the Lands out of which they are issuing and that is in the Son of a Fine levied of the Land within the Mannor which is due by Land of him who ought to pay the Fine And this Fine is due be reason of the
Plaintiff had acquitted and discharged him of the Reparations Vpon which the Plaintiff demurred in Law. Manwood The same is an Acquittal and Discharge of the Reparations as well for the time past as for the time to come by force of the said Covenant and amounts to as much as if he had Released the Covenant And it was moved If the Covenant being broken for want of Reparations If now that Acquital and Discharge or Release of the Covenant should take away the Action upon the Obligation which was once forfeited before And it was the Opinion of Manwood That it should not For if one be bound in an Obligation for the performance of Covenants and before the breach of any of them the Obligee releaseth the Covenants and afterwards one of the Covenants is broken the Obligation is not forfeited for there is not now any Covenant which may be broken and therefore the Obligation is discharged But if the Release had been after the Covenant broken otherwise all which Dyer and Mounson Concesserunt CVI. Mich. 20. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HVsband and Wife seised in the right of his Wife of certain Customary Lands in Fee he and his Wife by Licence of the Lord make a Lease for years by Indenture rendring Rent have Issue two Daughters The Husband dieth The Wife takes another Husband and they have issue a Son and a Daughter The Husband and Wife die The Son is admitted to the Reversion and dieth without Issue It was holden by Manwood That this Reversion shall descend to all the Daughters notwithstanding the half-blood For the Estate for years which is made by Indenture by Licence of the Lord is a Demise and Lease according to the Order of the Common Law and according to the nature of the Devise the possession shall be adjudged which possession cannot be said possession of the Copyholder For his possession is Customary and the other is meer contrary therefore the possession of the one shall not be said the possession of the other and therefore there is no possessio fratris in this Case But if he had been Guardian by the Custom or this Lease had been made by surrender There the Sister of the half-blood should not inherit And Meade said That the Case of the Guardian had been so adjudged Mounson to the same intent And if the Copyhold descend to the Son he is not Copyholder before admittance 1 Len. 174 175. but he may take the profits and punish Trepass c. CVII Hinde and Lyons Case Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 11. Dyer 124. Ante 64. DEbt by Hinde against one as Son and Heir of Sir John Lyon who pleaded Nothing by descent but the third part of the Mannor of D. The Plaintiff replyed Assets And shewed for Assets That the Defendant had the entire Mannor of B. by descent Vpon which they were at Issue And it was given in Evidence to the Iury That the Mannor was holden by Knights-Service and that the said Sir John the Ancestor of the Defendant by his Will in writing devised the whole Mannor to his Wife until the Defendant his Son and Heir should come to the age of 24 years And that at the age of the Son of 24 years his Wife should hold the third part of the said Mannor for the Term of her life and his Son should have the residue And if his Son do die before he come to the age of 24 years without Heir of his body that the Land should remain over to J.S. the Remainder over to another The Devisor died the Son came to the age of 24 years Dyer and Mounson Iustices conceived That here was not any Estate tail and then for two parts he is not in by descent For no Estate tail shall rise unless that the Son dieth before his said age and therefore the Tayl never took effect and the Feesimple descends and remains in the Son if not that he dieth before the age of 24 years and then the whole vests with the Remainder over but now having attained the said age he hath a Fee and that by descent of the whole Mannor and then his Plea is false that but the third part descended And a general Iudgment shall be given against him as of his own debt And an Elegit shall issue forth of the moyety of all his Lands as well those which he hath by descent from the same Ancestor as of his other Lands And a Capias lieth also against him But Manwood Iustice conceived That if a general Iudgment be given against the Heir by default in such case a Capias doth not lie although in case of a false Plea it lieth But Dyer held the contrary And the Writ against the Heir is in the debet detinet which proves That in Law it is his own Debt And he said That he could shew a President where such an Action was maintainable against the Executor of the Heir CVIII Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Seised of Lands in Fee Devised them to his Wife for life and after her decease she to give the same to whom she will Latch 9,39 had issue two Daughters and died The Wife granted the Reversion to a stranger and committed Waste And the two Daughters brought an Action of Waste It was holden by the Iustices That by that Devise the Wife had but an Estate for life but she had gained authority to give the reversion by his Will to whom she pleased And such a Grantee should be in by A. and his Will For A. had given expresly to his Wife for life and therefore by Implication she should not have any further Estate But if an express Estate had not been appointed to the Wife by the other words an Estate in Feesimple had passed CIX Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Lessor Covenanted with his Lessee That the Lessee should enjoy the Lands demised without any lawful Eviction And afterwards upon a Suit depending in Chancery by a stranger against the Lessor for the Land demised The Chancellor made a Decree against the Lessor and that the stranger should have the Land. It was moved If that Decree were a lawfull Eviction by which the Covenant was broken It was holden by the Lord Dyer That the same was not any Eviction For although that in Conscience it be aequum that the said stranger have the possession yet the same is not by reason of any right paramount the title of the Lessor which was in the party for whom it was decreed CX The Marquess of Northamptons Case Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. PArre Marquess of Northampton took to Wife the Lady Bouchier the Heir of the Earl of Essex 1 Roll. 430. who levied a Fine of the Land of the said Lady Sur Conusans de droit c. with a Grant and render to them for life the Remainder to the right Heirs of the body of the Lady And afterwards by Act of
devise Lands of which she was seised of an Estate of Inheritance in Fee simple according to the Custom to her Husband And also Surrender the same in the presence of the Steward and 6 other of the Tenants And it was further found That one J.S. was seised of the Copy-hold Lands wherein the Trespass was And that he had Issue 2 Daughters and died seised of the said Lands And that after his Decease his two Daughters entred into the said Lands and afterwards they both took Husbands And that afterwards one of the said Daughters made a Will in writing and by her said Will in the presence of the Steward and six of the Tenants she Devised her part of the said Copy-hold Lands to her Husband and his Heirs and at the next Court surrendred the said Copy-hold Lands in the presence of the Steward and six other of the Tenants to the uses in her Will expressed and shortly after she died and that after her death her Husband was admitted to the said part of her Lands who continued the possession thereof And the Husband of the other Daughter and his Wife entred upon him Vpon whom he re-entred And the Husband brought Trespass This Case was argued at the Bar by Rhodes And he said That the Custom was not good neither for the Devise nor for the Surrender First for the incertainty of the Estate what Estate she might Devise for that is not expressed in the Custom but generally that she might Devise her Copyhold Lands of Inheritance without expressing for what Estate And secondly the Custom is not good for that it is against reason that the Wife should surrender to the use of her Husband And that a Custom to devise is not good where it is incertain he vouched many Cases As 13 E. 3. tit Dum fuit infra aetatem 3. The Tenant said That the Lands lay in the County of Dorset where the Custom is That an Enfant might make a Grant or a Feoffment when he could number 12 d. and because it is incertain when he could do it It was holden to be a void Custom So 19 E. 2. tit Gard. 127. In a Ravishment of Ward It was alledged that the Custom was That when an Enfant could measure an Ell of Cloath or number 12 d. that he should be out of Ward And it was holden to be a void Custom for the incertainty Also he said That in the principal Case the Custom was void for that it was against reason that the Wife should surrender to her Husband for every Surrender is a Gift and a Woman cannot give unto her Husband for the Wife hath not any disposing Will but the Will of her Husband only And therefore the Case is in 21 E. 3. That if the Husband be seised of Lands in the right of his Wife and he maketh a Feoffment in Fee of the Lands and the Wife being upon the Lands doth disagree and saith She will not depart with the Land during her life yet the Feoffment is a good Feoffment and shall bind the Wife during the life of the Husband And see 3 E. 3. Br. tit Devise 43. That a Feme Covert cannot Devise to her Husband for that should be the Act of the Husband to convey the Lands to himself And whereas the Case in 29 E. 3. was Objected against him where the Case was That a Woman being seised of Land deviseable took a Husband and had Issue by him and the Wife Devised her Lands to her Husband for his life and died and a Writ of Waste was afterwards brought against him And it was there holden That the Writ did lie He said That that Case did make rather for him than against him for that Case proves that the Husband did not take the Land by vertue of the Devise in his own right but that he held the Lands having Issue by the Wife as Tenant by the Courtesie and so under another Title and therefore it appeareth that the Writ of Waste was there brought against him as Tenant by the Courtesie Also he said That the Devise was void by the Statute of 34 H. 8. Cap. 5. where it is Enacted That Wills and Testaments made of any Lands Tenements c. by Women Coverts shall not be good or effectual in the Law and he said That that Statute did extend to Copyhold Lands But as to that all the Iustices did agree That Copyhold Lands were not within the words of that Statute But Anderson said That the Equity of that Act did extend to Copyholds And further Anderson said That the Prescription or Custom in the principal Case was not good for it is layed to be That Quaelibet Foemina Viro Co-operta poterit and it ought to be potest and by the Custom have used to Devise to the Husband And a Prescription must be in a thing done and not in posse Also he said That the Custom if it were good is not well pursued For the Custom is that she may Devise and Surrender in the presence of the Steward and six Tenants and that must be intended to be done all at one time for the words of a Custom are to be performed if it may be but in the principal case the Devise is laid to be at one time and the Surrender at another time and so it is not in pursuance of the Custom But to that it was not answered But then it was said Admit that the Custom to devise and the Devise were not good yet the Action did not lie against the Defendant because that the Husband was admitted and his Entry into the Land was countenanced by a lawful Ceremony and also he was Tenant in Common with the other Husband by such Entry It was adjourned CXXIII Rosse's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Trespass brought by Rosse for breaking of his Close and beating of his Servant and carrying away of his Goods Post 94. Vpon Not guilty pleaded the Iury found this special matter scil That Sir Thomas Bromley Chancellor of England was seised of the Land where c. and leased the same to the Plaintiff and one A. which A. assigned his moyety to Cavendish by whose Commandment the Defendant entred It was moved That that Tenancy in Common betwixt the Plaintiff and him in whose right the Defendant justified could not be given in Evidence and so it could not be found by Verdict but it ought to have been pleaded at the beginning But the whole Court were clear of another Opinion and that the same might be given in Evidence well enough It was further moved against the Verdict That the same did not extend to all the points in the Declaration but only to the breaking of the Close without enquiry of the battery c. And for that cause it was clearly holden by the Court That the Verdict was void And a Venire facias de novo was awarded CXXIV Absolon and Andertons Case Mich. 25 26 Eliz. Rot. 479. In the Kings
Bench. WIlliam Absolon Master of the Savoy and the Chaplains there brought Debt against Anderton The Case was That the said Master and Chaplains leased Lands to the Defendant for certain years and afterwards he accepted of them an Indenture of Bargain and Sale to him and his Heirs by express words of Bargain and Sale without other words And one of the Masters of the Chancery within the 6 months came unto them into their Chapter-house and before him they acknowledged the said Indenture to be their Deed and prayed that it be enrolled which was done accordingly It was moved If that acknowledgment and Enrollment were good or not or if the Master and the Chaplains ought to have appointed one by their Warrant to be their Attorny to acknowledge the said Deed And it was also moved 1 Len. 184. If there needed any Enrollment at all of it because Anderton had then an Interest in the Land for years in which case it is to be considered If the words Barganizavi Vendidi shall be of such effect as the words Dedi Concessi And it was said by the Court That a Warrant of Attorny to acknowledge a Deed were a strange thing And it was agreed That the Indenture being once Inrolled it was not material by what means it was Inrolled but was good being done CXXV Savell and Badcocks Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. SAvell brought an Action of Trespass against Badcock and declared That Edw. Savell was seised of the Mannor of D. and leased the same for years to Henry Savell who died having made the Plaintiff his Executor who entred and was possessed until the first day of January at which time the Trespass was done The Defendant pleaded Not guilty And it was given in Evidence on the Plaintiffs part That the said Ed. Savell was seised and leased to the said Henry Savell for years who so possessed reciting the said Lease Demised the said Mannor to Sir William Cordell Master of the Rolls to have to him immediately after the decease of the said Henry for so many years of the said Term which at the time of his death should be unexpired if Dorothy the Wife of the said Henry should so long live Henry died Sir William Cordell entred Dorothy died within the Term the Plaintiff the Executor of Henry entred and was possessed until the first day of Januarii 23 Eliz. at which day the Trespass was done On the Defendants part it was given in Evidence That after the Grant to Sir William Cordell the said Henry and Edward joyned in a fine Sur Conusans de droit c. to a stranger who granted and rendred the Land to the said Henry and his Heirs who devised the same to the said Dorothy his Wife for life the remainder to Cordell Savell in tail the remainder over and died Dorothy entred and died Cordell Savell 22 Eliz. conveyed the Mannor by Fine to one Williamson who entred and afterwards and before the Trespass aforesaid viz. 14 January 23 Eliz. leased to the Defendant for years by force of which the Defendant entred And upon this Evidence there was a Demurrer in Law. And it was argued by Shuttleworth who was made Serjeant the last Term. And he said That the Demise made by Henry Savell is not in the inconveniency of the maxim that Henry by the said Grant should reserve a lesser Estate to himself than he had before For here by this Grant no present interest passeth by Sir William Cordell but the effect of the Grant rests upon a Contingency scil if he himself dieth within the Term c. until which time the whole interest of the Term doth remain in the said Henry Savell subject to the Contingency aforesaid and amounts to so much as if the said Henry had granted the same to Sir William Cordell if he himself should die within the Term in which Case it is a limitation when the said Grant shall take effect As if I grant unto you my Lease for so many years as J.S. shall name the same is a good Grant to take effect upon the naming of J.S. Then the Case being so When Henry Savell the Lessee and Edward Savell the Lessor joyn in a Fine ut supra now the possibility of the remnant of the Term which upon the death of Henry Savell and Dorothy his Wife within the Term might accrue to the Executors of the said Henry Savell is not extinct by the Fine but doth remain Quodam modo in Henry Savell to vest in his Executors if it should happen And here is not any conclusion by the Fine in this Case for Henry at the time of the Fine had not in him any Interest which is now claimed and so cannot be bound by the Fine For the Interest in respect of which the Plaintiff hath cause of Action begineth after the death of Henry who levied the Fine and first accrueth to his Executors and so shall not be touched by the Fine and therefore if such a Lessee for years granteth his Term to J.S. Proviso That if J.S. dieth within the Term that he himself shall have it again and afterwards the Grantor joyns with his Lessor in a Fine and afterwards within the Term J.S. dieth now the Grantor notwithstanding the Fine shall have the residue of the Term Then when the Conusee by the Fine regrants the Land to Henry in Fee that possibility to have after the death of the Donor cannot be drowned in the Fee simple for the reason aforesaid And then when Henry deviseth the same to his Wife that possibility doth pass to Dorothy because it was never in the Devisor and then when Dorothy dieth within the Term the Residue of the said Term shall accrue to the Plaintiff as Executor of Henry Cook contrary And he held The Grant to Sir William Cordell is utterly void And he agreed That Grants although in themselves they be uncertain yet if they may be reduced to certain they are good but here is no expectance of any certainty in the life of Henry for the Term limited to Sir William Cordell is not to begin till the death of Henry and is to end upon the death of Dorothy so as here is not any certain beginning nor certain end and here this Grant cannot be reduced to any Certainty during the life of the Grantor and so for that cause is void See Plow Com. 6 Eliz. Say and Fullers Case 273. by Weston Iustice If A. makes a Lease for so many years as J.S. shall name if J.S. in the life of A. name a certain number of years then the Lease is good but if the Lease had been for so many years as my Executors shall name that can never be made good in my life And upon that reason it is That an Attornment ought to be made in the life of the Grantor or else no Reversion shall pass So 33 E. 3. Entry 79. A Bishop aliens and after his death the Dean Chapter
John the Father in three parts to be divided And afterwards the Father by his Will devised the Lands holden in Socage unto his said Wife for life with divers Remainders over It was the Opinion of the Court in this Case that the Devise was utterly void by the Statute CLV Brett and Peagrims Case Pasch 26 Eliz. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that whereas he himself and the Defendant submitted themselves to the Award of A.B. and C.D. and whereas the said Arbitrators upon the hearing of the Causes between them did intend and were resolved amongst other matters of their Award to award that two Obligations by which the Plaintiff was severally bounden to the Defendant for the payment of certain sums of Mony to the Defendant should be delivered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff to be cancelled The Defendant promised in Consideration that that Article of the delivery of the said two Obligations should be left out of the Award that he himself would gratis deliver them to the Plaintiff without any Coertion or direction of the Award and further declared that the said Article ad specialem instantiam ipsius Querentis was left out by the said Arbitrators out of their Award and notwithstanding that that the Defendant had not redelivered ut supra c. but had put the same in suit against the Plaintiff In this Case upon the matter ut supra c. it was adjudged for the Plaintiff CLVI Nich. Lee's Case Pasch 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 26. 1 Len. 285. 1 Inst 113. Dyer 177. 219. a. 2 Len. 220. NIch. Lee by his Will devised his Land to W. his second Son And if he do depart this World not having Issue then I Will my Sons-in-Law shall sell my Land. The Devisor at the time of the Devise having six Sons-in-Law died W. had Issue John and died John died without Issue one of the Sons-in-Law of the Devisor died the five surviving Sons-in-Law sold the Land. 1. It was clearly agreed by the whole Court that although the words of the Will be ut supra If W. my Son depart this World not having Issue c. And that W. hath Issue which dieth without Issue there although it cannot be said Literally that William did depart this World not having Issue yet the intent of the Devisor is not to be restrained to the Letter but Construction shall be made that whensoever W. dieth in Law upon the matter without Issue the same Land shall be subject to sale according to the Authority committed by the Devisor to his Sons-in-Law And now upon the matter W. is dead without Issue As in a Formedon in the Reverter or Remainder although the Donee in tail hath Issue yet if afterwards the Estate tail be spent the Writ shall suppose that the Donee died without Issue a fortiori in the case of a Devise such Construction shall be made As to the other point concerning the sale of the Land Wray demanded if the Sons-in-Law were named in the Will The Clerks answered they were not See 30 H. 8. Br. Devise 31 and 39 Ass 17. Fitz. title Executors 117. Such a sale is good in case of Executors See also 23 Eliz. Dyer 371. And see 4 and 5 Mar. Dyer Land devised in tail and if the Devisee shall die without Issue that then the Land shall be sold pro optimo valore by his Executors una cum assensu of A. if A. dieth before sale the power of the Executors is determined And afterwards it was clearly resolved by the whole Court that the sale by the manner aforesaid was good and Iudgment given accordingly CLVII Rag and Bowley's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ERror was brought upon a Fine and the Error was assigned in the Proclamations Whereupon issued a Certiorari to the Custos Brevium who certified the Proclamations by which Certificate it appeared that two of the said Proclamations were made in one day upon which the Defendant prayed another Scire facias to the Chirographer in whose Office it appeared that all the Proclamations were well and duly made It was the Opinion of Wray Chief Iustice in this Case that the Defendant ought to have his preyer for the Chirographer maketh the Proclamations and he is the principal Officer as to them And the Custos Brevium hath but the abstract of the Proclamations and we may in discretion amend them upon the matter appearing But the other Iustices seemed to be of a contrary Opinion for that the Proclamations being once certified by the Custos Brevium who is the principal Officer we ought not afterwards to resort to the Chirographer who is the inferior Officer And afterwards the Clerks of the Common Pleas were examined of the matter aforesaid by the Iustices of the Kings Bench and they answered according to that which was said by Wray Chief Iustice Wherefore it was awarded by the Court that a new Certiorari be directed to the Chirographer who Certified the Proclamations to be well and duly made And thereupon the Court awarded that the Proclamations in the Office of the Custos Brevium should be amended according to the Proclamations in the Custody and the Office of the Chirographer Note In the same Case before the Writ brought a stranger had brought a Writ of Error against the same Defendant upon the same Fine upon which the transcript of the Fine and Proclamations are removed in Banco and after the Plaintiff is Non-suit Now another who hath Cause may have a Writ of Error quod coram vobis residet CLVIII Taverner and Cromwell's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. UPon an Evidence unto a Iury 3 Cro. 353. containing difficulty and matter in Law it was found viz. that the Bishop of Norwich 10 H. 8. was seised of the Mannor of Northelman in the right of his Bishoprick and at his Court holden within the same Mannor granted parcel of the Demesnes of the said Mannor to one Taverner and his Heirs where of the said Land in truth there was not any Demise by Copy before And so the said Land continued in Copy until 23 H. 8. at which time Taverner committed a forfeiture which being presented the Bishop seised the Land as forfeited and granted the same again by Copy to Taverner in Fee And so from thence it continued in Copy until 8 Eliz. which Interval between 23 H. 8. and 8 Eliz. amounted to 47 years It was the Opinion of the whole Court in this Case that the Continuance for 50 years is requisite to fasten a Customary Condition upon the Land against the Lord. It was also agreed by the Court that although the Original Commencement and that Customary Interest did commence 10 H. 8. ut supra from which time unto 8 Eliz. 60 years passed yet the seisure for a forfeiture which happened 23 H. 8. interrupted utterly the Continuance from the time which might by the Law have perfected the Customary Interest So
that now the time before the forfeiture ought not to be accounted in this Case But the Orginal beginning of the Copyhold shall be holden to be 23 H. 8. when the Grant de Novo by Copy was made between which time and 8 Eliz. is an interval but of 47 years within which time a Customary Interest cannot be attached upon the Land And then before sufficient time encurred c. the Lord may well enter upon such a Tenant at Will For as yet there is not any Custom begotten by sufficient time to bind him It was also agreed by the Iustices That if the Lord of a Mannor is seised of an ancient Copyhold for forfeiture or by reason of Escheat and Lett the same at Will without any Copy for divers years one after the other that that is not any Interruption of the Customary nature of the Land but that the Lord may grant it again by Copy As to other parcel of the Land It was given in Evidence That at a Court lately holden at Northelman It was presented by the Homage there That Taverner the Plaintiff being a Copy-holder of the said Mannor had forged a Customary of the said Mannor containing divers false Customs pretending them to be true Customs of the said Mannor and that he had forged and put a Seal to it about which this word viz. Northelman is engraven And that he had procured divers Copyholders of the said Mannor to set their seals to it and that he said unto them That that Customary should be put into the Church of Northelman amongst the Charters and Evidences of the said Church And that he had now made his Copyhold as good as his Freehold And If the said Offence committed by the Plaintiff ut supra be a forfeiture of his Copyhold was the Question It was argued by Popham who was of Counsel with the Plaintiff That without further matter it was not any forfeiture And yet he confessed It is a forgery against the first branch of that Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 14. And so he said it was lately adjudged in the Star-Chamber But as to the point of Forfeiture he put this difference If the Lord demand his Services of his Copyholder there If the Copyholder upon debate between the Lord and himself sheweth forth such a forged Customary and Counterpleads the Demand of the Lord with it now it is a forfeiture for that the Inheritance of the Lord is thereby hazarded As if the Copyholder after the forfeiture keep it himself and doth not encounter his Lord in his demand with it in his services the same is not any forfeiture As if the Copyholder before any Rent be due saith That he will not pay any Rent to the Lord hereafter Or when a Court is to be holden That he will not after appear to do any Suit at the Court of his Lord c. But if his Rent being due he denyeth it Or when the Court is holden he saith That he will not do any Suit the same is a foreiture As it was lately adjudged in the Kings Bench in the Case between Sir Christopher Hatton and his Copyholders of his Mannor of Wellingborough So if a Copy-holder being with the other Copyholders charged upon Oath to enquire of the Articles of the Court-Baron and sufficient matter being given to them in Evidence to induce them to find a matter within their Charge and they or any of them obstinately refuse to find the same the same is a forfeiture of his Copyhold As it was adjudged in the Case of Sir Rich. Southwell Knight and Thurston Clench Iustice conceived That in the principal Case the Offence of the Plaintiff is not any forfeiture no more 1 Roll. 508. than if a Copyholder makes a Charter of Feoffment of his Customary Land and delivereth the same as his Deed to the party but doth not execute it by Livery the same is not any forfeiture It was argued by Gawdy Serjeant who was of Counsel with the Defendant to the contrary For he said That if a Copyholder will forge a Deed of Feoffment purporting That the Lord of the Mannor hath enfeoffed him of the said Customary Land notwithstanding that he keepeth such Charter himself without shewing it forth yet it is a Forfeiture At the length The Court wished the Iury to find the special matter and to refer the same to the Court Whether it was a Forfeiture or not In this Case another matter was moved viz. The Auncestor of the Plaintiff had purchased divers several Copyholds from several Copyholders by several Copies whereof he died seised Or committed several Offences by which he forfeited to the Lord all his Copyholds for which the Lord seised and granteth them again to his Auncestor wtih the Ancient Rent and to his Heirs Tenendum per antiqua servitia consueta c. And afterwards the same Copyholder commiteth Waste whether the same shall now trench to forfeit all the Copyhold Lands which were granted ut supra by one entire Copy Or only that which was before the seizure holden by the same Rent Et nihil ultra For these words Tenendum per antiqua servitia do not trench only to the Quantity of the Services but also to the Quality scil severally so as there shall be several Services as before As if A. be seised of Copyhold Land on the part of his Father and of other Copyhold Land on the part of his Mother and thereof dieth seised and his Son and Heir be admitted to it by one Copy and by one Admittance Now if that Son dieth without Issue the Copyholds shall descend severally the one to the Heir on the part of his Father and the other to the Heir on the part of his Mother c. And afterwards the Iury found the Special Verdict and the special matter ut supra c CLIX. Vincent Lee's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Exchequer 1 Inst 138. b. VIncent Lee seised of Lands in Fee had Issue 3 Sons F.G. and J and by his last Will in writing Devised That J. his Son should have the Land for the Term of 31 years without impeachment of Waste to the intent that he pay certain Debts and Legacies set down in his said Will The remainder after the said Term expired to the Heirs Males of the Body of the said J. begotten And further willed That if the said J. die within the Term aforesaid that then G. his Son shall have such Term c. and then also shall be Executor but made the said J. his present Executor and died J. entred by force of the Devise F. died without Issue by which the Feesimple descended upon J. who had Issue P. and died within the Term P. entred G. as Executor entred upon him and he re-entred upon which re-entry G. brought Trespass Pigott said That the Term by the descent of the Fee from F. to J. being the second Son of Vincent and Heir of F. is not extinct but only suspended It hath
created by this Will but the Feesimple setled in them when they came at their lawful age and had Issue so as the residue of the Devise was void and Iudgment was given accordingly CLXVI Griffith and Agard's Case Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Disceit by Griffith against Agard and his Wife 1 Len. 290. For that a Fine was levied of a Messuage being Ancient Demesne by which it became Frank-Fee and the Fine was levied in the life of A. Griffith Grandfather of the Plaintiff Exception was taken to the Writ because it is brought by the Plaintiff as Cosen and Heir of A. G. his Grandfather And in the beginning of the Writ the words are Si Henricus Griffith fecerit te securum without saying Cousen and heir of A. G. fecerit te securum But the Exception was not allowed For afterwards in the Writ these words are Cujus haeres ipse est See the Register 238. that it is sufficient if there be in the body of the Writ these words Cujus haeres ipse est Another Exception was taken to the Declaration in that it is alledged that the Lands were De antiquo Dominico Dominae Reginae Angliae wereas it ought to have been De antiquo Dominico Dominae Coronae suae c. The Opinion of the Court was That it was good both ways See Book Entries 100. antiquo Dominco Coronae 58. de antiquo Dominico Domini Regis CLXVII Bashpool's Case Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 101. Stiles Rep. 148. THe Case was The Father was seised of Lands in Fee and bound himself in an Obligation and devised his Lands unto his Wife until his Son should come to the age of 21 years the Remainder to his Son in Fee and died and no other Land descended or came to the Son from the Father It was moved by Godfrey That the Heir in this case might elect to waive the Devise and to take the Land by Descent See 9 E. 4. 18. by Needham But it was the Opinion of Gawdy and Shute Iustices That the Son should be adjudged in by Descent and so bounden with the Debt CLXVIII Branthwait's Case Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. DEbt brought by J. D. against Branthwait upon an obligation the Condition of which was That whereas J. F. claimed to have a Lease for years of the Mannor of D. made and granted to him by one W. D. If the said Branthwait keep without damage the Plaintiff from all claim and Interest to be challenged by the said J. F. de tempore in tempus during the years c. and also deliver the said Lease to the Plantiff that then c. The Defendant pleaded That the said J. F. had not any such Lease and that after the making of the said Obligation untill the Action brought the Plaintiff was not damnified ratione dimissionis praedictae Exception was taken to the same because where the words of the Condition are Keep without damage the Plaintiff from all Claim and Interest And he hath pleaded That the Plaintiff was not damnified ratione dimissionis c. But the Exception was disallowed by the Court For if he were not damnified ratione dimissionis then he was not damnified by reason of any Claim or Interest Another Exception was taken Because he could not now say there was no such Lease For it is recited in the Obligation That J. F. claimed to have a Lease and therefore by this recital he is estopped c. And see where a Recital is an Estoppel 8 R. 2. Fitz. 2 Len. 11. tit Estoppel 283. 39 E. 3. 3. Fitz. Estoppel 112. 46 E. 3. 12. It was holden by the Court That it was a good Estoppel And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXIX Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. DEbt upon an Obligation The words of the Obligation were I am content to give to W. 10 l. at Michaelmas and 10 l. at our Lady day It was holden by the Court That it was a good Obligation And it did amount to as much as I promise to pay c. It was also holden by the Court That an Action of Covenant lay upon it as well as an Action of Debt at the Election of the Plantiff And it was holden That although the Action is for 40 l. and the Declaration is 20 l. and 20 l. at two several days yet it is good enough and the Declaration is well pursuant to it And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLXX The Queen and Kettell's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Queen brought a Writ de Valore Maritagii against Kettell and Counted of a Tenure in Chief The Defendant pleaded That pendant the Writ the Queen had granted to one Edmund Kettel Custodiam Maritagium of the said Defendant with whom he had Compounded It was holden by the whole Court to be no Plea for the Letters Patents were void because the Queen was deceived in her Grant for it appeareth by the Count that the Defendant before the Grant of the Queen was of full age And by the Letters Patents the Queen intended that he was within age and by the same granted Custodiam c. CLXXI. Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seised of Land by his Will Devised 1 Len. 31. That his Executors should sell the Lands and died the Executors levied a Fine thereof to one F. taking Mony for it of F. The Question was If in title made by the Conusee to the said Lands by the Fine It be a good Plea against the same to say Quod partes Finis nihil habuerunt Anderson conceived That it was But by Windham and Periam upon Not guilty the Conusee may help himself by giving in Evidence the special matter in which Case the Conusee shall be adjudged in not by the Fine but by the Devise And Windham said That if A. Devise That his Executors shall sell a Reversion of certain Lands of â—hich he dieth seised and they sell the same without Deed the same is well enough for the Vendee is in by the Devise 1 Iust 113. a. and not by the Conveyance of the Executors Quod vide 17 H. 6. 23. And by Periam The Conusee may help himself in pleading As he who is in by the Feoffment or Grant of Cestuy que use by the Statute of 1 R. 3. CLXXII Lee and Loveday's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in tail leased for 60 years and afterwards levied a Fine to Lee and Loveday sur Conusans de Droit come ceo c. and their Heirs in Fee And afterwards the Lord of the Mannor of whom the Land was holden brought a Writ of Disceit and upon that a Scire facias against the Conusees supposing the Land to be Ancient Demesne The Defendants made default by which the Fine was annulled and now the Issue in tail entred upon the Lessee for years and he brought an Ejectione firme
here it is found That she clearly departed out of London but they have not found that she dwelt in the Country c. but only that she went to Melton but she ought to do doth before her Estate shall cease It was argued by Towse for the Plaintiff That the Defendant ought to be found guilty of the Ejectment For it is found That the Defendant entred before the Commandment of Anne but they have not found that Anne was alive Fenner Iustice the same is well enough and so it was holden 18 Eliz. in this Court for although her life be not found yet it shall be intended that she was alive For the Iury did not doubt of it and the Conclusion of the Verdict is That if it shall seem to the Court that his Entry is lawful Then the Defendant is not guilty So as the doubt of the Iury is only upon that point Which Wray concessit Gawdy Iustice If one Deviseth Land to one for life upon Condition That his Estate shall cease which is all one with the Case at Bar and after the breach of the Condition he continueth in possessions he is not Tenant for life but Tenant at sufferance Wray Chief Iustice Tenant for the life of another continues in possession after the death of Cestuy que vie he hath not any Freehold remaining in him for if he dieth nothing descends And so it was lately adjudged by all the Iustices of England upon a Conference had between them And the Book of 18 E. 4. is not Law. Which Gawdy Iustice concessit See 35 H. 8. 57. acc And he said That the same shall be as a Limitation by which the Estate shall cease without an Entry And here in this Case because they have not found That Anne had dwelt in the Country here is no breach of the Condition in the Case And afterwards by the Advice of the whole Court Iudgment was given for the Defendant Quod querens nihil Capiat per Billam CCV Cadee and Oliver's Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Ejectione Firmae by Cadee against Oliver 1 Cro. 152. Roll. Tit. Grant. 48. of a House in Holborn c. The Case was The Lord Mountjoy and the Lady Katherine his Wife seised of the said House and of other Lands in Fee in the right of the Wife 6 Eliz. acknowledged a Statute-Staple of 1200 l. to Sir Lyonel Ducket Afterwards 9 Eliz. the said Lord Mountjoy and his said Wife Leased the said House to Hoskins for 21 years And afterwards by Indenture 11 Eliz. they Leased the same to Sir Tho. Cotton for 99 years to begin at Michaelmas last past 12 Eliz. Sir Lyonel Ducket extended his Statute and the Land extended was delivered to him at 53 l. 7 s. per annum who held the same until 22 Eliz. Anno 23 Eliz. the Lord Mountjoy and his Wife levied a Fine to Perry to the use of Perry and his Heirs 27 Eliz. Sir Thomas Cotton not being upon the Land granted omnia tunc bona catalla sua to Robert Cotton his Son 28 Eliz. the Lady Mountjoy died Mich. 29 Eliz. the Lease to Hoskins expired Perry entred and Leased the House to Oliver the Defendant for 21 years And afterwards Robert Cotton entred and Leased the House c. to the Plaintiff It was first moved by Brantingham and argued by him If this Lease for 99 years which was made to begin after the Lease made to Hoskins should pass to Robert Cotton by the words aforesaid But the Court eased him from arguing of that point for it was holden That it passed notwithstanding the word tunc 1 Cro. 386. Another matter argued by him was because at the time of the Grant the Lands were in extent and so the said Sir Thomas Cotton had but a possibility If therefore the said Grant made during the Extent was good And he argued That it was for it is more than a bare possibility for it is an Interest vested And in some Cases a possibility may be granted As 19 H. 6. 2. The King granted to a Prior That when any Tenth is granted to the King by the Clergy his House shall be discharged of it c. And 19 E. 2. Avowry 224. The Lord grants to his Tenant That if he dieth his Heir within age that such Heir shall not be in Ward So 21 E. 4. 44. A Grant unto an Abbot to be discharged of the Collectorship of Tenths when it shall be granted by the Clergy It hath been Objected That the Term for 99 years is suspended therefore it cannot be granted during the suspension But the same is not so for a thing suspended may be granted As 15 Eliz. Dyer 319. Husband and Wife Ioynt-Tenants of Lands in Fee The Queen having a Rent out of it in Fee giveth the Rent to the Husband and his Heirs now the Husband Deviseth the said Rent and dieth the same is good a Devise notwithstanding the suspension And he cited the Cases 16 E. 3. Quid juris clamat 22. And 20 E. 3. ibid. 31. A Lease is made to one for life and if he dieth within 20 years that his Executors and Assigns shall hold the Land until the expiration of the 20 years the said Interest may be granted Which Wray Chief Iustice denyed See Gravenors Case 3 4 Ma. Dyer 150. such Interest is void It was further moved by him and argued If the Conusee of the Fine might avoid the Lease made to Sir Thomas Cotten And he said He could not for he is in under the Lessors So is 34 E. 1. Recovery in value 36. see the Case there And here although the Wife after the death of her Husband may affirm or disaffirm the Lease at her Election yet this Election is not transferred to the Conusee by the Fine but the Conusee shall be bound by the Fine See 33 H. 8. Dyer 51. As Tenant in tail makes a Lease for years not warranted by the Statute and dieth the Issue alieneth the Land by Fine before affirmation or disaffirmation of the Lease by acceptance or Entry the Conusee cannot avoid this Lease for the Liberty is not transferred Which Gawdy Iustice concessit And Election cannot be transferred over to the prejudice of another person As if a Rent de novo be granted to the Father in Fee who dieth before Election the Heir cannot make it an Annuity to defeat the Dower of the Wife quod Curia concessit It was also moved by Brantingham If the Lessee might enter upon the Conusee of the Statute after his Extent expired without suing forth a Scire facias But the Court discharged him from arguing that Point for that by the Death of the Lady Mountjoy the Extent was void and therefore the Feoffee or Conusee might avoid it by Entry And so Wray Chief Iustice said it had been adjudged in the Court of Common Pleas. At another day the Case was argued by Stephens on the part of
laid in a person in such sort as it may be laid and therefore in this Case forasmuch as the seisin cannot be shewed by the hands of the Inhabitants it ought to be layed in the Lord. See 4 H. 6. 29. Br. Avowry 71. In a Recordare the Defendant avowed because the King is seised of the Castle of C. in jure Ducatus sui Cornub. to which he had 20 s. Rent out of the Town of D. Solvend annuatim at Michaelmas of which Rent the King and all the Dukes of Cornwal aforesaid had been seised time out of memory c. by the hands of the Inhabitants of the same Town c. and the same was holden a good Avowry For although that seisin ought to be laid in some person certain by his hands yet in that case it is good enough For the seisin by one of the Inhabitants is the seisin of them all And in the principal Case by Periam and Walmesley It was agreed That the seisin here was well enough confessed For when the Plaintiff hath taken Issue That they have used to distrain all other matters are holden confessed because that the Plaintiff hath not saved them to him by protestation Which Rhodes granted Another Exception was taken to the Avowry because that the Leet by it is supposed to be holden in July therefore void which see Magna Charta 35. But it was holden by Anderson Windham and Rhodes That by reason of this Prescription the Court is well holden in July notwithstanding the said Statute of Magna Charta and it might be holden at what day he pleased For his Liberty and Election is not restrained by the said Statute and such is the common experience And note the words of the same Statute Ita quod quilibet habeat Libertates suas quas habuit vel habere consuevit tempore Regis H. avi nostri c. vel quod postea perquisivit c. And Rhodes conceived That the said Statute is to be intended of Turns only and not of Leets Which see 24 H. 8. Br. Leet 23. in the end of the Case But by Periam A Leet cannot be holden but according to the said Statute for to that purpose was the said Statute made But if a Leet hath been time out of mind c. holden at any other day than that which is limited by the Statute it is a good prescription and it is saved by the Statute The Prescription is That he and all c. have used to hold a Leet once in a year and hath not shewed when the said year begins for it may be that a Leet hath been holden there in this year before July and then this is a void Leet and so no Leet-Fee due and of that Opinion was Periam viz. That the Avowant ought to have shewed the beginning and end of the year viz. That he held the said Leet pro uno anno finito such a day for it may be he hath holden two Leets in one year But it was said by the other Iustices That that shall come on the other side for prima facie it shall be intended that it hath been but once holden in the same year until the contrary be shewed And Note by Anderson and Rhodes If the King grants to one a Leet to hold semel quolibet anno without saying At the Liberty of the Grantee the Grant is good and the Grantee may hold it at what day he pleaseth CCXXXII Putnam and Cook 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 129.193 1 Cro. 52. IN Ejectione Firmae It was found That one Hawkins was seised of 3 Messuages in Bury in Fee and had Issue Robert his Son and Christien and Joan Daughters And Devised all his said Messuages to his Wife for life the remainder of one of the said Messuages to his Son Robert and his Heirs the remainder of another of his said Messuages to his Daughter Christien and her Heirs the remainder of the third to Joan and her Heirs And further willed That if any of his said Issues died without Issue of his body that then the other surviving should have totam illam partem c. between them equally to be divided The Devisor died The Wife of the Devisor died Joan died having Issue Robert died without Issue Christien entred into the whole Messuage of Robert and died and her Husband held in as Tenant by the Curtesie Cook The surviving Child shall have the whole and the Issue of Joan shall have nothing And he conceived That by this Devise they have an Estate in tail for the Fee is not vested in them for that it is incertain which of them shall survive but when one doth survive then he shall have the Fee for these words totam illam partem go to the whole Estate as well as to the whole Land. If I Devise my whole Land to J.S. he hath a Fee. And he conceived That the three had an Estate in tail with a Fee expectant each severally to the House limited to him Golding contrary Each of them hath an Estate tail in the House Devised to him and but an Estate for life expectant upon the death of the other without Issue for there are no words by which it might appear what Estate they shall have by the Survivor c. I grant the Case which Perkins denies but Littleton affirms scil A Devise of Lands to one in perpetuum for there the intent appeareth but where there are not words of Inheritance nor words amounting to so much then it shall be but an Estate for life And as to these words totam illam partem the same is all one as if he had Devised totam illam without partem Also he conceived That where one only survived no estate further vested for there ought to be two to take by the Survivorship for the words are aequaliter inter eos dividend And then if it cannot accrue by Survivor then it shall descend And if it had accrued by Survivor they should thereof have been Tenants in Common and not Ioynt-Tenants by reason of these words aequaliter dividend Clench Iustice The words totam illam partam go to the House and not to the Estate in it Shute to the same intent If both the Daughters had survived they should have Fee in the House of Robert but not by the Will but by descent in Coparcenery Also when two are dead the Son and one Daughter then it cannot be decided therefore the Will as to that is void and then the Common Law shall take place and put the Messuage to the Issue of one Daughter as to the Sister surviving Gawdy Iustice Here is but an Estate for life in the survivor It hath been Objected That then being but an Estate for life that Estate is drowned by the descent of the Feesimple so as now the Estate limited by the Will is void To which it may be answered That although now upon the matter it be void yet ab inition it
was not so for it became void by matter of later time scil by the descent of the Feesimple For if one of the Daughters had died without Issue before the death of Robert so as the House of such Daughter had come to Robert and the other Sister there had been no Coparcener for the Son had all the Fee and the moyety of it is executed and the moyety expectant and the Sister hath the moyety for life and then the Devise is not good Also here are two survivors so as nothing is to be divided and therefore the Law shall say That the House of Robert is descended scil the Fee of it to the Daughter of Christien and Joan. And so Iudgment was given against the Husband who claimed to be Tenant by the Curtesie of the whole Land and Messuage CCXXXIII Large's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 82. IN an Action upon the Case the Case was this A. seised of Lands in Fee Devised the same to his Wife till William his younger Son should come to the age of 22 years the remainder when the said William should come to such age of his Lands in D. to his two Sons Alexander and John the remainder of his Lands in C. to two other of his Sons upon Condition Quod si aliquis dictorum filiorum suorum circumibit vendere terram suam before his said Son William should attain his said age of 22 years imperpetuum perderet eam And before such age two of his Sons Leased their parts which accrued to them by the Will of their Father for 60 years and so from 60 years to 60 years till 240 years were expired It was Argued by Bois That Alexander and John are Ioynt-Tenants and not Tenants in Common notwithstanding the Opinion of Audley 30 H. 8. Br. Devises 29. And he argued also That the said Leases from 60 years to 60 years is not within the Condition of the Devise for it is not a sale from which they only are restrained and so is it of a Ioynture made by any of the Sons to their Wives On the contrary It was argued because this remainder doth not vest presently for it is incertain if it shall vest or not For if William should die before he came to the age aforesaid it was conceived that the remainder was void 34. E. 3. Fitz. Formedon 68. A Man deviseth Land to his Wife for life so that if the said Wife be disturbed that the Land shall remain over in Fee scil to D. here is not any remainder until the Wife be disturbed So a Devise unto a Woman so long as she shall remain sole and that then it shall remain to B. here this remainder shall not begin till the marriage And this Condition of restraint of Alienation is good for he is not altogether restrained but for a time scil until his Son shall come to the age of 22 years As a Feoffment upon Condition That he shall not alien to J.S. See 29 H. 8. Br. Mortmain 39. A Lease made for 100 years and so from 100 years to 100 years until 800 years be expired is Mortmain And see the Statute de Religiosis The words are emere praesumat vendere A Lease for years is within such words emere vendere Also by this Lease the Will is defrauded and where the Statute of Gloucester Cap. 3. Wills That if a Man aliens Tenements which he holdeth by the Law of England with warranty the Son shall not be barred and yet if Tenant by the Curtesie be disseised to whom he releaseth with warranty the same is within the said Statute and yet a Release and an Alienation are not the same because they are in the like mischief and if the Sons might make a Lease for 240 years they might make a Lease for 2000 years So if the Sons had acknowledged a Statute of such a sum as amounted to the value of the Land it had been within the Condition It was holden That where the words are Circumibit vendere terram imperpetuum perdert this word imperpetuum should be referred to perdere and not to vendere Fenner This Lease is not within the word Sell For if the Custom be That an Enfant of the age of 15 years may sell his Land yet by that he cannot devise it Note That afterwards the words of the Condition set down in the Will in English were read viz. Shall go about to sell his part shall for ever lose the same And then it is clear that this word imperpetuum shall be referred in Construction to perdere and not to vendere for this word Shall is inserted betwixt both CCXXXIV Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Formedon The Tenant pleaded a Fine with proclamations The Demandant replyed Nul tiel Record And the truth of the Case was That the Record of the Fine which remained with the Chirographer did warrant the Plea but that which remained with the Custos Brevium did not warrant it and both these Records were shewed to the Court. And Rhodes Iustice cited a President 26 Eliz. Where by the advice of all the Iustices of England where such Records differ the Record remaining with the Custos Brevium was amended and made according to the Record remaining with the Chirographer Which Windham concessit And afterwards the said President was shewed in which was set down all the proceedings in the amending of it and the names of all the Iustices by whose direction the Record was amended were set down in it And that the said President was written and the amendment of the said Record recorded by the Commandment and appointment of the said Iustices in perpetuam rei memoriam And the reason which induced the said Iustices to make such Order is here written because they took it That the Note remaining with the Chirographer est principale Recordum CCXXXV Sir Gervase Clifton's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 4 Len. 199. IN a Quo Warranto against Sir Gervase Clifton It was shewed That the said Sir Gervase was seised of a Mannor and of a House in which he claimed to have a Court with View of Frank-Pledge and that he without any Grant or other authority usurpavit Libertates praedictas The Defendant pleaded Quod non usurpavit Libertates praedictas infra Messuagium praedict modo forma And upon that there was a Demurrer in Law For the Defendant ought to have said Non usurpavit Libertates praedictas nec eorum aliquam for he ought to answer singulatim And also he ought to have pleaded as well to the Mannor as to the House For if the Defendant hath holden Court within any place within the Mannor it is sufficient See 33 H. 8. Br. Franc. sans ceo 364. An Information was in the Exchequer That the Defendant had bought Wooll of A.B. contra Statutum The Defendant pleaded That he had not bought of A. and B. The Plea was not allowed but he
to prevent all acts and charges made mean by the Vendor yet it shall not relate to vest the Estate from the time of the delivery of the Deed For the Vendee cannot punish a Trespass Mean And if the Vendee hath a Wife and the Vendee dieth before Enrollment and afterwards the Deed is enrolled she shall not be endowed but here shall be some descent to take away an Entry yet the Heir shall have his age But in our Case it is otherwise for by the Waiver the Ioynture was waived ab initio And he cited Carrs Case 29 Eliz. in the Court of Wards The King granted the Mannor of C. to George Owen in Fee tenend in Socage and rendring 94 l. per annum And afterwards granted 54 l. parcel of the said Rent to the Earl of Huntington in Fee to be holden by Knight-service in Capite and afterwards purchased the said Rent in Fee And afterwards of the same Mannor enfeoffed William Carr who devised the same for the payment of his Debts And it was holden That the devise was good against the Heir And the King was not entituled to Livery or Primer Seisin And therefore the Defendant was dismissed But peradventure the Queen shall have benefit of the Act. See Cook 3 Part 30 31. Butler and Baker's Case The King gives Lands unto A. in Fee to hold by Knights-service during his life and afterwards to hold in Socage He may devise the whole For at the time when the devise took effect he was Tenant in Socage Lands holden in Knight-service are given to J.S. in tail scil to the Heirs Males of his Body the Remainder to the right Heirs of J.S. J.S. deviseth these Lands and afterwards dieth without Issue Male the same is good for two parts yet during his life he had not an Estate in Fee in possession The Father disseiseth his Son and Heir apparent of an Acre of Land holden in Chief by Knight-service in Capite and afterwards purchaseth a Mannor holden in Socage and deviseth the said Mannor and dieth his Heir within age the Devise is good for the whole and the King shall not have Wardship of any part and that in respect of the Remitter and yet it is within the words Having sole Estate in Fee of Lands holden and within the Saving Tenant in tail of an Acre of Land holden of the King in Chief by Knight-service seised of two Acres in Fee holden ut supra makes a Lease for three Lives of the Acre entailed reserving the accustomed Rent and afterwards deviseth the other two Acres in Fee and afterwards dieth seised of the Reversion and Rent The same is a good devise of all the two Acres And here is an immediate descent of the third part for the same is within the words In Possession Reversion or Remainder or any Rent or Service incident to any Reversion or any Remainder See the Statute of 34 H. 8. A Man seised of three Acres of equal value holden by Knight-service in Capite assureth one to his Wife for her Ioynture by Act executed and deviseth another to a stranger And the third to his Wife also The King in this case shall have the third part of every Acre But if the stranger waiveth the devise the King shall have the Acre to him devised and the Wife shall retain the other two Acres and it shall not go in advantage of the Heir So if he deviseth the said three Arces severally to three several persons to each of them one Acre and the one Waives the devise in one Acre The devise of the other two is good Or otherwise the King shall have the third part of every Acre c. CCCLXVII Mich. 35 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 5 Co. 29. THe Case was An Enfant was made Executor And Admimistration was committed to another viz. A. durante minori aetate who brought an Action of Debt against the Debtor and recovered and had him in Execution and now the Executor came of full age It was moved What should be done in this Case and how the party should be discharged of the Execution for the authority of the Administrator is now determined and he cannot acknowledge satisfaction or make an acquittance Windham Although the authority of the Administrator be determined yet the Record and the Iudgment remain in force But peradventure you may have an Audita Querela But he conceived That an Administrator could not have such Action for that he is rather a Bailiff to the Enfant than an Administrator See Prince's Case 42 Eliz. Cook 5 Part 29. Which Rhodes concessit A. was bounden unto B. in an Obligation of 100 l. upon Condition to pay a lesser sum The Obligee made an Enfant his Executor and died Administration was committed durante minori aetate to C. to whom A. paid the Mony It was doubted If that payment was rightful or If the Mony ought to have been paid to both Windham Doth it appear within the Record That the Enfant was made Executor and that Administration was committed ut supra To which it was answered No. Then Windham said You may upon this matter have an Audita Querela In this Case It was said to be the Case of one Gore 33 Eliz. in the Exchequer in a Scire facias by an Assignee of a Bond against an Enfant Executor He pleaded That the Administration was committed to A. and his Wife during her minority And it was adjudged no Plea. CCCLXVIII Mich. 35 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was the Opinion of all the Iustices Jones Rep. 243. That if Lessee for 20 years makes a Lease for 10 years that he may grant the Reversion without Deed but in such case if there be a Rent reserved there ought to be a Deed and also an Attornment if the Rent will be had And it was agreed by them all That if there be Lessee for years and the Lessor granteth the Land to the Lessee and a stranger that the Reversion shall pass without Livery or Attornment and that by the Acceptance of the Deed by him who ought to Attorn But whether he shall take joyntly or in Common or whether in a moyety or in the whole the Iustices were of divers Opinions Ideo Quaere for it was not Resolved FINIS A TABLE of the principal Matters contained in the Third Part of LEONARD'S Reports A. ABatement of Writ Page 2 4 77 92 Ex Officio Curiae p. 93 Accompt p. 38 61 63 Damages given in it p. 150 Damages given in it not expresly but the Court shall give Quoddam Incrementum p. 192 Brought by the Grantee of the King against an Executor where maintainable where not p. 197 Generally brought where good p. 230 Acquittance Must be shewed upon payment of Debts by Executors p. 3 Action upon the Case For stopping of a way p. 13 Against one for proceeding to Judgment and awarding of Execution in an inferiour Court after an Habeas Corpus awarded p. 99 Where lieth
Mich. 29 El. C.B. p. 168. C. 219 Weshborn and Mordants Case Mich. 29 Eliz. B. R. p. 174. C. 225 Williams and Linkfords Case Trin. 29 Eliz. B.R. p. 177. C. 229 Welcot and Powells Case Pasch 30 El. B.R. p. 206. C. 263 Wigmore and Wells Case Pasch 30 El. B. R. p. 206. C. 264 Willoughbies Case Trin. 30 Eliz. B. R. p. 216. C. 285 Wood and Payns Case Trin. 31 El. B.R. p. 228. C. 306 Sir Walter Wallers Case Trin. 32 Eliz. Exchequer p. 241. C. 333. p. 259 C. 345 Woodward and Baggs Case Hill. 32 El. B. R. p. 257. C. 341 Witherington and Delabars Case Mich. 33 Eliz. B. R p. 268. C. 360 Y. YOung and Ashburnhams Case Hill. 29 Eliz. C. B. p. 161. C. 210 Yates Case Trin. 31 Eliz. B.R. p. 231 C. 312 THE THIRD PART OF THE REPORTS OF Several Excellent Cases Argued and Adjudged in the several COURTS of LAW at Westminster In the Time of the Late Queen ELIZ. From the First to the Five and Thirtieth Year of her Reign In the Time of Edw. the Sixth I. 6 Edw. 6. In the Common Pleas. A Man had a Warrren in Fee extending into three Towns Benlow's Rep. 12. Owen Rep. 10. 1 And. 26. 13 Co. 57. 1 Inst 148. a. 7 Co. 23. b. Goldb 44. and Leased the same by Deed to another rendring Rent And afterwards granted by Deed the Reversion of the whole Warren in one of the said Towns to another and the Lessee attorned It was holden by all the Iustices in the Common Pleas That neither the Grantor nor the Grantee should have any part of the Rent during the same Term Because no such Contract can be apportioned II. 6 Edw. 6. In the Common Pleas. A Man by Deed Indented 1 And. 27. Bargained and sold Land unto another in Fee and Covenanted by the same Deed to make to him a good and sufficient Estate in the said Land before Christmas next And afterwards before Christmas the Bargainor acknowledged the Deed and the same is enrolled It was the Opinion of all the Iustices of the Common Pleas That by that Act the Covenant aforesaid was not performed For the Bargainor in performance of the same ought to have levied a Fine made a Feoffment or done other such Acts. III. 6 Edw. 6. In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 32. IN Dower the Tenant made default at the Summons and now at the Grand Cape he came and said That he could not come because he was in great infirmity at the time of the Summons so as he could not appear It was the Opinion of the whole Court That that matter should not save his Default because it cannot be tryed as creit de Eue and Imprisonment may be IV. 6 Edw. 6. In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 32. DEbt against Executors who pleaded Riens enter Maynes which was found against them The Plaintiff sued forth a Writ of Execution Vpon which the Sheriff retorned Nulla bona Testatoris within the County It was the Opinion of the Court That the same was a good Retorn for it may stand with the Verdict for it may be that they have Assets in another County See 3 H. 6. 11. Where the Retorn is general Quod non habent Executores aliqua bona Testatoris that it was holden insufficient but here in this Case the Retorn is special scil in the same County In the Time of Queen Mary V. 1 and 2 Philip and Mary In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 31. TEnant in tail had Issue two Sons and enfeoffed his younger Son and died The younger Son died without Issue leaving his Wife priviment ensient with a Son the elder Brother entred It was holden in this Case That he was Remitted and although that afterwards the Son was born yet the same should not avoid the Remitter VI. Stapleton and Truelocks Case Mich. 1 and 2 Phil. and Mary More Rep. 11. WIlliam Stapleton Executor of John Scardenyll brought an Action of Debt against John Truelock Administrator of the Goods of William Truelock who died Intestate upon a Bill sealed The Defendant demanded Oyer of the Testament By which it appeared That the said Scardenyll had made the Plaintiff and the said William Truelock his Executors And in the said Will was this Clause I Will That my Friend William Truelock shall pay to my other Executor all such debts as he oweth me before he shall meddle with any thing of this my Will or take any Advantage of this my Will for the discharge of the same debts for that I have made him one of my Executors And upon this matter It was clearly Resolved that the said William Truelock could not Adminster nor be Executor before he had paid the debts And the Defendant said That the said William Truelock in his life had paid unto his Co-Executors all such debts which in vita sua debuit to the said Scardenyll And also that the said William Truelock in his life time had Administred the Goods of Scardenyll with his Co-Executors And in this Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and that for default of pleading For the Defendant ought to have shewed Acquittances of the payment of the debts to his Co-Executors and also ought to have shewed in Certainty what debts they were VII Hecks and Tirrell's Case 3 and 4 Phil. and Mary DEbt by Hecks and Harrison against Tirrell as Heir Who pleaded Nothing by Descent The Plaintiff Replyed 1 And. 28. Assets at such a place within the Cinque-Ports And so it was found by a Iury of the County adjoyning and Iudgment given of the moyety of his Lands aswell those by descent as by purchase And a Writ awarded to the Constable of Dover to extend the Lands within the Cinque-Ports But it was said That first the Plaintiff ought to have a Certiorari to send the Record into the Chancery and from thence by Mittimus to the Constable of Dover VIII The King and Due and Kirleys Case 4 and 5 Phil. and Mary THe King and Queen brought a Writ of Disceit against Due and Kirley and declared More Rep. 13 That one Colley was seised of certain Lands in Fee and held the same of the King and Queen as of their Mannor of Westbury the which Mannor is Ancient Demesne and so seised levies a Fine thereof to the said Due Sur Conusans de Droit come ceo c. Due rendred the Land to Colley for life the Remainder over to Kirley in Fee Colley died Kirley entred as in his Remainder Kirley pleaded That the Land whereof c. is Frank Fee c. Vpon which they are at Issue Which Issue depending and not tryed Due died It was moved in this Case That the Writ might abate But that was denyed by the Court. For this Action is but Trespass in its nature for to punish this Disceit and no Land is to be recovered but only the Fine Reversed IX Eliot and Nutcombs Case Mich. 4 and 5 Phil. and Mary
the Enfant Hob. Rep. 281. for the Wife had her said Estate to her own use and then her Husband surviving her should have it and that without any admittance for that he is not in of any new Estate but in the Estate of his Wife as Assignee And it was said by them That if a Copyholder be for years and maketh his Executors and dieth that the Executors should have the Term Co. Case of Copyholders and that without any Admittance Weston contrary in that case as to the Executors XXIII Tindall and Cobbs Case 7 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. WAste was brought by Tindall Knight against Jeoffery Cobbe Esquire and the Plaintiff declared of a Demise of the moyety of the Mannor of Wolverton and of the moyety of a Wood called Wolverton-Wood The Defendant pleaded That Robert Winckfield before the Waste supposed was seised of and in tertia parte alterius Medietatis of the said Mannor and of and in tertia parte alterius Medietatis of the aforesaid Wood and held the same insimul pro indiviso with the Plaintiff and that the said Robert Winckfield by his Deed sold to the Defendant omnes omnimodas arbores subboscos suos crescent in praedict tertia parte alterius medietatis praedicti bosci ad libitum ipsius Galfridi succidend and so justified the cutting down of 300 Oaks in which the Waste is assigned with this that he will aver That the aforesaid 300 Oaks were the third part only in numero precio medietatis omnium arbor subboscorum at the said time when the Waste is supposed to be done and demanded Iudgment if Action And divers Exceptions were taken to the Count 1. He sheweth Vaugh. Rep. 175. that the Demise of the moyety of the Mannor was per nomen c. and doth not shew that the demise was by writing and if not then he cannot plead it by a per Nomen 2. The Waste is assigned in digging of Clay in 100 Acres of Lands parcel Medietatis Maner de Wolverton and hath not shewed in what Town the Land is For he hath shewed before the Demise of the moyety of the Mannor of Wolverton in Wolverton 3. He shews the Demise of the moyety of the Mannor of Wolverton and of other Lands and assigns the Waste in cutting down Oaks in quodam bosco vocat Wolverton Wood parcel praemissorum and that cannot be for this Wood cannot be parcel of the Mannor of Wolverton and of the other Lands also And for these Causes the Count by the whole Court was holden to be insufficient XXIV Stamfords Case 7 Eliz. Dyer In the Common Pleas HUgh Stamford seised in Fee had Issue A. his eldest Son and B. his younger Son A. had Issue George and Elizabeth by divers Women Hugh made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of George in tail and afterwards to the use of A. in tail and afterwards to the use of the right Heirs of Hugh Hugh dieth A. dieth George levieth a Fine to the use of himself in tail the remainder over to B. in Fee and dyeth without Issue It was holden by Bendloes Carell Kelloway both the Bromleys and Kingsmill That Elizabeth is barred by this Fine by the Statute of 4 H. 7. 32 H. 8. XXV 7 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was this Grandfather Father and Son Lands are given to the Grandfather for life the remainder to the Son in tail The Grandfather and Father joyn in a Feoffment with warranty The Feoffee makes a Lease for years and afterwards conveys the Land to the Grandfather for life the remainder to the Father in Fee The Grandfather and Father die The Son entreth and puts out the Lessee Weston was of Opinion That the Entry of the Son was lawful for it was the Feoffment of the Grandfather and the Confirmation of the Father and the Warranty of the Grandfather collateral to the Father and his Estate but when the Land is re-assured as above is said and afterwards the Son entreth after the death of the Grandfather and Father now he is remitted and the warranty gone by taking back the Estate and the Son is now seised of as high an Estate as his Ancestor was at the time that he departed with the Land by which the warranty is determined Dyer contrary Here had not been any discontinuance if the warranty had not been for the Father was never seised by force of the entail And I conceive that against a warranty collateral one cannot be remitted for it binds the Right as a Fine with Proclamation after the Statute of 4 H. 7. And I conceive that during the possession of the Grandfather the Warranty is but suspended and not determined and although that by the death of the Grandfather it be determined yet having respect to the Lessee it is in being for his Estate is derived out of the Estate which was warranted and which descends with the Warranty Bendloes One cannot make Title by a Collateral Warranty only c. XXVI Simonds Case 8 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Formedom the Tenant vouched Rose Simonds as Daughter and Heir of Henry Simonds Clerk and because she was within age he prayed that the Parol might demur Bendloes recited the Case to be this A Fine was levied of the Lands to Henry Simonds upon Condition c. who rendred back the Land to the Conusor by the same Fine and that the said Henry Simonds never had any possession or seisin but that which he had mean between the Conusans and the Rendee of which possession the Wife should not be endowed And therefore it is a good Counter-plea to say That the said Rose nor any of her Ancestors c. for that was not such a Seisin upon which Warranty might rise and so if a Feoffment in Fee had been made to the said Henry Simonds to the use of another And of that Opinion was Dyer Iustice for Henry Simonds had not any possession by force of which he might be vouched Welsh contrary For the Fine imports in it self that he hath a Fee and that he hath granted and rendred the same Fee and this Fine amounts to a Feoffment Dyer said to Bendloes The best way for you is to plead the Counter-plea generally and if he estop you by the Fine to demur upon it Afterwards Bendloes moved another matter viz. Henry Simonds was a Priest and therefore Rose is a Bastard and if so then she cannot be vouched as Heir But I would not trust the Bishop to Certifie the Bastardy if I should plead it generally and therefore I will plead the special matter and so it shall be tryed by the Country Dyer and Welsh So you may do if you please and yet if you plead general Bastardy it shall be tryed by the Country for Rose is not a party to the Writ and in such case Bastardy shall be tryed by the Country XXVII Mich. 8
abate For the Writ shall be brought by the Heir of the Survivor of the said two Daughters because they have that remainder as purchasors XXXIII Stuckly and Sir John Thynns Case Mich 9 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THo Stuckly Administrator of the Goods and Chattels of one Tho. Curties Alderman of London brought Debt upon an Obligation against Sir John Thynn and demanded of him 1000 l. Et modo ad hunc diem venerunt Tam praefatus Tho. Stucklie quam praedict Johannes Thynn Et super hoc dies datus est usque Oct. c. in statu quonunc c. salvis c. At which day the Defendant made default and thereupon the Plaintiff prayed his Iudgment against the Defendant But the Opinion of the Court was That he could not have it but was put to process over because Dies Datus is not so strong as a Continuance XXXIV Luke and Eves Case Pasch 10 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin by Luke against Eve The Defendant Avowed because that the Iury at such a Leet did present That the Plaintiff was a Resiant within the Precinct of the said Leet c. and that the Plaintiff was warned to appear there and notwithstanding that made default For which he was Amerced by the Steward there to 5 s. And so for that Amercement he avowed the taking c. The Plaintiff in bar of the Avowry pleaded That at the time of the said Leet holden he was not a Resiant within the Precinct of the said Leet Vpon which they were at Issue And it was found for the Avowant Whereupon Iudgment was given for the Avowant to have a Retorn XXXV Mich. 14 Eliz. Rott 1120. In the Common Pleas. THe Abbot and Covent of York Leased to J.S. certain Lands at Will and afterwards by Deed Indented under their Covent Seal reciting That whereas J.S. held of them certain Lands at Will they granted and demised that Land to the said J.S. to hold for life rendring the ancient Rent And by the same Indenture granted the Reversion of the same Land to a stranger for life It was holden by the Court clear That an Estate for life accrueth unto J.S. by way of Confirmation and the remainder unto the stranger depending upon the Estate created by the Confirmation XXXVI Sir Francis Carews Case Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. SIr Nicholas Carew seised of the Mannor of A. of which Mannor B. held certain Lands B. is disseissed by C. C. assures the same to Sir Nicholas Carew who is attainted of Treason by which Attainder the Mannor and Land cometh to King Henry 8th who thereof dieth seised and the same descends to King Edward the 6th who grants the same Mannor to the Lord Darcy who grants the same to Queen Mary who grants the same to Francis Carew Son of Nicholas Carew who by Fine assures the same to the Lord Darcy the Proclamations pass and the 5 years pass she who hath right to the Lands whereof the Desseisin was made being for all that time a Feme Covert And therefore the Fine did not bar her But because that the King was entituled to the Land by a double matter of Record and by the descent from Hen. the 8th to Ed. the 6th And also because a Seignory is reserved to the King upon the Grant made by King Edward the 6th to the Lord Darcy The Iustices were all of Opinion That the Entry of the Heir of the Disseisee was not lawful upon the Patentee of the Queen 2 Len. 122. but that she ought to be Relieved by way of Petition XXXVII Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Man brought an Action of Trespass against another for chasing of his Ewes being great with Lambs so as by such driving of them he lost his Lambs The Defendant justified because they were in his several Damage-feasans wherefore he took them and drove them to the Pound And it was holden by the whole Court to be no Plea for although that he might take yet he cannot drive them with peril c. XXXVIII Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. More Rep. 16 23. THe Case was A. made a Lease to B. for life and further grants unto him That it shall be lawful for him to take Fewel upon the premisses Proviso That he do not cut any great Trees It was holden by the Court That if the Lessee cutteth any great Trees that he shall be punished in Waste but in such case 1 Len. 117. the Lessor shall not re-enter because that Proviso is not a Condition but only a Declaration and Exposition of the Extent of the Grant of the Lessor in that behalf And it was holden also by the Court That Lessee for life or for years by the Common Law cannot take Fewel but of Bushes and small wood and not of Timber-Trees But if the Lessor in his Lease granteth Fireboot expresly if the Lessee cannot have sufficient Fewel as above c. he may take great Trees XXXIX Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Roll. 787. IN Trespass upon an Evidence given to the Iury at the Bar the Case appeared to be thus Land was given to A. in tail the remainder in Fee to his Sisters being his Heirs at the Common Law A. made a Deed in this manner viz. I the said A. have given granted and confirmed for a certain piece of Mony c. without the words of Bargained Sold And the Habendum was to the Feoffee with warranty against A. and his Heirs And a Letter of Attorny was to make Livery and Seisin And the Deed was in this manner To all Christian People c. And the Deed was enrolled within one month after the making of it And the Deed was Indented although that the words of the Deed were in the form of a Deed Poll And after 4 months after the delivery of the Deed the Attorny made Livery of Seisin A. died without Issue and the Sisters entred and the Feoffee ousted them of the Land and thereupon they brought an Action of Trespass And the Opinion of the whole Court was for the Plaintiff for here is not any Discontinuance for the Conveyance is by Bargain and Sale and not by Feoffment because the Livery comes too late after the Inrollment and then the Warranty shall not hurt them And although that in the Deed there be not any word of Indenture and also that the words are in the first person Yet in as much as the Parchment is Indented 2 Roll. 787. and both the parties have put their Seals to it it is sufficient Also It was clearly agreed by the Court That the words Give for Mony Grant for Mony Confirm for Mony Agree for Mony Covenant for Mony If the Deed be duly Inrolled that the Lands pass both by the Statute of Vses and by the Statute of Inrollments as well as upon the words of Bargain and Sale. And by Catline Wray and Whiddon the party ought to take by way
of Bargain and Sale and he hath not election to take the Land by way of Livery But when all is in one Deed and takes effect equally together in such case the Grantee hath Election but here in this Case the Bargain and Sale the Deed being Inrolled doth prevent the Livery and taketh his full effect before And by Wray and Catline If he in the Reversion upon a Lease for years grants his Reversion to his Lessee for years by words of Dedi Concessi Feoffavi and a Letter of Attorny is made to make Livery and Seisin the Donee cannot take by the Livery for that the Lessee hath the Reversion presently XL. Mich. 14 Eliz. IN an Ejectione Firmae the Case upon Evidence appeared to be thus The Bishop of Rochester Anno 4 E. 6. Leased to B. for years rendring Rent and afterwards granted the Reversion to C. for 99 years rendring the ancient Rent To have from the day of the Lease without impeachment of Waste which Grant was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter But B. did not Attorn And for default of Attornment It was holden by the whole Court That the Lease was void for it is made by way of grant of a Reversion and to pass as a Reversion But by Catline If the Bishop had granted the Reversion and also demised the Land for 99 years it should pass as a Lease to begin first after the former Lease determined And as to the Attornment it was given in Evidence That B. after the notice of the Grant to C. spake with C. to have a new Lease from him because he had in his Farm but 8 years to come but they could not agree upon the price And the Iustices were of Opinion That that was an Attornment because he had admitted the said C. to have power to make a new Lease unto him Also the said B. being in Company with one R. seeing the said C. coming towards him said to the said R. See my Landlord meaning the said C. Bromley Sollicitor That is no Attornment being spoken to a stranger Barham contrary because he was present And it was held by the whole Court to be a good Attornment But it was holden That if the Attornment was not before that the Bishop was translated to Winchester That the Lease should be void and although that the Confirmation of the Dean and Chapter was before the Attornment so as no Estate had vested in C. yet it is good enough for the assent of the Dean and Chapter is sufficient whether it be before or after by Catline Southcote and Whiddon Wray contrary XLI Mich. 14 Eliz. THe King seised of a Mannor to which an Advowson is appendant a Stranger presents and his Clerk is in by 6 months The King grants the Mannor with all Advowsons appendant to it to B. The Incumbent dieth The Grantee may present For the Advowson was always appendant and the Inheritance thereof passeth to the Grantee and is not made disappendant by the usurpation as in the case of a common person for the King cannot be put out of possession But the Patentee shall not have a Quare Imped of the first disturbance for that presentment doth not pass to him being a thing in Action without mention of it in his Grant. And if the Patentee bringeth a Quare Impedit of the second Avoydance he shall make his Title by the presentment of the King not making mention of the usurpation yet if the Bishop presenteth for Lapse in the case of a common person he ought to make mention of it for that is his Title to the Presentment c. XLII Humfrey and Humfrey's Case Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. BEtween Humfrey and Humfrey the Case was That the Defendant in Debt after Iudgment aliened his Land and the Plaintiff sued forth Execution upon the new Statute And the Court of the Request awarded him to the Fleet because that he sued forth Execution Whereupon the Iustices of the Common Pleas awarded a Habeas Corpus and discharged the Plaintiff It was said by Bendloes Serjeant That the Chancery after Iudgment could not enjoyn the party that he shall not sue forth Execution for if they do the party shall have his remedy as above XLIII Mich. 14 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Man seised of Copyhold Lands Deviseth a certain parcel of them to his Wife for life the remainder to his Brother and his Heirs And afterwards in the presence of 3 persons of the Court said to them I have made my Will and I have appointed all things in my Will as I will have it And afterwards he said And here I surrender all my Copyhold Lands into your hands accordingly And it was moved If all his Copyhold Lands should be to his Wife or by those which were specified in the Will. And the Opinion of the whole Court was That the Surrender is restrained by the Will so as no more passeth to the Wife upon the whole matter but that which is mentioned in the Will and the general words shall not enlarge the matter XLIV Hill. 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LAnds were devised to the Mayor Chamberlain and Governors of the Hospital of St. Bartholomew in London whereas in truth they are Incorporated by another name yet the Devise is good by Weston and Dyer which Manwood also granted because it shall be taken according to the intent of the Devisor And it was said by Weston If Lands be devised to A. eldest Son of B. although that his name be W. yet the Devise to him is good because there is sufficient certainty c. XLV Pasch 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A. seised of Lands deviseth the same to his Wife for life the remainder to his three younger Sons and to the Heirs of their bodies begotten equally to be divided amongst them by even portions and if one of them die then the other two which survive shall be next Heirs The Devisor dieth One of the Sons dieth and by Dyer and Weston Iustices The 3 Brothers were Tenants in Common in remainder But contrary it is where such a Devise is made between them To be divided by my Executors c. there they are Ioynt-Tenants until the division is made but here although the words are Equally to be divided the same is not intended of a Division in fact and possession but of the Interest and Title For if a Man bringeth a Praecipe quod reddat de una parte Manerii de D. in 7 parts to be divided it is not intended divided in Possession but divided in Interest and Title And it was said by the said Iustices That although one of the Brothers dieth the two surviving Brothers have his part by purchase and not by descent and they are Ioynt-Tenants of it And this was the Case of one Webster and Katherine his Wife the late Wife of John Bradbury XLVI Pasch 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was Lessee for years of the
Et ulterius concessiâ— that if the Lessee obierit infra 20 annos proxime sequent the said Lessee potuit legare dare praedict tenementa alicui personae usque ad terminum praedict 20 annorum c. and Dyer cited the Case 16 E. 3. Quid juris clamat 22. Land was leased to one for life and if the Lessee died within the Term of 20 years that his Executors or Assigns should have it until the end of the said 20 years and a Quid juris clamat was brought against the Lessee for life without any mention of any other Estate To which the Defendant pleaded the special matter and demanded Iudgment upon that Fine if he should be driven to Attorn where he is supposed Tenant for life only And it is there said That that special matter is but a Protestation to save the Term to his Executors And upon such a Fine such Tenant hath been driven to Attorn And by Dyer If the Lessee doth not make such protestation yet his special interest is not impaired by it yet it is but reason that it be entred for the more manifestation of it 32 E. 3. Quid juris clamat 5. A Lease to W. for life and 20 years over he may grant the same Term or any part of it And he cited the Case between Parker and Gravenor 3. 4 Mar. Dyer 150. Where a Lease for life was made and by the Indenture of Lease Provisum fuit That if the Lessee died within the Term of 60 years that then his Executors and Assigns should have and enjoy the said Lands pro termino totidem annorum which did amount to the number of 60 years to be accompted from the date of the Indenture And it was the Opinion of the Court That that was not any Lease But they all agreed That a Lease for years in remainder might be upon a Lease for life in the same person See 40 E. 3. A Lease was made for life and half a year after the Lessee died and Waste is brought against the Executors supposing that the Testator held for years and the Writ was holden good And there it is said by Kirton That the Executors could not have that Term unless it were in the Testator and there the Term is not limited to any person And see 11 H. 4. 187. Annuity granted to one for life and 20 years after And 50 E. Ass 1. A Lease for life and 3 years over to his Executors And then here in our Case This Vse being limited in Order according to the Rules of the Common Law shall vest in the Grantor to give or forfeit and then by the Attainder it was forfeited to Queen Mary and if so then the Plaintiff shall be barred Harper Iustice to the contrary And that the Interest in the Remainder for years limited to the Executors and Assigns of the Grantor is in abeyance and not in the Grantor and then it cannot be forfeited But if this Vse had been limited to the Grantor himself then all had been in him to give c. But here in our Case the Remainder for years is limited and appointed to the Executors c. Also Vses shall not be ruled in such manner as Lands but the Law shall rule the possession obtained by use in another manner than the possession obtained by the Order of the Common Law As in the Case of Amy Townsend Plow Com. 111 112. Where the Husband seised in the right of his Wife made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his Wife for life with divers remainders over Now is not the Wife remitted as she should be by Conveyance at Common La as if the Husband discontinueth the Land in the right of his Wife and the Discontinuee giveth the Lands to the Husband and Wife and to a third person she is remitted to the whole and the third person hath not any thing Dyer to the same intent And here we ought to intend and consider That it was the purpose of Cranmer to advance his Executors with this Term unto their own use and benefit and not to leave the same in himself And I do conceive That the use is in abeyance until the Executors are made or an Assignee appointed for he may make an Assignee who shall have the Term For Assignee may be made two ways 1 By grant of an Estate which is in the Grantor before 2 A person nominated and appointed by another to take any thing c. And it shall be also intended That Cranmer was purposed to make other Provision to leave to his Executors Assets to perform his Will and not that that Term should be applyed to that purpose for then he would have shewed it in the Conveyance by words scil as to pay his Legacies and perform his last Will And the Cases put by my Brother Manwood do not go to the Point For I agree Where Lands are given to one for life the remainder for years and doth not say to whom it cannot be intended to any other but to the Lessee for life or otherwise it shall be void And also where Land is given to one for life and for two years after to his Executors or Assigns or Heirs all is in the Lessee for all is as one gift But where it is given to one for life and after his death the remainder to his Executors I do not see any reason that that remainder should be any Assets in the hands of the Executors Or that if the Lessee dieth Intestate that his Administrator should have it and therefore the Executors shall have the same as a purchase But Cranmer might have given the same or appointed one in the mean time to receive it and in the mean time it shall be in abeyance Also if Lands be Leased to B. for life the remainder for years to his Heirs the same remainder for years is in abeyance until the death of the Lessee and then it shall vest in the Heir as a Purchasor and as a Chattel and shall go to the Executor of the Heir c. and the Tenant for life cannot meddle with it for it is not in him Also Vses shall not be raised as Lands i. e at the Common Law but shall be raised by the Statute and as Vses were raised in the Chancery before the Statute And therefore if this Conveyance had been before the Statute he could not have compelled the Feoffees to dispose of that Interest at his pleasure c. And then Cranmer the Son shall have the Land by force of the entail limited unto him For the Estate for years is gone because no assignment of it is made nor any Executors who can take it and the Estate for life is determined by the death of Cranmer and the Feoffee to an Vse cannot have it for there is not any Consideration whereof he should have any Vse for by the Limitation nothing was left in the Feoffee And so I conceive that the Plaintiff shall recover
the Land descends to her and her Sister as unto one moyety of the Land the Lease is determined but not as to the other moyety Whiddon Iustice Where a Devise is for the benefit of a stranger there the Heir shall take by the Devise and not by descent As if a Lease be made for years the remainder to the Heir there the Heir shall take the Land by the Devise Catline She hath it be Descent and not by the Devise But if he deviseth the Land to the Heir in tail with this That he shall pay a certain sum of Mony unto another there the Heir shall take by the Devise for the benefit which may accrue to the stranger and not by descent for otherwise the Will should not be performed But where the Estate of the Heir is altered by the Will nor any benefit doth accrue unto another after that the Lands come to the hands of the Heir in that case he shall have the Land by descent And so here in this case for as much as the Devise is That the Daughter shall enter they both being but one Heir to their Father shall have the Land by descent and the words of the Will That he shall enter into the moiety shall be void as if the Devise had been to the Heir for life there the same is void because the Fee-simple which descendeth to her doth drown the particular estate for life And therefore in the principal case here the Vncle shall have but the moyety of the moyety which is so devised and the other Sister shall have the other moyety of the Land and as to that moyety which is devised to the Wife for years the same shall enure according to the Common Law that the Vncle shall have the moyety of that and the other Sister the other moyety LIV. Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THis Case was moved to the Court by Lovelace Serjeant A Man Covenants with another to make and execute an estate of such Lands as should descend to him from his Father and Grandfather by a certain day the same Lands to be of the clear yearly value of 40 Marks And the Question which he moved to the Iustices was That if the party had more Lands which came to him from his Grandfather and Father than did amount to the yearly value of 40 Marks If he was to make assurance of all the Lands or of so much thereof only as amounted to the value of 40 Marks And Manwood Iustice conceived That he should make assurance of Lands only which were of the value of 40 Marks per annum For the words such which do not go so largely as if he had said All my Lands which shall descend or to me be descended for then the yearly value were but a demonstration and all his Lands ought to be assured But here the Intent of the Indenture cannot be taken otherwise than to have but an Assurance of so much Land as if he had said Of such Lands and Tenements as were my Grandfathers and Fathers amounting to 40 Marks by the year for there by those words he shall have but 40 Marks by the year Lovelace It hath been taken That where the Queen made a Lease of all her Lands in such a Town amounting to the yearly value of 40 l. that that valuation is not a demonstration and shall not abridge the Grant precedent to have all in the Town which should be of the value of 40 l. but her Grant shall be taken and construed according to the words precedent Manwood The Common case of assurance upon a settlement of Marriage is That he shall stand seised of so much of his Land as shall be of the clear yearly value of 40 Marks If the marriage take effect The Question hath been If they to whom the assurance is made may enter into any part of the Land at their election and take that which is the best Land to the value of 40 Marks per annum and hold the same in severalty or if they shall be only Tenants in Common with the other And also it hath been a Question Whether they may choose one Acre in one place and another Acre in another place and so through the whole Land where they please because the Grant shall be taken strong against him that granteth But I conceive that it should be a hard case to make such Election of Acres But it was said by some Serjeant at the Bar That if a Man granteth to another to take 20 Trees in his Lands that the Grantee may cut down one Tree in one place and another in another place Manwood agreed that Case but of the other Case the Court doubted of it The principal case was adjourned LV. Vernon and Vernons Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte That in the Case of Dower between Vernon and Vernon and the Argument of it the Plaintiff would have been Nonsuit Dyer Iustice said It should be an ill President if a Nonsuit should be after Demurrer And therefore he said That for his part he would not agree that any Nonsuit should be upon it but he said he would be advised and take better Consideration of it If the Nonsuit should be awarded or not And afterwards at another day Manwood and Dyer took a difference where the Nonsuit is the same Term and where in another Term and said It is like unto the Case where a Man would Wage his Law and is present ready to do it that there the Plaintiff cannot be Nonsuit because it is in the same Term but he shall be barred But in another Term afterwards he might be Nonsuit if the Defendant take day over to wage his Law until another Term and so they said it should be in this case LVI Sir Peter Philpots Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THis Case was moved by Meade Serjeant to the Iustices of the Court of Common Pleas viz. That Sir Peter Philpot Knight seised in Fee of divers Mannors and Lands suffered a Recovery and made a Feoffment thereof unto divers persons To the use of himself for life the remainder to his right Heirs And after the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Wills He devised all his said Mannors and Land to his Wife for life and it was expressed in his Will That he could not devise all his Lands by reason of the Statute of 32 H. 8. that his Will was That his Wife should have so much which might be devised by the Laws of the Land And there was another Clause in the said Will That his Feoffees should stand seised of the same Mannors and Lands after the death of his Wife To the use of one Hurlock and others for years for the payment of his Debts and for the raising of Portions for the preferment of his Daughters in Marriage And further by his said Will he willed That if the Law would not bear it That Hurlock and the others should have the Interest Then he
they had not any Lands in the said Town but the said Mannor And the Ejectione firmae was brought of that Mannor in Kent and from thence the Visne came and all the special matter aforesaid was found by Verdict And Exception was taken to the Verdict because they have found generally That the Master and Scholars had not any thing in the said Town of Laberhurst but the said Mannor Whereas they ought to have said That they had not any thing in the said Town in the County of Kent For they could not take notice what Lands the Master and Scholars had in that part of the Town which was in the County of Sussex And of that Opinion the whole Court seemed to be But Quaere of it for it was adjourned XCVI Hinde and Lyons Case Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Post 70. Dyer 124. 2 Len. 11. IN Debt by Hinde against one as Son and Heir of Sir John Lyon who pleaded Nothing by descent but the third part of the Mannor of D. the Plaintiff replyed Assets and shewed for Assets That the Defendant had the whole Mannor of D. by descent Vpon which they were at Issue And it was given in Evidence to the Iury That the said Mannor was holden by Knights-Service And that the said Sir John the Ancestor of c. by his Will in writing Devised the whole Mannor to his Wife until the Defendant his Son and Heir should come to the age of 24 years And that at the age of his Son of 24 years his Wife should have the third part of the said Mannor for her life and his Son should have the residue And if that his said Son do die before he come to his said age of 24 years without Heir of his body that the Land should remain to J.S. the remainder over The Devisor died The Son came to the age of 24 years The Question was If the Son had an Estate in tail for then for two parts he was not in by descent And it seemed to Dyer and Manwood That here was not any Estate in tail for no tail shall rise if not that the Son die before his said age and therefore the tail shall never take effect and the Fee-simple doth descend and remain in the Son unless that he dieth before the age of 24 years and then the Estate vests with the remainder over but now having attained to the said age he hath the Fee and that by descent of the entier Mannor and then his Plea is false That but the third part descended And a general Iudgment shall be given against him as of his own Debt And an Elegit shall issue forth of the moyety of all his Lands as well those which he hath by descent from his Ancestor as his other Lands And a Capias also lieth against him But Manwood Iustice conceived That if a general Iudgment be given against the Heir by default in such cause a Capias doth not lie although it lieth in case of a false Plea. Dyer contrary And the Writ against the Heir is in the debet detinet which proves That in Law it is his own Debt And he said That he could shew a President where such an Action was maintainable against the Executors of the Heir XCVII Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A. seised of Lands in Fee 2 Len. 154. Hob. 285. Dyer 329. by his Will in writing granted a Rent-Charge of 5 l. per annum out of the same to his younger Son towards his education and bringing up in Learning The Question was If in pleading the Devisee ought to aver That he was brought up in Learning And it was holden by Dyer Manwood and Mounson Iustices That there needs no such Averment for the Devise is not Conditional and therefore although he be not brought up in Learning yet he shall have the Rent And the words of the Devise are Towards his bringing up And the Devisor well knew that 5 l. per annum would not and could not reach to maintain a Scholar in Learning Diet Apparel and Books And this Rent although it be not sufficient to such intent yet the Son shall have it And by Dyer Three years past such Case was in this Court scil Two were bounden to stand to the Award of certain persons Who awarded That the one of them should pay unto the other 20 s. per annum during the Term of 6 years towards the education and bringing up of such an Enfant and within two years of the said Term the Enfant died so as now there needed not any supply towards his Education Yet it was holden That the said yearly sum ought to be paid for the whole Term after For the words Towards his Education are but to shew the intent and consideration of the payment of that sum and are not the words of a Condition XCVIII Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit The Plaintiff declared That the Defendant was seised in Fee of the Mannor of Orchard alias Lydcots-Farm to which the Advowson is appendant and presented such a one c. And afterwards leased to the Plaintiff the said Mannor per nomen of the Mannor of Orchard alias Lydcots-Farm with the appurtenances for 21 years and the Church became void c. And the truth of the Case was That there is the Mannor of Orchard and within the said Mannor the said Farm called Lydcots Farm parcel of the said Mannor and the Lease was of the said Farm and not of the said Mannor and so the Advowson remained to the Lessor as appendant to the Mannor In this Case It was moved What thing the Defendant should traverse Dyer He shall say That the Advowson is appendant to the Mannor of Orchard absque hoc that it is appendant to the Farm of Lydcots But it seemed to Manwood That the Defendant shall say That the Advowson is appendant to the Mannor of Orchard and that the Farm of Lydcots is parcel of the said Mannor and that he Leased to the Plaintiff the said Farm with the appurtenances absque hoc that the Mannor of Orchard and the said Farm are all one For if he traverse the Appendancy to the Farm of Lydcots then he confesseth That the Mannor and Farm are all one c. But Dyer doubted of it XCIX Kirlee and Lees Case Mich. 19 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant in Consideration that the Plaintiff would marry the Daughter of the Defendant did promise to find to the Plaintiff and his said Wife convenient apparel meat and drink for themselves and two servants and Pasture also for two Geldings by the space of 3 years when the Plaintiff would require it And further shewed That Licet the Plaintiff had married the Defendants Daughter and that he had required the Defendant to find ut supra c. the Defendant refused c. The Defendant
Queen by her Letters Patents reciting the said Mischief c. et praemissa considerans et annuens Petitioni illius granted to him the Mannor aforesaid and further de ampliori gratia sua Released to the said Andrew Boynton all her Right Possession c. which came to her ratione attincturae praedict ' vel in manibus nostris existant vel existere deberent After which viz. 5 Eliz. Andrew Boynton levied a Fine to the Plaintiff with proclamations and died without Issue And the Defendant as Issue in tail entred Puckering Serjeant It is to see 1. If by the words of the Letters Patents of Queen Mary viz. de ampliori sua gratia c. the Reversion in Fee which the Queen had passed or not 2. Admitting that the Reversion did not pass Then if the Fine levied by Andrew Boynton 5 Eliz. to the Plaintiff the Reversion being in the Queen be a Bar to the Issue For when the first Fine was levied 37 H. 8. which was levied without proclamations the same shall not bind the Issue in tail neither as to the Right nor to the Entry for it is not any Discontinuance because the Reversion is in the King as of things which lie in Discontinuance Rent Common c. For such Fine is a Fine at the Common Law and not within the Statute of 4 H. 7. And such a Fine is void against the Issue But if such a Fine without proclamations be levied of a thing which lieth in Discontinuance then such a Fine is not void but voidable by a Formedon And therefore this Fine in the Case at Bar being levied without proclamations of Lands entailed whereof the Reversion is in the King at the time of the Fine levied shall not bind the Issue And by such Fine the Conusee hath which Fee was forfeited to the Queen by the Attainder of the Lord Seymore and that the Queen immediately restored to Andrew Boynton because the Lord Seymore had not according to Agreement betwixt them assured his Lands to the said Andrew Boynton in Recompence For the Indentures themselves were not sufficient to raise any use See acc 1 Mar. Dyer 96. As to the point he conceived That nothing passed of the Reversion For the Grant hath reference to the words All his Right Possession c. which came to her ratione attincturae and all the residue of the Grant ought to have reference to that to the ratione attincturae praedict which was the foundation of the whole grant And here the intent of the Queen was not to other intent but only to restore Andrew Boynton to the said Mannor and to his ancient Estate in it And nothing appears in the said Letters Patents by which it might appear that the Queen was apprised of her Reversion which she had by descent and therefore the same cannnot pass by general words If the King grants the Goods and Chattels of all those who have done any Trespass for which vitam amittere debent The Goods of him who is Attainted of Treason shall not be forfeited or granted by such general words 8 H. 4. 2. Vid. Roll. Tit. Prerogat The King grants omnia catalla Tenentium suorum qualitercunque damnatorum the same doth not extend to the Goods of him who is condemned for Treason See 22 Ass 49. So in our Case the Patent shall not serve to two Intents and not to pass two Interests by these general words and then nothing passeth but the Fee determinable which was conveyed to the Lord Seymore and forfeited by the Attainder Then it is to be considered How after the said Grant the said Andrew Seymore is seised And he conceived That he should be in of the said Fee determinable and not of an Estate in tail against his own Fine and then if he be not seised by force of the Tail at the time of the Fine levied 5 Eliz. the same Fine cannot bind the entail But admitting That at the time of the second Fine levied that he was in of an Estate in tail yet that Fine shall not bar the Issue For first This Fine cannot make any Discontinuance because that the Reversion in Fee is in the King which is not touched by the Fine See the Case of Saunders Where A. makes a Lease for years to begin at a day to come and afterwards levies a Fine to a stranger with proclamations and the 5 years pass and afterwards at the day of the beginning of the said Lease the Lessee enters his Entry is lawful and he shall not be bounden by the Nonclaim and so it was adjudged in Saunders and Starkies Case Vide inde Saffins Case 3 Jac. Cook 5 Part 123 124. After the making of the Statute of 4 H. 7. of Fines It was much doubted If the Issues of Common Tenants in tail should be bound by a Fine with proclamations because upon the death of their Ancestors they are as new Purchasors per formam Doni And therefore it was provided by 32 H. 8. That the said Statute of 4 H. 7. should extend to such Common entails but there was no doubt of an Estate tail of the gift of the King. And see Mich. 15 16 Eliz. Rot. 1474. between Jackson and Darcy in a Partitione facienda the Case was Tenant in tail the remainder to the King after the Statute of 32 H. 8. levied a Fine with proclamations and it was adjudged That the same should bind the Issues The Act of 32 H. 8. doth not extend but where the Reversion is in the King but no mention is there of a Remainder because that the words of the said Act are general of all Tenants in tail The makers of the Act perceiving That it might be doubted that the generality of the words might include all Estates tails of the gift of the King they restrained the words in a special manner as appeareth by the last Proviso of the same Act Nor to any Fines heretofore levied or hereafter to be levied by any person or persons of any Mannors c. before the levying of the said Fine given granted or assigned to the person or persons levying the said Fine or to any of his or their Ancestors in tail by Letters Patents or Act of Parliament the Reversion whereof at the time of the levying of such Fine was in the King And so such Estates are excepted And that in such Cases where such Fines are levied they shall be of such force as they should be if the said Act had not been made And therefore it seemed to the said Parliament That such Estate tails of the gift of the King were not bounden by the Statute of 4 H. 7. for otherwise the said Proviso or Exception had been frivolous Walmesley Serjeant to the contrary And he agreed That the first Fine was not any Discontinuance and yet he conceived it is not altogether void against the Issues before that they entred For no right remains in the Conusor against his Fine And also
him any other surety for his Debt he is contented so to do And John Stampe offered to the said P. the said B. and C. and he accepted the same and at the request of the said John Stampe granted his Interest to them 2 Feb. 22 Eliz. P. having notice of the Grant before made to the said G. Vpon which G. enformed against P. upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. It was holden in this Case by Periam and Meade Iustice That P. was not within the penalty of the Statute For P. granted his Interest to B. and C. at the suit and at the request of John Stampe who was the Mortgager for assurance of his Debt which he ought to them And therefore it shall not be intended that that Grant was made for any maintenance or for any unlawful cause against the Statute And also John Stampe who granted unto P. had possession and received the Issues and Profits of the said Lands for a whole year before the Grant notwithstanding that he was not in possession by a whole year next before the day of the date of the Grant. Godb. 450. As if a Man be in possession or hath received the Issues and Profits for a whole year and afterwards a stranger enters upon him and hath the possession for the space of a Quarter of a year or half a year yet he who was in possession by a year before may grant his Interest without danger of the Statute c. CXX Pasch 24 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte Per totam Curiam 2 Len. 35. A man made his Will in this manner scil I Will and Bequeath my Land to A. And the name of the Devisor is not in the whole Will Yet the Devise is good enough by Averment of the name of the Devisor And for proof that the same is his Will If one lying in extremis having an intent to devise his Lands by Word makes such devise but doth not command the same to be put in writing but another without the knowledge or Commandment of the Devisor putteth it in writing in the life-time of the Devisor the same is a good Devise For it is sufficient if the Devise be reduced into writing during the life of the Devisor CXXI Pepy's Case Pasch 25 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. WAste was brought by F. and his Wife against Pepy and declared That the said Pepy was seised and enfeoffed certain persons to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of the Wife of the Plaintiff and her Heirs The Defendant pleaded That the said Feoffment was to the use of himself and his Heirs in Fee c. absque hoc that it was to the uses as in the Count Vpon which they were at Issue And it was found by Verdict That the said Feoffment was to the uses contained in the Count but further found That the Estate of the Defendant by the Limitation of the use was priviledged with the impunity of Waste scil without Impeachment of Waste It was moved If upon that Verdict The Plaintiff should have Iudgment Anderson and Rhodes Iustices conceived That he should for that the matter in Issue is found for the Plaintiff and that is the Feoffment to uses contained in the Count and this impunity of Waste is a Forreign matter not within the Charge of the Iury and therefore the finding of the same is but matter of surplusage As if I plead a Feoffment of J. S. to which the other pleads That he did not enfeoff and the Iury find a Conditional Feoffment the Court shall not respect the finding of the Condition for it was not in Issue and no advantage shall be ever had of such a Liberty if it be not pleaded 30 H. 8. Dyer 41. In Dower the Tenant pleaded Ne unque seisi que Dower c. The Tenant pleaded That before the Coverture of the Demandant one A. was seised and gave the Land whereof Dower is demanded to the Husband of the Demandant in tail who made a Feoffment A stranger took the Demandant to Wife took back an Estate in Fee and died seised having Issue inheritable Now although upon the truth of the matter she is nâ—t Dowable de jure yet forasmuch as the parties were at Issue upon a point certain no forrein nor strange matter not in Question betwixt the parties shall be respected in the point of Iudgment But if the Defendant had pleaded it in Bar he might have foreclosed the Demandant of her Dower See 38 Ass 27. 47 E. 19. In a Praecipe quod reddat upon the default of the Tenant came one and shewed How that the Tenant who made default was but Tenant for life of the Lands in demand the Reversion in Fee to himself and prayed to be received The Demandant counterpleaded the Resceit Dicendo That the Tenant had Fee c. Vpon which Issue was taken And it was found That neither the Tenant nor he who prayed to be received had any thing in the Land. And in that Case The Court did not regard the matter which was superfluous in the Verdict For they were at Issue upon a point certain scil whether the Tenant was seised in Fee For it is confessed of the one side and of the other that he had an Estate for life and of that matter the Iury was not charged and they are not to enquire of that And so it is found against the Demandant by which the Resceit was granted See 7 H. 6. 20. The parties were at Issue upon a Dying seised which is found by Verdict but the Iury find further That the other party made continual Claim The said continual Claim shall not be respected in point of Iudgment because it was not pleaded in Avoidance of the Disceit c. Windham Iustice to the contrary because it appeareth to us upon the Verdict That the Plaintiff hath not cause of Action and therefore he shall not have Iudgment As in Detinue the Plaintiff declares upon a Baylment by his own hands The Defendant pleads Ne Detinue pas the Iury find the Detinue but upon Baylment by another hand In that case notwithstanding that the Detinue be found yet the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment But Anderson Rhodes and Periam conceived That in the principal Case Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff For in no case the party shall have advantage of that liberty of impunity of Waste if he doth not plead it And the Iurors are not to meddle with any matter which is not in issue and if they do It is but matter of surplusage and to no purpose and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff See the Number Roll Pasch 25 Eliz. Rot. 602. CXXII Skipwith's Case Pasch 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action of Trespass It was found by a special Verdict Godbolt 14 143. Co. of Copy-holds 94. That the Lands were Copy-hold Lands That the Custom of the Mannor was That Quaelibet Foemina Viro Co-operta poterit
Lease of my House during her life and after her death I will it go amongst my Children unpreferred Peerepoint died his Wife entred and was possessed virtute legationis praedictae And took to Husband one Fulsehurst against whom Beswick recovered in an Action of Debt 140 l. Vpon which Recovery issued a Scire facias and upon that a Vendit ' Exponas upon which the Sheriff sold the Term so Devised to one Reynolds Fulsehurst died his Executor brought Error and reversed the Iudgment given against the Testator at the Suit of Beswick the Wife re-entred sold the Term and died Alice a Daughter of Peerepoint unpreferred entred And upon this matter found by Special Verdict in the Common Pleas The Entry of Alice was adjudged lawful Vpon which Iudgment Error was brought in the Kings Bench And it was argued upon the words of the Devise because here the Lease is not Devised but all his Interest in the thing Devised And it is not like to the Case between Welden and Elkington 20 Eliz. Plow Com. 519. where the Case was that Davies being Lessee for years Devised That his Wife should have and occupy his Land demised for so many years as she should live Nor unto the Case betwixt Paramour and Yardley 21 Eliz. Plow Com. 539. For there the Lessee Devised That his Wife should have the Occupation and Profits of the Lands until the full age of his Son For in those Cases the Land it self is quodam modo devised But in our Case all the Estate is Devised i. e. the Lease it self And also in those two Devises a certain person is named in the Will who should take the residue of the Term which should expire after the death of the Wife but in the Case at Bar no person in certain is appointed c. but the Devise as to that is conceived in general words Children unpreferred Ergo neither any Possibility nor any Remainder is in any person certain therefore all the whole Term is intirely in the Wife and then she may well dispose the whole But the whole Court was to the contrary and that in this Case the Possibility should rise well enough upon the death of the Wife to the Daughter Alice unpreferred Another Point was moved If the said Term being sold in the possession of the Wife of the Devisor by force of the Execution aforesaid If now the Iudgment being reversed the sale of the Term should be also avoided for now the party is to be restored to all that which he had lost And by Cook it was argued That notwithstanding the reversal of the Iudgment the sale should stand For the Iudgment for the Plaintiff in a Writ of Error is That he shall be restored to all that which he lost ratione Judicii praedict and the Iudgment was That the Plaintiff should recover 140 l. and therefore by the Iudgment in the Writ of Error he shall be restored to so much but the mean Act scil the Sale of the Lease shall stand and shall not be defeated and avoided As 7. H. 6. 42. A Statute Staple is bailed in Owel Mayn the Conusee brings Debt against the Bailee and hath Iudgment to recover the Statute and upon that Suit he had Execution and the Bailee brought a Writ of Error to reverse the Iudgment in Detinue yet the Execution shall stand and an Audita Querela doth not lie for the Conusor And see 13 E. 3. Fitz. tit Bar. 253. Accomptant found in arrearages committed to the Goal escaped and reversed the Iudgment given against him in the Accompt Ex parte talis yet an Action upon the Escape did lie And as to that Point the whole Court was of the same Opinion with Cook But that Point did not come in Iudgment For by the sale nothing passed but the Interest in praesenti which was in the Wife of the Devisor but the Possibility to the Children unpreferred was not touched by it And afterwards the Iudgment was affirmed CXXIX Bunny and Bunny's Case Hill. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action of Covenant between Bunny and Bunny the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant had Covenanted to find unto the Plaintiff Meat and Drink at the House of the Defendant The Defendant pleaded That he was always ready to find the Plaintiff Meat and Drink if he had come to his House to have taken it Et de hoc ponit se super Patriam And it was found for the Plaintiff And in this Case the Court awarded That the parties should replead For in all Cases where the Defendant pleads matter of excuse not contained in the Declaration as here he shall say Et hoc paratus est verificare in the perclose of his Plea But if the Defendant had pleaded That he had given the Plaintiff according to the Covenant Meat and Drink then the Conclusion of his Plea had been good Et de hoc ponit se super Patriam c. CXXX Hill. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case supposing certain Goods to have come to the hands of the Defendant and that he had wasted them and shewed in what manner The Defendant pleaded Not guilty And it was found by Verdict That the Goods c. came to the Defendants hands and that he had wasted them but in another manner than the Plaintiff had declared It was the Opinion of the whole Court That upon this Verdict the Plaintiff should not have Iudgment As in an Action of Trespass the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant had distrained his Horse and travelled riding upon him And the Iury found That the Defendant did distrain the Horse and killed him In that case it was holden The Plaintiff should not have Iudgment So in an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declares upon a Promise upon one Consideration and the Iury find the Promise but that it was upon another Consideration in such case the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment Adjudged for the Defendant CXXXI Merry and Lewes's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. MErry brought an Action upon the Case against William Lewes 2 Len. 53. Executor of David Lewes late Master of St. Katherines juxta London And Declared That the said David in Consideration That whereas Quaedam pars Domus fratrum sororum Sanctae Katherinae fuit vitiosa in decasu the said Merry ad requisitionem dicti Davidis repararet eandem promised to pay the said Merry all such monies as the said Merry expenderet in such Reparations And declared further That eandem partem Domus praedict reparavit c. And upon Non Assumpsit It was found for the Plaintiff It was Objected in Arrest of Iudgment That the Declaration is too general Quaedam pars Domus For the Plaintiff ought to have shewed especially what part of the House in certainty as the Hall Chamber or other Rooms But the Exception was disallowed Another Objection was Because he set forth in the Declaration That the
Plaintiff ad requisitionem dicti Davidis repararet And the Plaintiff declares That reparavit generally without saying 2 Cro. 404. That ad requisitionem Davidis reparavit And that is not the Reparation intended in the Consideration i. e. reparatio ad requisitionem c. but a Reparation of his own head and at his pleasure And for this Cause the Iudgment was stayed CXXXII Wrennam and Bullman's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 52. 1 Len. 282. WRennam brought an Action upon the Statute of 1 2 Phil. Mar. against Bullman for unlawful impounding of Distresses and was Nonsuit It was moved by Shuttleworth Serjeant If the Defendant should have Costs upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. And it was Adjudged That he should not And that appears clearly upon the words of the Statute c. for this Action is not conceived upon any matter which is comprised within the said Statute and also the Statute upon which this Action is grounded was made after the said Statute of 23 H. 8. which gives Costs and therefore the said Statute of 23 H. 8. and the remedy of it cannot extend to any action done by 1 2 Phil. Mary And Rhodes Iustice said It was so adjudged in 8 Eliz. CXXXIII Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 161. Dyer 291. IN a Formedon of a Mannor The Tenant pleaded Ioynt-Tenancy by Fine with J.S. The Demandant averred the Tenant sole Tenant as the Writ supposed and upon that it was found and tryed for the Demandant Vpon which a Writ of Error was brought and Error assigned in this Because where Ioynt-Tenancy is pleaded by Fine the Writ ought to have abated without any Averment by the Demandant against it and the Averment had been received against Law c. Shuttleworth At the Common-Law If the Tenant had pleaded Ioynt-Tenancy by Deed the Writ should have abated without any Averment but that was remedied by the Statute of 34 E. 1. But Ioynt-Tenancy by Fine doth remain as it was at the Common Law For he hath satis supplicii because by his Plea if it be false he hath by way of Conclusion given the moyety of the Land in demand to him with whom he hath pleaded Ioynt-Tenancy And the Law shall never intend that he would so sleightly depart with his Land for the abatement of a Writ As in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant confesseth himself to be a Villein of a stranger the Writ shall abate without any Averment Free and of Free estate for the Law intends that the Tenant will not inthral himself without cause Wray to the same purpose But the Demandant may confess and avoid the Fine as to say That he who levied the Fine was his Disseisor upon whom he hath before entred And if Tenant in Feesimple be impleaded and he saith That he is Tenant for life the remainder over to A. in Fee and prayeth in Aid of A. the Demandant shall not take Averment That the Tenant at the time of the Writ brought was seised in Fee. Note In this Formedon Ioynt-Tenancy was pleaded but as to parcel And it was holden by Wray and Southcote That the whole Writ should abate the whole Writ against all the Defendants And so where the Demandant enters into parcel of the Land in demand if the thing in demand be an entire thing the Writ shall abate in all In this Writ the Demandant ought to have averred in his Writ an especial foreprise of the Land parcel of the Land in demand whereof the Ioynt-Tenancy by the Fine is pleaded For this dismembring of the Mannor and distraction of the Land of which the Ioynt-Tenancy is pleaded is paravail and under the gift whereof the Formedon is conceived and therefore in respect of the title of the Demandant it remains in right parcel of the Mannor and therefore ought to be demanded accordingly with a foreprise But if A. giveth unto B. a Mannor except 10 Acres in tail there if after upon any Discontinuance the issue in tail is to have a Formedon in such case there needs not any foreprise for the said 10 Acres for they were severed from the Mannor upon the gift But if Lands in demand be several as 20 Acres except 2 Acres this foreprise is not good See Temps E. 1. Fitz. Brief 866. Praecipe c. unam bovatam terrae forprise one Sellion and the Writ was abated for every demand ought to be certain but a Sellion is but a parcel of Land uncertain as to the quantity in some places an Acre in some more in some less Another Point was Because the Tenant hath admitted and accepted this Averment scil sole Tenant as the Writ supposeth And the Question was If the Court notwithstanding the Admittance of the Tenant ought without Exception of the party Ex Officio to abate the Writ And it was the Opinion of Wray Chief Iustice That it should For it is a positive Law As if a Woman bring an Appeal of Murder upon the death of her Brother and the Defendant doth admit it without a Challenge or Exception yet the Court ought to abate the Appeal 10 E. 4. 7. See the principal Case there Non ideo puniatur Dominus c. And if an Action be brought against an Hostler upon the Common Custom of the Realm and in the Writ he is not named Common Hostler yet the Court shall abate the Writ Ex Officio See 11 H. 4. and 38 H. 6. 42. CXXXIV Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seised of Lands in the right of his Wife for the Term of the life of the Wife made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of his said Wife for her life It was holden in that Case That the Wife was remitted And it is not like Amy Townsends Case Plow Com. 1 2 Phil. and Mar. 111. For in the said Case the Entry of the Wife was not lawful for she was Tenant in tail which Estate was discontinued by the Feoffment of her Husband And Periam Iustice cited a Case Sidenham's Case Bacon seised in the right of his Wife for the Term of the life of the Wife They both surrendred and took back the Lands to them and a third person And it was holden That the Wife was not presently remitted but after the death of her Husband she might disagree to the Estate CXXXV Harper and Berrisford's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Writ of Partition The Defendant demanded Iudgment of the Writ because the Writ is Quare-cum A. teneat c. pro indiviso c 4 mille acras whereas it should be Quatuor Mille acrarum And many Grammarians were cited all which agreed That it was good both ways viz. Mille Acras or Mille Acrarum And Rhodes Iustice said That Cowper in Thesauro suo Linguae Latinae saith Quod Mille fere jungitur Genitivo Ergo non semper Wherefore Anderson with the assent of the other Iustices Ruled
been Objected that J. cannot be said to die within the Term because by the descent of the Fee the Term is extinct or suspended and so not in esse at the time of the death of J. therefore nothing did accrue to G. because J. did not die within the Term but that is but a Conceit for the intent of Vincent was that the Heir should not meddle with the Land Devised as Heir until the 31 years be expired and words During or Within the Term extend unto the time of the Term and not unto the Estate And although that the Term as to J. be extinct yet the right or possession of G. shall stand and shall be expectant upon the death of J. before the expiration of the said 31 years As A. leaseth for life to B. and afterwards granteth the Reversion with Warranty to C. who releaseth to B. in Fee who is impleaded in a Praecipe although now B. hath a Feesimple yet during his life he shall not recover in value And in the principal Case This further Interest limited to G. cannot be extinct or prevented See Plow Com. Welden and Elkingtons Case Beaumont contrary And that the Term is extinct because he hath the said Term in his own right and not as Executor but as a Man trusted with payment of Debts and Legacies But the same Term which J. had G. cannot have for some of the years are expired and the words of the Will are He shall have such Term but here the Term is utterly extinct As where a Rent Common or Way c. descendeth upon the Ter-Tenant 2 H. 4. A Prior had an Annuity out of a Parsonage and afterwards he purchaseth the Advowson which is afterwards appropriated to his House now the Annuity is extinct and although the Prior afterwards presenteth to the Advowson yet it is-not revived Br. Extinguishment 54. A Man hath a Lease for years as Executor and purchaseth the Inheritance his Term is extinct yet it is Assets c. And it is said in Bracebridges Case Plow Com. 419. 14 Eliz. that Parson Patron and Ordinary Lease for years the Glebe Lands of the Parsonage the Parson dieth the Lessee for years becomes Parson and dieth his Executors shall not have the residue of the said Term for the Term is extinct 1 Inst 338. b. 2 Roll. 472. although he had the Term in his own right and the Freehold in the right of his Church and so in several Capacities And it was holden by some that if the Term for years comes to the Lessor as Executor who dieth the Term is revived Manwood Chief Baron asked this Case of those who Argued A Lease is made for 21 years Proviso That the Lessee shall suffer the Lessor to enjoy the same or to take the profits thereof during the life of the Lessor or so long as the Lessor shall live if the same were a good Proviso or not Pigot Conceived that the Devise to G. was a new Devise and not dependant upon the first Devise to J. nor any parcel of it but this second Devise to G. did take away the absolute Devise to J. before and qualified it so as it determined with his death The words Such Estate shall be intended an Estate to G. to be granted from the death of the Testator Land is Devised to A. and his Heirs and he if dieth without Heir that it shall remain to another the same is no good Devise But a Devise to one and his Heirs and if J.S. dieth living the Devisee B. shall have it the same is good for it is a new Devise and an Estate created de Novo and doth not depend as a Remainder upon the first Devise or upon the first Estate devised as the Case is 29 Ass 17. Br. Condition 111. and Devise 16. So here are several Estates limited one to J. and another to G. which Estate of G. cannot be extinct by unity of possession in J. These words If he die within the Term shall be construed for Effluxion of the time of 31 years and not for the Termination of the Term. Cooper Serjeant to the contrary J. took this Term as purchasor and not as Executor for that no Term was in the Testator See 14 Eliz. Dyer 309. Granmer's Case G. shall have such Term and Interest as before I have willed unto J. Manwood Such Term that is to say The Residue of the Term. Now at another day the Barons delivered their Opinions that the Plaintiff should recover and that was now G. to whom the second Term was devised And by Manwood in Construction of Wills all the words of the Will are to be compared together so as there by not any repugnancy between all the parts of the Will or between any of them so that all may stand And the Intent of the Testator was That his Son J. should have the Lands for 31 years if he so long lived and if he died within the Term That G. his Son should have such Term. And he held That the same was in J. an Estate by Limitation and he could not sell it nor could it be extinct by Act in Law or of the Law. It was a Lease determinable by his death and so shall be the Lease of G. determinable upon his own death and G. upon the death of J. within the Term shall have the residue of the number of the years limited by the former Devise scil so many in number as were not expired in the life of J. who was first Executor to that special purpose Gent Baron to the same intent here he hath the same Term as Executor and it is not like a-Term devised which the party hath as Legatee but in our Case he hath only authority in this Lease as Executor and the Land was tied to the time and the Authority and when the same determines in his person then the Land departs from him to G. who was a special Executor to that purpose as J. was before And G. had not the same Term which J. had but such a Term. Clerk Baron acc And he said that the Will was further that if G. died before his Debts paid and his Will performed and the Iury finding all the special matter concluded that if the Term limited to J. be extinct then they find for the Defendant And he held clearly that J. had this Term of 21 years as Executor and that by the discent of the Inheritance to J. the Term as to himself was gone But as to Creditors and to the Legatees it shall be said in esse and be Assets in his hands And because that the Term as to that purpose shall be said in esse he died within the Term within the intent of the said Will. And this word Term is Vox polysema Terminus status Terminus temporis Terminus loci And in our Case the word Term hath reference to time and not to estate for the Testator did respect the time in which his Will might be performed
Cantarista And it hath always been adjudged That a Chauntry by Reputation is within the Statute of 1 E. 6. CLXV Brian and Cawsen's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass by Brian and his Wife and others against Cawsen It was found by Special Verdict 2 Len. 68. That W. Gardiner was seised in Fee according to the Custom of the Mannor of C. of certain Lands and surrendred them to the use of his last Will by which he Devised them in this manner scil I Bequeath to Jo. Th. my House and Lands in M. called Lacks and Stone To Ste. Th. my House and Lands called Stokes and Newmans And to Roger Th. my House and Lands called Lakins and Brox. Moreover If the said Jo. Ste. or Roger live till they be of lawful age and have Issue of their bodies lawfully begotten Then I give the said Houses and Lands to them and their heirs in manner aforesaid to give and sell at their pleasure But if it fortune one of them to die without Issue of his body lawfully begotten Then I will that the other Brothers or Brother have all the said Houses and Lands in manner aforesaid And if it fortune the Three to die without Issue in like manner Then I Will That all the said Houses and Lands be sold by my Executor or his Assignee and the Mony to be given to the Poor The Devisor dieth Jo. Ste. and Roger are admitted according to the intent of the Will Roger dieth within age without Issue John and Ste. are admitted to his part John comes of full age and hath Issue J. and surrenders his part of the whole and his estate therein to the use of Ste. and his Heirs who is admitted accordingly Ste. comes of full age John the Father dieth Ste. dieth without Issue J. the Son as Cosen and Heir of Ste. is admitted according to the Will and afterwards dieth without Issue The Wives of the Plaintiffs are Heirs to him and are admitted to the Lands called Lacks and Stone and to the moyety of the Lands called Lakins and Brox parcel of the place where c. praetextu quorum they enter into all the Lands where the Trespass is done And it was found that A. the Executor died Intestate And that Cawsen the Defendant is Cosen and Heir to the said Devisor and that he as Heir entred and did the Trespass First It was agreed by all That by the first words of the Will the 3. Devisees had but an Estate for life But Fenner and Walmesley who argued for the Plaintiffs Conceived That by force of the later words scil If the said John Stephen and Roger live till they be of lawful age and have Issue of their body lawfully begotten Then I give the said Lands and Houses to them and their Heirs in manner aforesaid c. They have Fee and the words In manner aforesaid are to be referred not unto the Estate which was given by the first words which was but for life but to make them hold in severalty as the first Devisor willed and not joyntly as the words of the second Devise purported And Fenner said It hath been Resolved by good Opinions That where a Fine was levied unto the use of the Conusor and his Wife and of the Heirs of the body of the Conusor with divers Remainders over Proviso That it shall be lawful to the Survivor of them to make Leases of the said Lands in such manner as Tenant in tail might do by the Statute of 32 H. 8. although those Lands were never Demised before the Fine yet the Survivor might demise them by force of the Proviso notwithstanding the words In manner c. So if Lands be given to A. for life upon Condition the Remainder to B. in manner aforesaid these words In manner aforesaid refer unto the Estate for life limited unto A. and not unto the Condition nor unto any other Collateral manner The words If they live until they be of full age and have Issue are words of Condition and shall not be construed to such purpose to give to them by Implication an estate tail For the words subsequent are That they shall have them to them and their Heirs to give and sell at their pleasure By which it appeareth That his intent was not to make an estate tail For Tenant in tail cannot alien or dispose of his estate c. And as unto the last words And if it fortune they three to die without Issue c. these words cannot make an estate tail and the express Limitation of the Fee in the first part of the Will shall not be controverted by Implication out of the words subsequent As if Lessee for 40 years Deviseth his Lands to his Wife for 20 years and if she dieth the remnant of the Term unto another although that she survive the 20 years she shall not hold over and here the second sale appointed to be made by the Executor shall not take away the power of the first sale allowed to the Devisee's after-Issue Snagg and Shuttleworth Serjeants to the contrary And they Conceived That the Defendant hath right to two parts for no express Inheritance vests in the Devisees until full age and issue and because two of the Devisees died without Issue they never had any Inheritance in their two parts and so those two parts descended to the Defendant as Heir to the Devisor no sale being made by the Executor These words If John Stephen and Roger are to be taken distributive viz. If John live c. are to be taken distributive If John live until c. he shall have the Inheritance in his part and so of the rest As if J. have right unto Land which A. B. and C. hold in Common and J. by a Deed release to them all the same shall enure to them severally 19 H. 6. And here these later words If these three do die without Issue by that they conceived The same to be but an estate in tail And see to that purpose 35 Ass 11. 37 Ass 15. For a Man cannot declare his intent at once but in several parts all which make but one sentence And so it is said by Persay 37 Ass 15. We ought to have regard upon the whole Deed and not upon parcel And see Clark's Case 11 Eliz. Dyer 330 331. And it was said If I give Lands to one and his Heirs so long as he hath Heirs of his body it is a Feesimple determinable and not an estate in tail Quaere of that Then here the Feesimple is determined by the death of the Devisees without issue and therefore the Land ought to revert to the Heir of the Devisor especially being no person in rerum natura who can sell for the Executor before sale by him made died Intestate and if he had made an Executor yet the Executor of the Executor could not sell Which see 19 H. 8 9 10. And afterwards Resolved That no estate tail is
And it was found that the Land was frank-Frank-Fee And the sole Question was If by the Reversal of the Fine by the Writ of Disceit without suing a Scire facias against the Ter-Tenant should bind him Atkinson It shall not bind the Lessee for years For a Fine may bind in part and in part not as bind one of the Conusees and not the other As. 7 H. 4. 11. a Fine levied of Lands part Ancient Demesne and part at the Common-Law and by a Writ of Disceit the Fine was reversed in part scil as to the Land in Ancient Demesne and stood in force for the Residue See 8 H. 4. 136. And there by the Award of the Court issued a Scire facias against the Ter-Tenant And the Iustices would not admit of the Fine without Certificate that the Land is Ancient Demesne notwithstanding that the Defendant had confessed it But as to those which were parties to the Fine the Fine was become void between the parties and he who had the Land before might enter See 8 E. 4. 6. And it would be a great inconvenience if no Scire facias or other Process should be awarded against the Ter-Tenant For he should be dispossessed and dis-enherited without privity or notice of it Whereas upon a Scire facias he might plead matter of discharge in bar of the Writ of Disceit Release c. which see Fitzh Na. Br. 98. and so although that the Fine be reversed yet he may retain the Land. And he resembled the same to the Case of 2 H. 4. 16 17. In a Contra formam Collationis against an Abbot A Scire facias shall issue forth against the Feoffee and by the same reason here in this Case And for the principal matter he conceived That the Fine should be awarded between the parties but not against the Lessee Kingsmill conceived That a Scire facias brought against the parties only was good enough For they were parties to the Disceit and not the Ter-Tenants c. it was Adâ—â—rned CLXXIII Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ERror was brought upon a Iudgment in a Quid juris clamat It was assigned for Error That the Tenant appeared by Attorny which Act he ought not to do in his own proper person if it be not in case of necessity where in such case an Attorny may be received by the King 's Writ and plead matter in bar of the Attornment As if he claim Fee c. or other peremptory matter after which Plea pleaded he may make an Attorny 48 E. 3. 24. 7 H. 4. 69. 21 E. 3. 48. 1 H. 7. 27. Another Error was assigned Because it is not shewed in the Quid juris clamat what estate the Tenant hath Another matter was If the Grantee of the estate of Tenant in tail after possibility of Issue extinct should be driven to Attorn And conceived He should not Because the priviledge passeth with the Grant. See 43 E. 3. 1. Tenant in tail after possibility of Issue extinct Post 241. shall not be driven to Attorn 46 E. 3. 13. 27. therefore neither his Grantee Williams contrary As to the appearance of the Tenant by Attorny because the same is admitted by the Court and the Plaintiff the same is not Error Which see 1 H. 7. 27. by Brian and Conisby 32 H. 6. 22. acc And he conceived That the Grantee should be driven to Attorn For no other person can have the estate of the Tenant in tail after possibility of Issue extinct but the party himself therefore not the priviledge And although he himself be dispunishable of Waste yet his Grantee shall not have such priviledge As if Tenant in Dower or by the Curtesie grant over their estates the Heirs shall have an Action of Waste against the Grantees for Waste done by the Grantees But if the Heir granteth over the Reversion then Waste shall be brought against the Grantees See Fitzh Na. Br. 57. And if two Coparceners be and one taketh Husband and dieth the Husband being Tenant by the Courtesie A Writ of Partitione facienda lieth against him but if he granteth over his estate no Writ of Partition lyeth against the Grantee 27 H. 6. Statham Aid Tenant in tail after possibility c. shall not have Aid but his Grantee shall Clark conceived That the Grantee should not be driven to Attorn If the Tenant in tail grant all his estate the Grantee is dispunishable of Waste So if the Grantee grant it over his Grantee is also dispunishable It was Adjourned CLXXIV Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Hob. Rep. 66. IN Action of Trespass against J.D. for breaking of his Close c. The Defendant pleaded That the Trespass whereof c. was done by the Defendant and one J.S. against which J.S. the Plaintiff at another time had brought an Action of Trespass and Recovered c. and had Execution of the Damages c. Plowden said It was a good Bar for that all is but one Trespass and satisfaction by one of the Trespassors is satisfaction for the other And if the Plaintiff had Released to the other Trespassors the Defendant if he had it in his hand might well plead it Wray conceived it a good Bar For it is but one Trespass and one wrong although in respect of the several persons of the Trespassors there are several Corporeal Acts. Atkinson conceived That the Bar was not good and it is not like the Case of Release for that taketh away the whole Trespass whosoever doth it And this Action may be sued joyntly or severally against the Trespassors and when the joynt suit is Released the several suit is Released Clench If an Action of Trespass be brought against two and they plead several Pleas and afterwards one of them is found guilty by a several Iury That Iury shall assess all the Damages and if the other be afterwards found guilty he shall be subject to the said Damages although he was not party to the said Iury and by the same Reason that he shall be charged with the same Damages by the same Reason he shall have advantage of the satisfaction of them made by his Companion See Br. Trespass 2. CLXXV Hitchcock and Thurland's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Statute brought for taking of Lands to Farm by a Spiritual person 21 H. 8. It was holden That if any such Lease be made at this day to any Spiritual person such a Lease is not void But such a Lease extends to such Leases made before the Feast of St. Michael mentioned in the said Act and not aliened before the said Feast c. And so it was said It was lately adjudged in one Underwood's Case CLXXVI Cutter and Dixwell's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Action upon the Case brought by Cutter against Dixwell for that the said Defendant had exhibited a Bill to the Iustices of Peace against the Plaintiff containing That the Plaintiff is an Enemy
force of the first assurance by way of Bargain and the Relation is utterly gone So in our Case The Grant of the Queen mean between the Award of the Commission and the Retorn of it hath destroyed the force and effect of the Commission so as no appearance shall be had of it And he agreed That here are several Rents but the Condition is entire and admit that a Condition may be apportioned in some Cases yet in some Cases it cannot And the Statute of 32 H. 8. gives the Condition and the Reversion to which it is annexed to the King in such sort as it was in the Prior But the Condition in the Prior was not capable of Apportionment and therefore no more it shall be in the Case of the King. As where a Recognizance is acknowledged whicâ— cometh to the King by the Attainder of the Conusee Now if the King will sue Execution upon it he shall not have the whole Land of the Conusor in Execution but only the moyety by Elegit c. This Case afterward Trin. 28 Eliz. for Difficulty was adjourned into the Exchequer-Chamber and there argued before all the Iustices and Barons of the Exchequer And Shuttleworth Serjant argued for the Plaintiff And first he said Here are several Rents and so several Conditions especially when all the things demised are of such a Nature that they may yield a Distress but if any of the things demised cannot yield Distress then it shall be one entire Rent and shall issue out of the Residue c. Which see 17 Ass 10. An Assise was brought of 20 s. Rent and the said Rent was reserved upon a Lease for life made of 100 Acres of Lands and 15 Acres of Wood scil for the Land 10 s. and for the Woods 10 s. And by the Assise it was found the Disseisin in the Wood but not in the Land. Wherefore it was awarded That the Plaintiff should recover seisin of the 10 s. and for the residue that he should take nothing And although these words reddendo inde Trench unto all the things demised entirely yet this word viz. is a distributive and makes an Apportionment And the viz. is not contrary to the premisses scil to the reddendo inde As if I enfeoffe A. and B. of an Acre of Land Habendum the one moyety thereof to A. in Fee and the other moyety to B. in Fee this is good for it well stands with the premisses But if I enfeoffe A. and B. of two Acres of Lands Habendum the one Acre to A. and the other to B. the same Habendum is void because contrary to the premisses for each of them is excluded out of one Acre which was given to him in the premisses And in our Case If the Rent set forth in the Viz. had been greater or less than that which is reserved upon the Reddendo then the Viz. should be void for the contrariety and the Reddendo stand Walmesley contrary And that here is one entire Rent Which see to be so by the close of the Condition Si Redditus praedict ' aut aliqua inde parcella c. And the Lessor may distrain in any part of the Land demised for the whole Rent notwithstanding the Viz. And it was moved by Shuttleworth That admit the Rent and Condition be entire Yet now when the King grants the Reversion of one of the things demised in Fee to a stranger the Condition remains and not determined by the destruction of the Reversion as in the case of a Subject For the King hath divers Prerogatives by which he is exempted and protected from such Mischiefs and Inconveniences which happen to Subjects by their own Acts and their Laches and Folly which shall not be imputed to the King And the reason of Extinguishment of a Condition in such case in the case of a Common person is his own Folly that he will distrahere his Reversion And Folly shall never be imputed to the King And as the Case is here the King is not bound to take notice of a Condition made by a Common â—erson For it is not matter of Record and by this Grant of the King the Rent doth not pass for the Grant is only of the Reversion without any mention of the Rent And the King hath divers Prerogatives in a Condition As in the creating of a Condition 35 H. 6. 38. The Abbot of Sion's Case Ad effectum is a good Condition in the Case of the King by Prison And where the King grants Lands in Fee to one upon Condition That the Grantee shall not alien the same is a good condition So for a Rent-Seck the King may distrain And the King may reserve a Rent and a Condition to a stranger and if he doth reserve a Rent and a Condition to himself he may grant the same over to a Subject 2 H. 7. 8. And the Condition in the case of a Common person may be apportioned As if Lessee of two Acres upon Condition alien one of them in Fee and the Lessor entreth for the forfeiture or recovereth part in an Action of Waste c. but of a surrender it is otherwise Walmesley contrary The Condition is gone For a Condition in the hands of the King is of the same Nature as in the case of a common person impatient of any Division Partition or Apportionment As if the King hath a Rent out of 3 Acres of Land and afterwards purchaseth one of them the Rent is utterly gone and shall not be apportioned as well as in the Case of a common person So of a Common And as this Case is If the Condition doth remain then upon the breach of it the King shall enter into the whole for the words of the Condition are Wholly to re-enter and so he should defeat his own grant And he cited a Case adjudged at the Assizes at York The King gave Land in Fee-Farm rendring Rent with Clause of re-entry The King granteth the Rent over to a stranger And after the Rent is behind The King cannot re-enter nor the Grantee It was also moved If the Iurors of Middlesex might enquire of the usual Feast days in London Shuttleworth That they might do so See 5 H. 5. 23. Where a Commission issued out to enquire in the County of Surrey of Escheats words c. who found that A. held of the King in Chief and took to Wife one E. Cosen of A. within the Degrees they then knowing of it and had Issue betwixt them and afterwards they were Divorced in the County of Kent c. And Exception was taken to that Office Because the Enquest of Surry had found a Divorce in the County of Kent Another matter was Because the Iurors have found the breach of the Condition And before the Iurors had put their Hands and Seals to the Inquisition the Queen granted part of the things demised in his hands to Fortescue After which Grant the Inquisition was sealed and Retorned into the Exchequer If
now the Grant to Fortescue be good or not Vide inde Dyer 2 Eliz. 17. Vpon a Writ of Mandamus The Escheator charged the Enquest who were agreed of their Verdict and delivered the same in Paper to the Escheator And before the engrossing sealing and delivery of it came a Supersedeas And it was Resolved by all the Iustices That before the engrossing indenting and sealing it was no Verdict See this Case Reported in Cook 5. Part 54. CLXXIX Nelson's Case Pasch 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass brought by Nelson chief Preignothory of the Court of Common Pleas the Case was That the Abbot of D. was seised of a Common out of the Lands of the Abby of S. as appendant unto certain Lands of the said Abby of D. And afterwards the said Houses were dissolved and the possessions of them given to the King by Act of Parliament to have and hold in as large and ample manner and form as the late Abbots c. After which the King so being seised granted the said possessions of the said Abby of D. to A. and the possessions of the said Abby of S. to B. It was argued That the Common notwithstanding the unity of possession did continue For unity of possession is so qualified and restrained by the Statute by the words aforesaid and also by the words in the state and condition as they now be And the Abbot of D. was seised in the right of his House of the said Common Therefore so also shall be the King and his Patentees and so a special seisin is given to the King. Rhodes Windham and Anderson Iustices to the contrary And the said words in the said Statute are to be construed according to the Law and no further And by the Law the said Common cannot stand against the Vnity of possession CLXXX Leonard's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 192. 2 Roll. 787. LEonard Custos Brevium brought an Action of Trespass for breaking of his Close The Defendant pleaded That William Heydon was seised and enfeoffed him And upon Ne enfeffa pas they were at Issue And it was found by Special Verdict That the said William Heydon was seised and leased to the Defendant for years and afterwards made a Charter of Feoffment to him by these words Dedi Concessi with a Warrant of Attorny in it and delivered the same to the said Lessee who delivered the same to him who was made Attorny in the said Deed who made Livery accordingly It was moved by the Plaintiff's Counsel That here is not any Feoffment found but only a Confirmation For as soon as the Charter was delivered to the Lessee for years the Law gave it its operation to that effect to vest the Fee in the Lessee by way of Confirmation See Litt. 532. But the Opinion of the whole Court was clear to the contrary for here the Lessee hath liberty how and by what Conveyance he shall be adjudged seised of the Land either by Feoffment or by Confirmation And it appeareth here That when the Lessee delivered the Charter to the Attorny And also when the Lessee accepted Livery from the Attorny he declared his meaning to be That he would take by the Livery And the Lord Anderson said That if Tenant in tail be disseised and makes a Charter-Feoffment with a Warranty of Attorny and delivers the same to the Disseisor who delivers the same to the Attorny who makes Livery accordingly the same is a good Feoffment and so a Discontinuance And after many Motions the Court awarded That the Plaintiff should be barred CLXXXI Palmer and Waddington's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. RIchard Palmer brought an Action upon the Case against Anthony Waddington And Declared That Henry Waddington Brother of the Defendant was endebted to the said Plaintiff in 20 l. Et jacens in extremis mortem indies expectans vocavit ad se dict Anthonium quem executorem Testamenti ultimae voluntatis Constituisset eum rogans ut dictas 20 Libras praefato Richardo infra spacium duorum Mensium mortem suam proxime sequend numeraret solveret Et dictus Anthonius in Consideratione inde super se assumpsit c. And all the matter aforesaid was found by Verdict upon Non Assumpsit pleaded And it was the Opinion of the whole Court That the Declaration was insufficient because there is not any good Consideration set forth in it for it is not said That in Consideration that the said Henry made the Defendant his Executor c. CLXXXII Stransham and Collington's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Plaintiff sued in the Spiritual Court for Tythes against the Defendant within the Parish of C. The Defendant said 1 Cro. 128. That the Tythes are within the Parish of A. and the Parson of A. came in pro interesse suo and thereupon they proceeded to sentence and that was given against Stransham who now sued a Prohibition And the Question was If within such a Parish or such a Parish be tryable by the Law of the Land or by the Law of the Church Wray Chief Iustice said It hath been taken That it is tryable by our Law. Fenner The Pope hath not distinguished Parishes but hath Ordained That Tythes shall be paid within the Parish CLXXXIII Higham's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 226. More Rep. 221. 1 Cro. 15. IT was found by Special Verdict That Thomas Higham was seised of 100 Acres of Lands called Jacks usually occupied with a House And that he Leased the said House and 40 Acres of the said 100 Acres to J.S. for life and made his Will by which he devised the said House and all his Lands called Jacks then in the Occupation of J.S. to his Wife for life and that after the decease of his Wife the Remainder thereof and of all his other Lands appertaining to Jacks to Richard his second Son c. It was said by Meade That the Wife should not have by Implication the Residue of Jacks for that she hath an express estate in the House and 40 Acres of the Land and her Husband having expressed his Will as to that his Will shall not be construed by Implication to pass other Lands to the Wife And it was said by him That it had been adjudged in the Case between Tracy and Glover That if Lands be devised to one and to his Heirs and if he dieth without Heir of his body 1 Roll. 839. that then the Land shall remain over that in such case the Donee hath but an Estate in tail to him and the Heirs males of his body And it was then also said by Anderson Chief Iustice That in the time of Sir Anthony Brown it was holden That if a Man be seised of two Acres of Land and devised one of them to his Wife for life and that J.S. shall have the other Acre after the death of his Wife that the Wife
of the Lands of their Wives By the general words of the Statute they might have made Leases in Reversion And therefore the Case there was That where the Husband had made a Lease of his Wives Lands for 21 years and afterwards he made another Lease for 21 years to begin after the Lease in esse It was conceived That such a Lease was good because in the Act there was no restraint of Leases in Reversion as there is in the Statute of 32 H. 8. In all Cases of Statutes which are with Provisoes the Law upon them shall be taken generally but in such Particulars only as are restrained by the Proviso and here in this Case the Proviso went to the Ancient Rent to be reserved and that the Countess should have remedy for the said Rent and therefore it shall be construed at large as unto all other points which are not restrained by the Proviso As if the Wife be within age and she and her Husband joyn in a Lease yet such a Lease shall be good by the Statute of 32 H. 8. because the Law is general and doth not restrain these imperfections expresly So if a Feoffment in Fee be made with warranty Proviso That he shall not vouch yet that restraint goes to the Voucher only and he is at large to Rebutt or to have a Warrantia Chartae A Lease is made for life Proviso That he shall not do voluntary Waste he is at large to do any other Waste Otherwise it would be if there were no Proviso and there a Proviso makes the precedent words to be expounded more liberally The Stat. of 33 H. 8. Cap. 39. of Surveyors which giveth authority to the Chief Officer to set or let for 21 years he might have made a Lease for 21 years if by the Proviso he had not been restrained and yet the words are put singularly But the words of this Act upon which the Case in Question doth arise are Lease or Leases and therefore it shall be expounded most liberally for the party Again he argued That as to the intent of the Statute that this Lease was within the meaning of it for the meaning is to be collected out of the words and shall not be drawn to any private construction or intent against the words which should be here if this Lease should be avoided For by such construction and exposition the Earl his Heirs Executors c. should be prejudiced and the Countess only should be benefited Also by this Act remedy is given to the Countess against such Lessees that she should have the Rent by Debt or Distress as if she had been party or privy therefore it is reason via versa that the Lessees have remedy against her for their Leases Also he said That the same remedy should be for them against the Countess as they had against the Earl himself if he had been alive and therefore they should have such remedy against the Countess as they had against the Earl. And further he said That the Statute is to be expounded according to the words where such an Exposition is not rigorous nor mischievous And private Laws are to be expounded by the letter and strictly as the Deed of the party shall be As 14 E 4. 1. Br. Parliament 61. A Particular Act was made That the Chancellor calling unto him one Iustice might award a Subpena between A. and B. and end the matter betwixt them And there by all the Iustices except Littleton He shall not award a general Subpena but a special Subpena making mention of the Act for he shall pursue the particular Act strictly But an Act which is for the common profit shall be expounded largely Also a Statute shall not be expounded largely or by Equity to overthrow an Estate As the Statute which gives That if the Woman doth consent to the Ravisher that the next Heir shall enter If the Daughter entreth and after a Son is born he shall not put out the Daughter because the Statute shall not be drawn to a private intent to the overthrow of the Estate before lawfully vested in the Daughter And so in the principal Case the Statute shall not be drawn to a private intent for the benefit of the Countess to overthrow the Lease for years And it is not like to the Case which hath been put That if he maketh a Lease for 20 years and so for 20 years that the same is not good by the Statute For I will agree That that is a Lease for 40 years Egerton Sollicitor contrary First as to the word Demise or Dimission it is nothing else but the letting of the Land and so Lease comes from Laiser a French word and such a Lease it self for he hath not left the Land. As if I say to you I Let you my Lands for 21 years When shall you have my Land Not at a day to come but presently If I sell you Land and Covenant that it is discharged of another Lease for 21 years and there is a Lease to Commence after the Lease for 21 years I have broken my Covenant If I be bounden to make you a Lease for 21 years and I say to you I make you a Lease to begin 200 years hence I have forfeited my Bond. If the Custom of the Mannor be that Dominus pro tempore may make a Lease for 21 years may he make a Lease to begin at a day to come Truly no if there be not a special Custom so to do If I give authority to my Steward to make Leases of my Lands for 21 years he cannot make a Lease to begin 100 years after As to the Case of the Dutchy there the Commission was That he might make Leases according to his discretion therefore there he might make what Lease he pleaseth As to the Statute which enableth Cestuy que Use of 1 R. 3. that Case is not like to our Case for that Act is All Feoffments Estates c. therefore he might make such Leases without doubt And if I devise That my Executors shall make Leases of my Lands for 21 years they cannot make Leases to begin at a day to come and if they do not make the Leases within convenient time the Heir shall enter and avoid their authority And Statute-Law shall have such an Exposition as that the precise time ought to be observed As the Statute of 14 E. 3. Rastal Voucher 8. If the Tenant voucheth to warranty a dead Man and the Demandants will aver That the Vouchee is dead or that there is no such their Averment shall be received without more delay Vpon this Statute the Case was 21 E. 3. Whereone was vouched to warranty and the Summoneas ad Warrantizandum issued and then came the Demandant and would have averred That the Vouchee was dead And the Tenant said That he ought to have averred that upon the voucher to warranty and that now he had surceased his time And the Demandant said That the Statute did
no case where the party useth but the means of the Law by the Kings Writ without any Corruption or Covin of the party he shall be amerced only pro falso clamore and no Action lieth against him because he hath not used but the means of the Law. Which see 2 R. 3. 9. by all the Iustices But yet in an Appeal because it toucheth the life of a Man the Defendant shall have his damages against the Plaintiff but not in any other Action which is a vexation by suit if no Corporation or Covin be in the party who prosecutes such suit See such matter justifiable in Conspiracy 35 H. 6. 13 14. Afterwards the principal Case was adjourned CXCI. Parker and Howard's Case Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 102. IN Debt upon an Obligation the Condition was That whereas the Plaintiff and Defendant be now joyntly seised of the Office of the Register of the Court of Admiralty If the Defendant shall permit the Plaintiff to exercise the said Office and take the profits of it wholly to his own use during his life without let or interruption done by him That then c. The Defendant pleaded That the Custom of the Realm of England is That the Lord Admiral for the time being might grant the said Office and that such Grant should be good but for the life of the Grantor And further shewed 1 Len. 103. That the Lord Clynton Lord Admiral granted the said Office to the Plaintiff and the Defendant and died And that the Lord Howard was appointed Lord Admiral And that he 27 Eliz. granted the said Office to one Wade who put him out and interrupted him before which time the Defendant suffered the Plaintiff to enjoy the said Office and to take the profits of it Vpon which the Plaintiff demurred in Law. Cook argued for the Plaintiff That the Defendant's Plea was not good for he hath not entituled the Lord Admiral to grant the Office For he saith That the Custom of the Realm of England is which he hath pleaded in such manner as no Issue can be taken upon it for it is pleaded Quod usitatum est quod Admirals pro tempore existens Non potest Concedere Officium praedict nisi pro termino vitae suae and that cannot be for it cannot be tryed for the Venire facias cannot be Of the Realm of England Also if it be Through the whole Realm of England then the same is the Common Law and not Consuetudo Which see Br. Custom 39. And see 4 5 Mar. Dyer 152 153. An express case of this Office And there he prescribes in Consuetudine in Anglia c. And also that such Grant is good but during the life of the Admiral who granted it Also he doth not answer to any time of the Grant of the Admiral Howard For if he were lawfully put out by Wade yet the Defendant against his own Obligation cannot put us out or interrupt us As L. 5 E. 4. 115. In a Quare Impedit against an Abbot and the Incumbent who make default upon the distress upon which a Writ to the Bishop was awarded for the Plaintiff Vpon which the Bishop retorned That the Incumbent resigned of which the Bishop gave notice And afterwards Lapse encurred and the Bishop collated the said former Incumbent and then that Writ came to him Now although the Incumbent be in by a new title yet he is bound by the Iudgment So here although the Defendant had another title and the former title of the Plaintiff be determined yet against his own Deed and Obligation he shall not put out the Plaintiff And the Court was clear That the Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff But afterwards the Cause was Compounded by the Order of the Lord Chancellor CXCII Mannings Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was agreed by the Iustices in this Case That where an Enfant Executor sold the Goods of his Testator at less undervalue than they were worth And afterwards brought an Action of Detinue against the Vendee upon it in retardatione executionis Testamenti That this sale of the Enfant Executor was good and should bind him notwithstanding his Nonage CXCIII Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A Man made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his eldest Son in tail and afterwards to the use of his right Heirs not having at the time of the Feoffment any Son Afterwards he suffered a Common Recovery had Issue a Son who died in the life of his Father having Issue a Son and afterwards he himself dieth It was holden in this Case That the Son and Heir of the Son should not avoid this Recovery by the Statute of 32 H. 8. For there was not any remainder in him at the time of the Recovery had but the remainder then was in abeyance for then the Son was not born And the words of the said Statute are That such Recovery shall be void against such person to whom the Reversion or Remainder shall then appertain i. e. at the time of the Recovery And it was said That if Lands be given to E. for life the Remainder to B. in tail the Remainder to C. in fee B. dieth his Wife with Child with a Son A Recovery is had against E. with the assent of C. and afterwards the Son is born he shall not be helped by this Statute for that the Remainder was not in esse at the time of the Recovery But it was holden in the principal Case That the Heir might avoid this Recovery by the Common Law For the Recompence could not extend to such a Remainder which was not in esse CXCIV The Countess of Sussex and Wroth's Case Hill. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT was moved in this Case by Gawdy Serjeant If the Disseisee Licence J.S. to put his Cattle into the Land whereof he was disseised If it were a good Licence And If by the Execution of the said Licence the Freehold should be revested in the Disseisee so as if the Disseisor distrain the Cattel of J.S. for Damage-feasant and in a Replevin avow the Plaintiff may plead That the Freehold was in the Disseisee who so Licensed him Periam Iustice The Licence is void For at the time of the grant of it the Disseisee had but a Right before he had recontinued the Land by re-entry Windham If the Disseisee make a Lease for years of the Land whereof he is Disseised it is a void Lease Anderson If the Disseisee command one to enter into the Land and he doth accordingly the same is good The Case was adjourned CXCV. Payn 's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Exchequer 2 Len. 205. A Writ of Error was brought by Payn Treasurer of the Records in the Kings-Bench in the Exchequer-Chamber upon a Iudgment given in the Court of the Exchequer for the Queen upon an Assignment of a
of Estate of Freehold c. But in our Case the Office is confessed by the Traverse to be true although that the conveyance be not truly found And also Harris at the time of the Office found had not just title but his Interest came to him long time after the Office found Also the traverse is not good for he traverseth the matter of the Conveyance which is not traversable For if the Queen hath title non refert quo modo or by what Conveyance she hath it As to the matter in Law Tenant in tail in remainder is Attainted of Felony If the King during the life of the Tenant in tail shall have the Freehold And he conceived she should For it shall not be in abeyance and it cannot be in any other for when he is attainted he is dead as unto the King The chief Lord cannot have it For the Tenant for life is alive and also he in the remainder in Fee c. The Donor shall not have it for the Tenant is not naturally dead but civilly and the Land cannot revert before the Tenant in tail be naturally dead without Issue But if there were any other in whom the Freehold could vest then the King should not have the Freehold but only the profits So if the Tenant be attainted the Lord shall have the Land presently 3 E. 3. 4 E. 3. The Husband seised in the right of his Wife is attainted of Felony the King shall have but the profits because that the Freehold rests in the Wife and if the Lord entreth the Wife shall have an Assise And Tenant in tail may forfeit for his life as he may grant during his life See Old N.B. 99. If Tenant in tail for Life Dower or by the Curtesie be attaint of Felony the King shall have the Land during their lives and after their decease he in the Reversion shall sue to the King by Petition and shall have the Lands out of the Kings hands And there it is further said That the Lord by Escheat cannot have it for the party attainted was not his very Tenant but he in the Reversion for the term yet endures But now is to see If the Freehold be in the King without Office And I conceive that it is Where the King is entituled to an Action there the King ought to have an Office and a Scire facias upon it As where the King is entituled to a Cessavit Action of Waste c. 14 H. 7. 12. Where entry in the Case of a Common person is necessary there behoves to be an Office for the King. As where the Kings Villain purchaseth Lands or an Alien born c. so is it for a Condition broken Mortmain c. In some Cases an Office is only necessary to instruct the King how he shall charge the Officer for the profits which may be supplyed as well by Survey as by Office As if the King be to take by descent or as the Case is here And it is true That a person attainted of Felony may during his Attainder purchase Lands and yet he cannot keep it against the King. And it is clear That by the Common Law in such Cases the Land was in the King but not to grant For the Statute of 18 H. 6. was an Impediment to that But now that defect is supplyed by the Statute of 33 H. 8. So as now the King may grant without Office. See 26 Eliz. Cook 3 Part Dowty's Case And in our Case Office is not necessary to entitle the King but to explain his Title See 9 H 7. 2. The Lands of a Man attainted of High Treason are in the King without Office so where the Kings Tenant dieth without Heir or Tenant in tail of the gift of the King dieth without Issue See Br. Office before the Escheator 34. See 13 H. 4. 278. A Man Attainted of Treason the King before Office grants his Lands and Goods Things which lie in Grant as Advowsons Rents c. such things upon Attainder are in the King without Office. As to the General Pardon of 23 Eliz. He conceived That the same did not extend to this Case and that this Interest of the Queen by this Attainder did not pass by the Pardon out of the Queen So if the Queen had but a Right and title only Popham Attorny General By this Attainder the Estate of him in the Remainder in tail accrued to the Queen for the life of him in the Remainder For by our Law Felony is punished by the death of the Offendor and the loss of his Goods and Lands for the example of others therefore nothing is left in him Tenant for life is attainted of Felony The King pardons to him his life yet he shall have his Lands during his life for he himself cannot dispose of them for his life And so it is of Tenant in tail c. for he may forfeit all that which he hath and that is an Estate for his life which is the Freehold If Lands be given to one and his Heirs for the life of another and the Donee be attainted of Felony the King shall have the Land during the life of Cestuy que vie for the Heir cannot have it because the blood is corrupt and there is not any Occupancy in the Case For 17 E. 3. the Iustices would not accept a Fine of Lands for the life of another because an Occupant might be in the Case But for a Fine of Lands to one and his He is for the life of another they accepted a Fine for there is no mischief of Occupancy Land is given to A. for life the remainder to B. for life the remainder to the right Heirs of A. who is attainted of Felony A. dieth now the King hath a Fee executed And here in our Case If this Tenant for life had been dead no Praecipe would lie against him in the remainder being in possession but the party who had right was to sue to the King by Petition 4 E. 3. If one seised in the right of his Wife of Lands for life be attainted the King shall have exitus proficua But I conceive that Case is not Law For see F.N.B. 254. D. The Husband seised in the right of his Wife in Fee is Outlawed of Felony the King seiseth the Husband dieth Now shall issue forth a Diem Clausit extremum the words of which Writ are in such case Quia A. cujus terra Tenement quae ipse tenuit de jure haereditate N. uxoris suae adhuc superstites occasione cujusdam utlagariae in ipsum pro quadam felonia inde indictatus fuit c. in manu Domini H. Patris nostri extiterunt c. therefore the King hath not exitus tantum but also the Land it self See to the same purpose the Register 292. b. And see also now in the Book of Pleas of the Crown 186 187. which affirmeth That Tenant in tail being attainted of Felony shall forfeit the
Land during his life And he conceived That this Estate of Tho. Venables was in the King without Office not to grant for he is restrained by the Statute of 18 H. 8. but it is in him so before Office that he who hath right ought to sue to the King by Petition if he will have the same Yet he conceived That before the said Statute of 18 H. 6. the King might grant it before Office as it appeareth by Thirning 13 H. 4. 278. which was before the Statute So if the Kings Tenant makes a Lease for years the remainder over to another in Fee who dyeth without Heir the said remainder is in the King without Office because a common person in such case cannot enter but a Claim is sufficient and therefore it shall be in the King without Office. As to the Pardon He conceived That it did not extend to this Estate For the same is a Freehold therefore not within the Pardon As if the Kings Tenant be attainted of Felony and the King pardons him all Offences and all which he may pardon these words will not go or extend to Freehold but only to personal matters and such punishments and pains which do concern Chattels But it may be Objected That in this Pardon title of Quare Impedit and Re-entries for Conditions are excepted and therefore if they had not been excepted they had been released by the Pardon And therefore this Pardon doth extend to Inheritances and Freeholds As to that I say That such Exceptions were not in use in the time of King Ed. 4. and such Inheritances and Freeholds were not taken to be within such Pardons And such Exceptions began 5 Eliz. And he said he had been of Counsel in such Cases where it had been taken That such Pardons did not extend to Freeholds As an Abbot was disseised and during the Disseisin the Abby was dissolved the King made such a Pardon the same did not transfer the Kings right And in this Case there are divers Exceptions of Goods and Chattels in many cases and therefore it cannot be intended that this Pardon doth extend to Freeholds And see the said Act of Pardon There the Queen gave and granted all Goods Chattels Debts Fines Issues Profits Amercements Forfeitures and Sums of Mony which word Forfeiture shall be intended personal forfeiture and not otherwise for it is coupled with things of such nature And as to the Traverse he conceived That it did not lie in this Case For the Office is not untrue in substance although it be void in Circumstances And also the King here is entituled by double matter of Record i. e. the Attainder and the Office. And he said That the Statutes of 34 36 E. 3. which gave Traverse are to be meant of Offices found virtute Officii and not virtute Brevis for then Escheators were very troublesome And 2 E. 6. doth not give traverse but where the Office is untruly found As if the Kings Tenant be disseised and the Disseisor be Attainted The Queen seiseth the Land Now the Disseisee hath no remedy by traverse upon the Statute of 2 E. 6. but is put to his Monstrans de Droit for that the Office is true But if I be the Kings Tenant and seised of Lands accordingly and it is found that J.S. was seised of my Land and attainted c. whereas in truth he had not any thing in my Land there Traverse lieth For the Office is false And so our Case for the Traverse is at the Common Law. And it is true that Venables was seised c. Cook to the contrary And he conceived That by the Attainder the Queen had gained but a Chattel And that notwithstanding this Forfeiture If Venables had been in possession a Praecipe should be brought against him And whereas it hath been said by Mr. Attorny That the Writs set down in the Register are the best Expositors of our Law the same is not so For the Register saith That Waste lieth notwithstanding a mean Remainder which is not now Law but it hath been clearly ruled to the contrary See acc 50 E. 3. The Register therefore and the Writs are subject to the Iudgments of our Law. And the Writ of Diem clausit extremum is not to the contrary For I confess that in such case Hob. Rep. 342. the Land shall be seised into the Kings hands but the King shall have but a Chattel in it It hath been argued He may grant therefore he may forfeit Nego Consequentiam For a Man seised in the right of his Wife may grant but not forfeit Gardian in Socage may grant but not forfeit The Husband may grant a Term for years which he hath in the right of his Wife but he cannot forfeit it A Woman enheritrix taketh Husband and afterwards is attainted of Felony the King pardons him they have Issue the Woman dieth the Husband shall be Tenant by the Curtesie which proveth that the King hath no Freehold by this Attainder Before the Statute of West 2. Tenant in tail post prolem suscitatam might forfeit the Land but now the Statute hath so incorporated the Estate tail to the Tenant in tail that it cannot be devested yea a Fine levied ipso jure est nullus although as to the possession it be a discontinuance And that is the reason wherefore Tenant in tail shall not be seised to another's use See Stamford 190. b. The Husband seised in the right of his Wife is attainted of Felony the King shall have the Issues of the Land of the Wife during the life of the Husband c. So if Tenant in tail be Attainted of Felony that is but a Chattel in the Lands of the Wife and also in the Lands of the Tenant in tail and if the possessions of a Bishop be seised into the Kings hands for a Contempt In such case the King hath possession and not only the profits The same Law of Lands of Tenant in tail or for life being attainted of Felony So seisure for alienation without Licence or of the possessions of Poor Aliens See Br. Reseisure 10. So where the seisure is for Idiocy And he conceived That nothing is in the King without Office. And as to the Case of 13 H. 4. 6. I confess it For all that time many and amongst them Lawyers and Iustices were attainted by Parliament And so was Sir John Salisbury whose Case it was and their Lands by Act of Parliament given expresly to the King and therefore I grant that their Lands were in the King without Office. Tenant in Fee of a Common Lord is attainted of Felony his Lands remain in him during his life till the entry of the Lord and where the King is Lord until Office be found but in the case of a Common person after the death of the person attainted it is in the Lord before Entry and in the Case of the King before Office for the Mischief of Abeyance And see the Lord Lovell's
sue in what Court he will in any of the Kings Courts of Record And in this Case the Queen is quodam modo a party For she is to have the moyety And so this cause is not meerly betwixt party and party c. CCLXXXV Willoughby's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 117. WIlliam Willoughby and two other were Endicted That where the Parson of the Church of D. and all his predecessors have used to have Common in such a place The said Defendants Willoughby and others had enclosed the same and that enclosure was upon their own Land. It was moved That upon this matter they ought not to have been endicted but the party grieved was put to his Action As where a presentment is made of a Disseisin See 27 Ass 20. And it was the Case of one Marden 29 Eliz. upon the stopping of a High-Way upon his own Land and if it were upon other Land it were not material for it is but an Impeachment to take Common which cannot be Vi et armis c. Also this Endictment is Recorded and Certified as found before Iustices of Assize and Gaol-Delivery and they cannot take such presentment And although the Iustices of Assize and Gaol-Delivery were in rei veritate also Iustices of Peace yet the Endictment being recorded and certified to be taken before them in quality of Iustices of Peace shall not help it for the Court shall not respect any Authority but that which appears upon the Record And for these Causes the parties were discharged CCLXXXVI Gates and Hollywell's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Man having Issue two Sons devised That his eldest Son with his Executors should take the profits of the Lands until his younger Son should come to the age of 22 years and then the younger Son should have the Lands to him and his Heirs of his body It was the clear Opinion of all the Iustices That the eldest Son should have a Feesimple in the Lands until the younger Son came to the said age of 22 years CCLXXXVII Cony and Beveridge's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 146. IN Debt upon an Obligation the Case was That the Plaintiff Leased to the Defendant certain Lands in the County of Cambridge rendring rent And afterwards the Defendant became bounden to the Plaintiff in an Obligation for the payment of the said Rent upon which Bond the Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt in the County of Northampton To which the Defendant pleaded payment of the Rent without shewing the place of payment and upon that they were at Issue And it was found by Nisi prius in the County of Northampton for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That the Issue is mis-tryed for here the payment of the Rent being pleaded without shewing the place of payment it shall be intended that the Rent was paid upon the Land which is in the County of Cambridge and there the Issue ought to be tryed See 44 E. 3. 42. And it was the Opinion of Anderson Chief Iustice That no Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff for the Cause aforesaid But Rhodes and Windam Iustices were of a contrary Opinion For it doth not appear That the Issue is mis-tryed because that no place of payment is pleaded and it may be for any thing that is shewed That the Rent was not paid in the County of Northampton CCLXXXVIII The Blacksmith's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Blacksmith of South Mimmes in the County of Middlesex took an Obligation of another Blacksmith of the same Town upon Condition that he should not exercise the Trade or Art of a Blacksmith within the same Town nor within a certain precinct of the same And upon that Obligation the Obligee brought an Action of Debt in the Common Pleas depending which Suit the Obligor complained to the Iustices of Peace of the County against the Obligee upon which the matter being found against him by Examination the Iustices committed the Obligee to Prison and now upon the whole matter Puckering Serjeant prayed a Habeas Corpus for the said Obligee to the Sheriff of Middlesex and hat it And Fleetwood Recorder of London being at the Bar the Court openly admonished him of that matter For by the Law Iustices of Peace have not Conusans of such Offences nor can entermeddle with them for their power is limited by the Commission and the Statutes And the Recorder relyed much upon the Opinion of Hull in 2 H. 5. 5. But it was said by the Court Although that this Court be a high Court to punish such Offences appearing before them of Record yet it doth not follow That the Iustices of Peace may also do so But as to the Obligation it self the Court was clear of Opinion That the same was void and against the Law. CCLXXXIX Russell and Broker's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 209. IN Trespass for cutting down of 4 Oaks The Defendant pleaded That the place where c. And that he is seised of a Messuage in D. and that he and all those whose Estate he hath c. habere Consueverant rationabile estoverium suum for fuel ad Libitum suum Capiendum in boscis subboscis arboribus ibidem crescentibus and that in Quolibet tempore anni unless in Fawning time The Plaintiff by Replication said That the place where is in the Forrest of D. c. And that the Defendant and all those whose Estate c. habere Consueverunt rationabile estoverium suum de Boscis c. per Liberationem Forestarii aut ejus Deputati prout Boscus pati potuit non ad exigentiam petentis And upon that Replication the Defendant demurred in Law. And it was the clear Opinion of the Court That Iudgment should be given against the Plaintiff For if he would have ousted the Defendant of his Prescription by the Law of the Forrest he ought to have shewed the Law of the Forrest in such Case Lex forestae talis est For the Law of the Forrest is not the Common Law of the Land and we are not bounden to take notice of it but it ought to be pleaded Or else the Plaintiff ought to have traversed the Prescription of the Defendant For here are two Prescriptions one pleaded by the Defendant by way of Bar The other set forth by the Plaintiff in his Replication without any traverse of that which is set forth in the Bar which cannot be good But if the Plaintiff had shewed in his Replication Lex forestae talis est then the Prescription of the Defendant had been answered without any more for none can prescribe against a Statute Exception was taken to the Bar because the Defendant hath justified the cutting down of Oaks without alledging That there was not any Vnderwoods But that Exception was not allowed for he hath his Choice ad libitum suum Another Exception was taken
Commoner shall not use his Common before that the Lord hath put in his Cattel was holden to be a void Custom On the other side It was said That this Custom might have a lawful beginning and that it might be grounded upon the reason of the Common Law That a Remainder should not be without the assent of the particular Tenant and therefore that the Custom might be good And it was said That Wife should not have her Dower unless she claimed it within a year and a day that the same was adjudged to be a good Custom The Court delivered no Opinion in the Case but the Case was adjourned to another time CCCIV. Mich. 31 Eliz. In C. B. THE Case was a Man devised Socage Lands to his Brothers Son in tail to have the same at his age of 25 years and died having Issue a Daughter The Nephew after 21 years entred and levied a Fine and afterwards accomplished his age of twenty five years It was the Opinion of the whole Court That the Issue of the Devisee was barred by this Fine For the Heir in Tail and the Heir in Fee are all one by the Statute of 4 H. 7. And it was holden That this was not a Fine which doth enure by way of Estoppel but that it passeth the very right It was said to be the same Law If one who hath but a condition levyeth a Fine and afterward entreth for the condition broken c. CCCV Palmer and Smalbrook's Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case The Plaintiff declared 1 Len. 132. Owen 97. 1 Cro. 178. That the Defendant had recovered a certain Debt against one A. and thereupon took forth a Capias against the said A. to Arrest his Body and delivered the said Capias to the Plaintiff being then Sheriff and prayed a Warrant for the serving of the Capias and that he would name to him one B. for a special Bayliff and promised the Plaintiff That if B. Arrested A. by force of the said Capias and suffered him to escape that he would not sue him for the said escape and further declared That he made a Warrant according to the said Capias and therein named and appointed the said B. his special Bailiff who Arrested A. accordingly and afterwards suffered him to escape and that the Defendant notwithstanding his Promise aforesaid sued the Plaintiff for the said escape and it was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in stay of Iudgment That that Promise was against the Law to prevent the punishment inflicted by the Statute of 23 H. 8. upon the Sheriff and that it is meerly within the said Statute and so the Promise void Cook This is not any Bond or Promise taken of the Prisoner nor of any for him and therefore it is not within the Statute and it was Davies Case Wray A Promise is within the Statute as well as a Bond. But the Statute doth not extend but where the Bond or Promise is made by the Prisoner or by some for him And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCVI Wood and Payn 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Ejectione firmae for Entry into a Messuage sive Tenementum and 4 Acres of Lands to the same belonging Vpon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved by Cowper Serjeant That the Declaration is uncertain Messuagium sive Tenementum quod fuit Concessum Cook We will release our damages Kemp Then your Costs are gone also Cowper You cannot have Iudgment of the 4 Acres For the Declaration is 4 Acres to the said Messuage or Tenement belonging and for the incertainty to which thing belonging But to that it was said That as to the 4 Acres it is certain enough For the words To the same belonging are meerly void And afterwards the Plaintiff released damages and had Iudgment CCCVII Bennington and Bennington's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. BEnnington brought an Action of Trespass against Bennington for breaking of his Close c. The Defendant pleaded That long time before the Trespass supposed That it was the Freehold of one Joan Bennington and that he as her servant and by her Commandment entred upon which they were at Issue And it was found That for two parts of the Land where c. in three parts to be divided it was the Freehold of the Plaintiff and for the other part that it was the Freehold of the Defendant and by the clear Opinion of the whole Court The Plaintiff could not have Iudgment for now it appeareth That the Plaintiff and Defendant are Tenants in Common betwixt whom an Action of Trespass doth not lie and although this Tenancy in Common be not pleaded but found by Verdict yet it was the Opinion of the Court That it is all one CCCVIII Brereton and Auser's Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. JOhn Brereton of the Inner-Temple brought a Writ of Error against Auser to Reverse an Outlawry And the Case was That the said Auser had caused the said Brereton to be endicted upon the Statute of Magna Charta and divers other Statutes For that Whereas the said Auser had sued the said Brereton in a Bill of Debt in the Court of Request against the said Brereton and by the said Suit procured the said Brereton to be imprisoned Vpon which Endictment Brereton was Outlawed And Error was assigned in the Outlawry because whereas the Endictment was taken in Middlesex the Exigent upon it was in London whereas it ought to issue out of Middlesex but the proclamations issued in the County whereof he was named Nuper and that was peremptory for if he make default upon that Process he shall encur the danger of a Praemunirè And for that cause the Outlawry was reversed Also the party was discharged of the Endictment for this Suit in the Court of Requests as it appeareth upon the Endictment was before Iudgment in the Bill of Debt CCCIX Constable and Farrer's Case Hill. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case upon an Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared That whereas the Defendant had brought an Action against him the Issue in which ought to be tried at the next Assises at N. the Defendant in Consideration that the now Plaintiff should confess the Action aforesaid at the Assises holden the 4th of August promised that he would stand to the Arbitrament of J.S. for the said matter And upon Non Assumpsit the Iury found That the Defendant made such a Promise the 5th of August but not the 4th of August Cook I conceive That upon this Verdict the Plaintiff shall have Iudgment for in truth the Assises began the 4th of August and the Consideration was That the now Plaintiff should confess the Action at the same Assises which although they continue divers days yet in Law all is but one day And all the Assises shall be said to be holden the 4th of August
bring a new Writ But Gawdy said That the Writ brought was good enough CCCXVII Pike and Hassen's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Action upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. touching buying of Titles And the Bargain was laid in Norfolk but the Land c. was in Suffolk And the Issue was tryed in Norfolk and the value of the Land also And as to the 5 Acres they found the Defendant guilty and found also the value of them And for the Residue a Special Verdict was given and for the 5 Acres the Plaintiff had Iudgment presently And by the special Verdict it was found That the Defendant had occupied the Residue of the Land for two years before c. as Tenant at sufferance and afterwards sold the Inheritance Wray Chief Iustice Tenant at sufferance is in truth a Tort feasor by which his taking of the profits is not such as is intended by the Statute But yet he afterwards looking into the words of the Verdict which were That the Defendant tenuit the Lands for two years ex permissione of another thereupon it ought to be intended That he was Tenant at will. CCCXVIII Sparry and Warfield's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN False Imprisonment against the Defendant and others they pleaded The Charter of Bridewell and that the Plaintiff was mali nominis famae and that certain Goods were stollen from J.S. and upon search the Plaintiff was found suspitiously c. And that thereupon they put him into Bridewell It was the Opinion of the Iustices That the Plea was not good CCCXIX. Bragg's Case Pasch 32 Eliz. Rot. 318. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass by Strait against Bragg Quare Clausum fregit containing one Acre in C. in the County of H. and for the taking of a Horse The Defendant pleaded That long time before the Trespass The Dean and Chapter of Pauls were seised of the Mannor of C. in the said County in Fee in the right of their Church whereof the place where is parcel c. And so seised King E. 4th by his Letters Patents dated Anno 1 of his Reign granted to them all the Fines pro Licentia Concordandi of all their Homagers and Tenants resiants or not resiants within their Fee And shewed That for all that time they have used to have such Fines of their Tenants And shewed further That 29 Eliz. A Fine was levied in the Common Pleas between the Plaintiff and one A. of 11 Acres of Land whereof the place where the Trespass was done was parcel and the Post-Fine assessed to 15 s. And afterwards Scambler the forreign Opposer allowed to them the said 15 s. because the said Land was within their Fee and afterwards in the behalf of the said Dean and Chapter he demanded of the Plaintiff the said 15 s. who refused to pay it for which he by the Commandment and in the right of the Dean and Chapter entred and took the said Horse in the name of a Distress as Bailiff to the said Dean and Chapter for the said 15 s. and afterwards sold it c. upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law And it was moved That here it is not averred That the Land whereof the Fine was levied was within their Fee but they say That Scambler allowed it because it was within their Fee. And that is not a sufficient averment quod curia concessit And also the opinion of the Court was Ante 56. 2 Len. 179. That the Dean and Chapter cannot distrain for this matter but they ought to sue for the same in the Exchequer as it appeareth 9 H. 6. 27. in the Duchess of Summersets Case Gawdy Iustice The Grant doth not extend to the Post-Fine for the Fine pro licentia Concordandi is the Kings Silver and not the Post-Fine Wray Iustice All passeth by it for it is about one and the same matter And they in Opinion to have given Iudgment for the Plaintiff Quaere of it CCCXX South and Marsh's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer NOte It was holden by the Court That where Marsh was endebted unto South without any Obligation for it but only by a Note in writing signed with the Hand of Marsh scil By me W. Marsh but not sealed that such a debt might be assigned to the Queen although that before the Assignment against a Creditor he might have waged his Law for in as much as by these Notes and Bills the certainty of the debt appeareth and being true debts they may well be assigned See 21 H. 7. 9. An Obligation may be assigned to the Queel without Deed enrolled and where the Obligee is not endebted to the Queen But it cannot be assigned to a subject Noy 52. if not for a debt due by the Assignor to the Assignee for otherwise it is Maintenance And in this Case it was holden That where the King sues for a debt assigned to him the Obligor cannot plead Nihil debet for now by the Assignment it is become matter of Record CCCXXI. Trapp's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. RObert Trapps 1 Eliz. seised of 15 Messuages in Clarkenwell in the Occupation of 15 several persons viz. A.B.C. c. and named them certain demised them to one Cox And afterwards conveyed the Inheritance of them to one Brian Trapps in Fee who afterwards demised to J.S. all those 15 Messuages in Clarken-well which Robert Trapps did demise inter alia to Cox by Indenture dated 1 Eliz. now in the Occupation of A.B.C. c. And one of the Occupiers names was left out in the recital And it was holden by the whole Court That notwithstanding the said Omission the said Messuage did pass for there was sufficient certainty before and the falsity came after the verity CCCXXII Brewin and Mansfield's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That A. was endebted to him in 10 l. and made the Defendant his Executor and died And that the Defendant in Consideration that the Plaintiff would forbear the Defendant for a certain time promised to pay it at two several days and shewed which in certain And it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That it is not set down in the Declaration by what portions the 10 l. shall be paid Clench Iustice conceived That the Defendant had liberty to pay it in what portions he pleased Gawdy He ought to pay it by equal portions as a Rent reserved payable at two Feasts without saying by what portions it shall be paid And he said That if the plea for the cause aforesaid had been defective yet now after Verdict all is helped for it is but form And afterwards the Opinion of the whole Court was That the matter shewed was not good to stay Iudgment Wherefore the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover CCCXXIII Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was The Plaintiff in a
ad Beneficium Ecclesiasticum pertinet Examinatio ad Judicium Ecclesiasticum 40 E. 3. 25. And see the Statute of 18 Eliz. that Pars gravata in the Case of Maintenance is not tyed to a year And this suit is conceived to be in such Quality being a private grievance to the party himself the King not being party but only the party grieved But where the penalty is expresly given to the King and him that shall sue there all the proceedings ought to be in both their names And Manwood Chief Baron said That this Issue shall be tryed by the Country Which see in the Book of Entries 396. CCCXXVII Owen Morgan's Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Exchequer OWen Morgan Exhibited an Information upon the Statute of Usury for an usurious Mortgage made and charged the Defendant That Cepit ultra 10 l. in Cl. for the forbearance for one year and that was out of the Issues Rents and Profits which he took in Middlesex of Lands in Glamorganshire in Wales Mortgaged to the Defendant Manwood Chief Baron said That one might take the Rents of Lands in Wales in the County of Middlesex but a Man cannot take the Issues and Profits of the Lands but where the Lands are And Leak 's Case was cited Where an Information was brought for cutting down of Wood and converting it into Coals And Leak the Informer laid the cutting to be in the County where the Wood grew but the Conversion of it into Coals in the County of Middlesex And Manwood said in the principal case That the taking of the Issues and Profits ought to have been layed where the Land was And such was the Opinion of the whole Court. CCCXXVIII Curson's Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Exchequer CUrson acknowledged a Statute to Starkey 4 Len. 10. Ante 239. Alderman of London and afterwards he acknowledged another Statute to one Hampden who assigned the same to Fitton who assigned the same to the Queen Starkey sued forth Execution upon his Statute and thereupon the Land is extended of Curson and he hath a Liberate of it It was agreed by all the Barons That if Starkey had execution upon the Statute before the Queen his Execution should stand against the Queen and the Queen should not put him out And it was further agreed by them That if A. recovers a Debt in the Common Pleas so as he hath title to sue forth Execution by Elegit and the Defendant sells his Lands and afterwards A. assigns his Execution to the Queen That the Queen should not have prerogative against the Feoffee to have execution of the whole Land. And it was also holden by Manwood Chief Baron That if Execution be had upon a puisne Statute and the same is afterwards avoided by more ancient Statute and afterwards the ancient Statute is satisfied That now the puisne Recognisee may re-enter without suing forth any new Execution CCCXXIX Butler and Lightfoot's Case Mich. 32 33 Eliz. In the Exchquer IN this Case It was holden by the Barons 4 Len. 9. That if Tenant for life be of a Copyhold the Remainder over in Fee to another he in the Remainder may surrender his Estate if there be not any particular Custom to the contrary for the Estate of Tenant for life and him in the remainder are but one Estate and the admittance of the particular Tenant is the admittance also of him in the Remainder CCCXXX Knight and Norton's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT was holden in this Case That duress of Imprisonment is not intended but where the party is wrongfully imprisoned until he make the Bond and not where a Man is lawfully imprisoned for another cause and for his delivery he makes a Bond for that is not per duritiam imprisonamenti And if in such Case duresse be pleaded the other may say of his own accord sine duritia imprisonamenti without saying absque hoc that it was per duritiam imprisonamenti And so it was also holden in the Kings Bench. See 4 E. 4. 17. 12 E. 4. 7. CCCXXXI Hungate and Hall's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer Ante 239. 4 Len. 10. THe Case was Curson acknowledged a Statute to Alderman Starkey and afterwards acknowledged another to Hampdem which was assigned to the Queen Afterwards the Lands of Curson were extended for Starkey and a Liberate thereof It was holden by the Court That the same was a good Execution and that the Queen should not avoid it But if the Land had been extended at the suit of the Queen then the Execution of the Queen should hold place although it were a Statute of a puisne date And by Clark Baron If a Recognizance acknowledged by a Subject be assigned to the Queen It hath been a Question If all the Lands of the Conusor shall be extended or but the moyety as it shall be at the suit of the Conusee himself It was holden That all the Lands should be extended CCCXXXII The Lord Gray's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer THe Lord Gray Tenant of the King of Lands holden in Capite by Licence of the King made a Feoffment of the Lands in Fee and afterwards levied a Fine for further assurance And upon Process the party came into the Court and shewed this matter And the party was advised by the Court to aver That the said Fine was for further assurance And then upon such averment he should be discharged without any Pardon sued forth for the Fine c. CCCXXXIII Sir Walter Waller's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN Sir Walter Waller's Case It was holden in the Court of Exchequer That a Debt of Record as upon a Iudgment c. could not be attached by the Custom of London 1 Len. 29. And so it was holden in the Case of Sir John Perrot in the Common Pleas. 4 Len. 44. And it was said by Cook That such a debt could not be assigned upon the Statute of Bankrupts CCCXXXIV Sir Brian Tucke's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN this Case It was holden by all the Barons clearly Office of Executors 232. Roll. 920. Savile 40. That the Executor of an Executor should not be charged with a Devastavit made by the Executor of the first Testator no not in the Case of the King because it is a personal wrong only CCCXXXV Fines and the Lord Dacre's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer THe Case was Tenant in tail Post 261. 4 Len. 97. the Remainder of Lands in chief levyed a Fine of them without Licence of the King and if the Tenants of the Lord Dacres should be charged for the Fine was argued For the Case was That the Lord Dacres was Tenant in tail the Remainder in tail to Philip Fines And it was holden by all the Barons That the Tenants Lands should be discharged But it was holden That if the Conusor had any other Lands within England the Fine might be levyed
use created before the Statute and a use created afterwards for in the first Case they ought to enter and if they be disabled by any Act as in the Case between Gascoign and the Earl of Kent it shall never rise but in the later Case the whole authority and confidence is by the Statute taken out of the Feoffee and the contingent use shall rise without aid of the Feoffees by the operation of the Law for there the Land is bound to the Vses and charged with them As upon a Iudgment in a Warrantia Chartae the Land of the Defendant is bounden pro loco tempore and according to the Common experience in Conveyances for payment of the Kings Debts as in the Case between Proctor and Dennis The Debtor of the King makes a Feoffment in Fee unto the use of himself and his Heirs until he makes default of such a payment to the Queen at such a day and upon default to the use of the Queen and her Heirs Cowper There needs no Entry of the Feoffees and he put the difference put before by Harris betwixt a Vse created before and a Vse created after the Statute and now the Feoffees have not any power to revive or to stand seised to such Vses but are only as Instruments to convey the Vses For the Vse is created upon the Livery and is transferred by the Statute if the person to whom the Vse is limited be capable of it at the time of the limitation but if not the Law preserves it until and it cannot be by any means prevented and he cited the Case 30 H. 8. Br. Feoffments to Vses 50 and there is a great difference betwixt a Vse limited before and after the Statute For now after the Statute the Feoffees by reason of their seisin cannot be vouched for they have not such a Seisin whereof they may make a Feoffment and he put the Case between Cheny and Oxenbridge Cheny leased to Oxenbridge for 50 years and afterwards enfeoffed Oxenbridge to the use of Cheny himself and his Wife for their lives with divers remainders over And it was adjudged in the Court of Wards That by the Feoffment the Term is not extinct and he put the Case of the Lord Pagett adjudged in the Kings Bench. A Feoffment was made to the use of the Feoffee for life the Remainder to him whom the Feoffor should name at his death in Fee and the Feoffor and Feoffees for good Consideration levy a Fine to a Stranger and afterwards the Feoffor nameth and dieth The party named by the Feoffor shall have the Land notwithstanding the Fine c. Beamount the contingent use is here utterly destroyed by the Feoffment aforesaid and it appeareth by the preamble of the Statute of 27 H. 8. of Vses That the motives of that Act did not favour Vses but it was their meaning utterly to root them out And if contingent Vses which are not nor can be executed by the Statute should stand in force the mischief should be that no Purchasor should be secure of his Purchase but should be in danger of a new born Vse not known before And he grounded his further Argument upon the reason of Manwood and Dyer Where a Man makes a Feoffment in Fee to the Vse of himself and his Wife which shall be and afterwards he and his Feoffees and those in Remainder make a Feoffment to divers other new Feoffees and to new Vses and afterwards he takes another Wife and dieth The said Iustices were of Opinion That by the said Feoffment the contingent Vses were destroyed For when the Estates which the Feoffees take is taken away which was the root and foundation of the Vses and the branch and fruit of the said Tree it necessarily followeth that they also be taken away and also because the Feoffees by their Livery are barred for to enter for to re-continue the Estate would continue these Vses they also are gone and extinguished Yelverton I conceive that notwithstanding the Feoffment that the Vse shall rise in his due time according to the limitation of it c. CCCXXXIX The Serjeant's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in tail and he in the Remainder in Fee joyn in a Grant of a Rent-charge in Fee to the issue of Tenant in tail a year before the Statute of 27 Eliz. of fraudulent Conveyances and afterwards the Tenant in tail and he in the Remainder sell the Land and afterwards a Praecipe is brought against Tenant in tail who voucheth him in the Remainder who voucheth the Common Vouchee and so a Recovery is had and seisin accordingly The issue in tail dieth without issue Tenant in tail dieth the Vncle distraineth for the Rent Glanvil Serjeant argued That this grant of the Rent is altogether the grant of the Tenant in tail and that nothing passed from him in the Remainder and that it doth enure as one entire Grant and not as several Grants As where Tenant for life and he in the Reversion joyn in a Lease it is one entire Lease and the Lease of them both and they shall both joyn in an Action of Waste But admit that here are several Grants yet the Estate out of which the Rent was granted continuing the Rent shall continue also And now the Recoveror comes in the Post and in the affirmation of the Estate of Tenant in tail and the Remainder is utterly defeated and destroyed by the Recovery and the Rent always issueth out of the particular Estate and he cited Littl. 125. If a Rent-Charge be issuing out of Land and the Tenant of the Land leaseth the same for life and afterwards the Rent is granted over now he who hath the Freehold ought to attorn scil the Tenant for life for a Rent-Charge lieth always upon the possession and if Tenant for life granteth a Rent-Charge and afterwards makes a Feoffment in Fee the Rent shall continue until the possession be recontinued c. Harris Serjeant contrary This Grant is the Grant of them both scil of the Tenant as long he hath issue of his Body and afterwards it is the grant of him in the Remainder Where a Man derives his Interest from two the one being a particular Tenant the other a Recoveror or a Remainder in Fee the Donee takes of each of them that which he may lawfully give and no more and the particular Estate being then ended the Donee shall be then accompted in by him in the Reversion c. See 2 E. 4. 1. And he vouched the Case of the Lord Mountjoy The Lord Mountjoy took to Wife a Woman Enheretrix she had issue and so he was intituled to be Tenant by the Curtesie and acknowledged a Statute and afterwards he and his Wife levyed a Fine and died Now the Conusee shall hold the Land discharged of the Statute for after the death of the Husband the Conusee is in by the Wife only and so paramount the charge Also he said That this Grant of
Eliz. Leon. 166. Lib. 1. was this Term adjudged upon the Devise That the Survivour shall be each others Heir It was holden That all the surviving Brothers are Ioynt-Tenants and although this word Survivour be in the singular number yet in sense upon the whole matter it shall be taken and construed as for the plural number Survivour shall be each others Heir i. e each Survivour i.e. every Survivour i.e. All the Survivours and then in this case The Plaintiff and the Defendant being Ioynt-Tenants cannot maintain an Action of Trespass one against the other CCCLIII Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. BY the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 37. The Executors of a Grantee of a Rent-Charge may distrain for the Arrearages of the said Rent in the life of the Testator so long as the Land charged doth continue in the seisin or possession of the Tenant in Demesne who ought immediately to have paid the said Rent or in the seisin of any other person or persons claiming the said Lands only by and from the said Tenant by purchase gift or descent in like manner as the Testator might or ought to have done in his life-time It was now moved If A. grant a Rent-charge to B. the Rent is behind B. dieth A. enfeoffeth C. in Fee who divers years after enfeoffeth D. who divers years after enfeoffeth E. It was holden in this Case by Walmesley Periam and Windham Iustices That E. should be chargeable with the Arrearages to the Executors Anderson Chief Iustice held the contrary But they all agreed That the Lord by Escheat Tenant in Dower or by the Curtesie should not be chargeable for they did not claim by the Party only but also by the Law. CCCLIV. Leverett and Townsend's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case for disturbing him of hs Common 3 Cro. 198. 2 Len. 184. The Plaintiff declared That he was seised in Fee of a Messuage and certain Lands And that he and all those whose Estate he hath have Common of Pasture in 16 Acres of Lands called D. from the time that the Corn is reaped until it be sowen again And also Common of Pasture in Land called R. omni tempore anni as appendant to the said Messuage and Land and that the Defendant had plowed the said Lands and so disturbed him of his Common It was moved in stay of Iudgment That it appeareth here that the Plaintiff was seised in Fee and so he ought to have an Assise and not an Action upon the Case But the Exception was disallowed by the Court. Vide inde Ante 13. 2 H. 4. 11. 8 Eliz. Dyer 250. 11 R. 2. Tit. Action upon the Case 36. CCCLV. The Chamberlain of London's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THE Chamberlain of London brought an Action of Debt in the Mayors Court in Guild-hall 5 Co. grounded upon an Act of Common Council See C. 5 Part The matter was removed into the Kings Bench by Corpus cum causa Fleetwood Recorder of London prayed a Procedendo It was Objected That they of London could not make Ordinances to bind the Subjects as an Act of Parliament To which It was said by Fleetwood That the Custom of the City is That the Mayor and Aldermen and four persons chosen out of each Ward by the Communalty may make Ordinances which they call Acts of Common Council and they shall bind every Citizen and Free-man and all their Customs are confirmed by Act of Parliament and by Magna Charta which hath been confirmed 52 times and also by the Statute of 7 R. 2. For that King seised their Liberties and drove them to pay for the Redemption of them 100000 Marks and then the said King confirmed them unto them for ever and therefore this Ordinance being made according to our Custom ought not to be impeached As in Case of matters of the Forrest If one be punished for offending against an Ordinance made for the governing of the Affairs of the Forrest you cannot remove the matter before you So is the Law called Lex Idumaea concerning Rivers and Fishing in which are divers Ordinances That none shall kill Salmons at certain Seasons of the year and so of other Fishes If one be punished by force of such Law he shall not be relieved here for the Law of the Land hath always allowed such particular Customs And see F. B. If two Merchants put their Stocks together and so Traffick together and the one dieth The Survivor shall not have the whole Stock as the Common Law is but the Executor of him that dieth shall have an Accompt against the other and that is per Legem mercatoriam Cook to the same intent This Act of Common Council is good and according to the Law that is of Common Right There are divers Statutes made for the true making of Cloth and to take away the abuses and deceit in the making of it and this Act of Common Council is for the well executing of the said Statutes and I conceive there is a difference in making of Laws by a Corporation A Corporation may make an Act for the better executing of any Law established at the Common Law but new Laws they cannot make As those of a Town who have used to have Common in certain Lands they cannot make a By-Law That such a one in such a Town shall not have Common there but that none shall use his Common but at such a time such a By-Law made is good See 15 H. 7. 21 H. 7. 40. See 8 E. 2. tit Assise 413. A Town had Common of Turbary in a Marsh and divers of the Inhabitants of the Town had made Trenches in the said Marsh and some had not a full Foot of Land in the Town and such persons by their Trenches which they had made there used to carry Turffs out of the said Marsh by Boats and sell them unto the value of 20 Marks per annum to their great private profit and to the great grievance of the others For which cause It was provided by common assent of the Freeholders of the Lord of the said Town That all the Trenches in the said Marsh should be stopped so as from thenceforth no Turffs be carried in Boats by the Trenches And there it was holden That if the greater part of the Commoners assent the same shall bind the others who have not assented for ubi major pars ibi totum And then if such Towns may make Laws a fortiori The City of London Secondly This Law is good by Custom for they have used to make such Acts and Ordinances time out of mind c. and these Customs are confirmed by Act of Parliament and also they may appoint a penalty for to what purpose otherwise should they make an Act Oderunt peccare mali formidine poenae Also this Action is maintainable for an Amercement in a Court Baron an Action of Debt lieth Gawdy Iustice 44 E. 3. 19.
Rent 11 H. 7. 13. 21 H. 6. 24. 14 H. 8. 35. So where the Successor accepts of a Rent upon a Lease made by the Predecessor 37 H. 6. 4. 8 H. 5. 10. 4 E. 4. 14. The same Law in Exchanges and Partitions If the Wife accepteth of Dower of the Land which her Husband hath taken in Exchange she shall be barred of that Land which her Husband gave in Exchange 6 E. 3. 50. 15 E. 3. tit Bar. 125. 12 H. 4. 12. c. And in all these Cases where there is an Agreement and therein an Agreement implyed scil An Agreement to the Lease and a Disagreement to have the Possession c. And so Agreement to the Land received in Exchange and Disagreement to the Land given in Exchange and all that by word and act in pais And so here in these Cases Estates are affirmed and entred and benefit of the possession waived and refused So it is also of a Right and Title of Action 21 H. 6. 25. The Lord entituled to have a Writ of Right upon Disclaimer accepts a Rent of the Tenant Now he is barred of his Action 13 Ass 3. The Disseisee accepts homage of the Disseisor it is a good bar in an Assise 21 Ass 6. Pendant a Cessavit the Tenant aliened the Lord accepted the Services of the Alienee his Action is gone 11 E. 3. tit Dower 63. A Woman entituled to Dower accepteth Homage of the Ter-Tenant the same is a Bar of her Dower And as it hath been said of Entries and Actions of which a Man may refuse the benefit by word and Acceptance in pais So is the Law also in Cases of Estates vested if the party doth not Enter Husband and Wife Tenants in special tail the Husband levyeth a Fine to his own use and afterwards Deviseth the Land to his Wife for life the Remainder over rendring Rent the Husband dieth The Wife Enters and pays the Rent now she hath waived her Remitter 18 Eliz. Dyer 351. 10 E. 4. 12. The Tenant enfeoffed the Lord and a stranger and made Livery to the stranger although the Freehold vested in them both yet if the Lord disagreeth to the Feoffment in futuro he cannot enter and occupy the Land and he may distrain for the services c. If a Disseisin be made to the use of the Husband and Wife and the Husband agreeth to it the Freehold vests in the Husband and Wife but the Wife is not a Disseisor and after the death of the Husband she may disagree unto the Estate by word 12 E. 4. 7. And also an Agreement shall make her a Dissessisor See to the same intent 7 E. 4. 7. and Litt. 129. Although that in such and the like Cases the Estate vests in some manner yet it shall never vest to the prejudice of the party without an express and actual agreement And that disagreement to an Estate in such manner vested may be in pais and by word seems by a Clause in the Statute of 27 H. 8. cap. 1. Where a Ioynture is made after Marriage there the Wife after the death of her Husband may at her pleasure refuse her Ioynture and have and demand and take her Dower her Writ of Dower or otherwise scil by word and Acceptance in pais And if in a Writ of Dower the Tenant will bar the Demandant by Ioynture made during the Coverture he ought to say Quod intrando agreeavit See Litt. in Dower ad Ostium Ecclesiae If the Wife entreth and agreeth the same is a good Bar in Dower Littl. 8. Now in the principal Case When the Wife agreeth to the Devise of Thoby and the same is executed by entry now the same is a full Disagreement to Hinton It was afterwards Objected That although it be clear That the Wife may waive her Ioynture in Hinton by word and act in pais without matter of Record Yet some conceived That this manner of Devise of Thoby is void by the Statute of 32 34 H. 8. The Statute enables to Devise two parts or so much as amounts to two parts in value at the time of the death of the Devisor for then the Will takes effect which cannot be here in this Case for at the time of his death the Ioynture of Hinton was in force and so continued until the disagreement afterwards Also the words of the Statute are Having a sole Estate in Fee-simple but here the Devisor had but a Reversion in Fee expectant upon an Estate tail c. As to the first Point it was answered That the Disagreement doth relate to the death of the Husband and is now as if no Ioynture had been made ab initio And here the Heir shall have Hinton by descent and he shall be Tenant to every Praecipe and if it be brought against him the same day that the Husband dieth the Writ shall be good by the Disagreement after and the Heir shall have his age c. And if the Father had been a Disseisor and had Conveyed the Land ut supra now by this argeement of the Wife the Heir shall be accounted in by descent and thereby the Entry of the Disseisee taken away And if the Heir in such case taketh a Wife and dieth by this disagreement after the Wife shall have Dower of Hinton and hath such a possession quod faciet sororem esse haeredem And if that the same day that the Husband dieth the Heir levyeth a Fine or acknowledge a Statute or maketh by Indenture enrolled a Bargain and Sale of it by the said agreement Hinton shall be subject to such Acts of the Heir All which Cases prove That the Devisor upon this matter at the time of his death had a sole Estate in Feesimple in the Mannor of Hinton and that the third part in value descended to the Heir and so the Devise of Thoby good It hath been Objected That here is not an immediate descent of which the Statute of 34 H. 8. speaks And here the Mannor of Hinton doth not descend immediatly for there was a mean time between the Death and the Disagreement and so the Will void for Thoby To that it was answered That this word immediatè sumitur dupliciter re tempore and shall be taken here immediatè re statu scil That a Reversion or a Remainder dependant upon a particular Estate in possession which is mean shall not be allowed for the third part descended For a Descent which takes away an Entry ought to be immediate for a mediate descent doth not take away an Entry Litt. 92. as the descent of a Reversion or Remainder And if this word Immediatè had not been in the Statute Then the Statute might have been construed That it should be sufficient to leave the third part to descend in Reversion or Remainder but this word Immediatè makes it clear And therefore the third part which descends ought to descend immediatè in re Statu Yet a Reversion upon a Lease for
Executor shall sell who dies his Executor cannot sell B. 69. To the Heirs of the Body of his Eldest Son is void B. 70. I give my Lease to my Wife for life and then to my Children unpreferred B. 90. To the Heir in see is void and he is in by descent B. 101. C. 18. That his Executor shall pay a Debt this is no Legacy B. 119 120. Devise shall be taken according to the Common not Legal construction B. 120. C. 18 19. Devise of three Closes to three and if any die that the other shall have all his part to be divided between them B. 129. That A. shall pay yearly 10 l. out of a Mannor is a good Devise of the Mannor to A. B. 165. They shall be construed favourably but not against Law B. 165. If the Devisor be distrained and dies before re-entry nothing passeth B. 165. All his Lands called Jacks in the occupation of J S. what passes if not in the occupation of J.S. B. 226. Like Case C. 18 19 132. Of a Mannor to B. and of a third part thereof to C. they are joynt Tenants C. 11. Words in a Devise shall never be judged repugnant if by any rational Construction they may consist C. 11 28 29 Devise of Lands to his Wife for life and after that she may give them to whom she will C. 71. Lands called H. in two Vills A. and B. Devise of H. in A. for life remainder of Hayes Land to L. No Land passes in remainder but Lands in A. C. 77. To J. for thirty one years to pay Debts remainder after the Term expired to his Heirs Males and if he die within the Term that G. shall have it and be Executor J. dies his Issue enters G. evicts him C. 110. Devise that the eldest Son shall take the profits until the younger be of Age and the remainder to the younger Son the elder hath see conditional C. 216. Devise that his Feoffees to Uses shall be seised to other Uses who are accounted Feoffees C. 262. Diminution The manner of alledging it A. 22. With what time it must be alledged B. 3. Disceit Fine reversed by such a Writ because the Land is Ancient Demesne A. 290. C. 3 12 117 120. Not abated by death of one Defendant C. 3. Upon a Recovery in a Quare Impedit A. 293. The manner of proceeding therein A. 294. For an Infant against his Guardian who lost the Land by default in Dower B. 59. Where Estate of the Conusee remains after the Fine reversed C. 12 120. Whom it shall bind without summons C. 120. Discent Takes not away the entry of him who claims by Devise condition broken c. A. 210. B. 192. cont B. 147. Disclaimer He who hath disclaimed shall not have a Writ of Error C. 176. Discontinuance de Process c. Vide Continuance Discontinuance de Terre Remainder in fee after a Lease for life where not discontinued by Fine by the Tenant for life A. 40. B. 18 19. None of Copyholds A. 95. Nor upon a Covenant to stand seised made by Tenant in tail A. 110 111. By Feoffment of Tenant in tail A. 127. B. 18 19. Quid operatur if the Feoffees joyn in the Discontinuance B. 18 19. Lease for years by Cestuy que use pur vy is no Discontinuance but warranted by the Stat. of 32 H. 8. B. 46. None if the Reversion be in the King B. 157. C. 57. Nor by Bargain and Sale by Deed enrolled without Livery C. 16. Disseisin and Disseisor Where a Man shall be a Disseisor at the election of another A. 121. B. 9. If Tenant per auter vy hold over after the death of Custuy que vie if he be a Disseisor B. 45 46. The like if Tenant for years holds over B. 45 46. If the younger Brother enter if he be a Disseisor or Tenant at sufferance B. 48. If Disseisee may give licence to put in Cattle before Entry C. 144. He who Disseiseth a Copyholder gains no Estate C. 221. Disseisin to the use of Baron and Feme he only agrees the Estate vests in both but the Feme is no Disseisor C. 272. Distress Cannot distrain upon the Kings Lands A. 191. Where and who may distrein the Cattle of a Stranger though not Levant and Couchant where and who not B. 7. If one as Bailiff may say he takes a Distress for one cause and carry it away for another B. 196. Dower The Wife not Dowable if the Husband be attaint of Treason although pardoned A. 3. Of what age the Feme must be A. 53. Inquiry of Damages where the Baron died seised A. 56 92. In such an Inquiry the Jury may find above the value of the Dower A. 56. By Custom of Gavel-kind whether demandable as by Common Law A. 62 133. How a Grand-Cape in D. must be executed A. 92. Wife Dowable of a Seisin in Fee defeasible by a Condition A. 168. The Wife shall be endowed at Common Law where the King is to have Primer Seisin A. 285. If a conditional Estate be a good Joynture to bar Dower A. 311. Bar that the Heir granted to the Wife a Rent in satisfaction c. he ought to shew what Estate he had in the Land B. 10. An Infant cannot lose by default in Dower unless per Gardian B. 59 189. Notwithstanding what divorces the Wife shall be endowed B. 169 170. If the Wife shall be endowed where the Husband takes a Fine and renders back presently C 11. If she be barred by Fine and Non-claim if she brings her Writ within five years and desists prosecution six years after C. 50. Touts temps prist a render Dower where necessary to plead it or to give Judgment by default C. 50 52. If the Wise of the Lord shall be endowed of Demeine Lands grantable and granted by Copy by the Lord B. 153. C. 59. Of a Presentation to a Church C. 155. It is a good Bar in Dower that the Feme accepted Homage from the Tenant C. 272. Pleading of agreement to a Joynture made during Coverture C. 272. Divorce If it be causa frigiditatis in the Man who hath Issue by another if the first Marriage be good or the Divorce good until avoided by Sentence B. 169 170 171 172. The several kinds of Divorce B. 169. In pleading of Divorce the Judges name Coram quo must be precisely pleaded B. 170 171. Droit The form of a Writ of Right and what is demandable therein A. 169. B. 36. Whether it lies of an Office Stat. W. 2 cap. 25. A. 169. B. 36. The manner of arrayment of the twelve Recognitors by four Knights A. 303. Droit of an Advowson where it lies A. 316. No challenge to the Polls after the Array made A. 303. Where a Man hath no remedy but by this Writ B. 62 63 65. A Writ of Droit Close directed to the Bailiff and procceeded coram Sectatoribus good C. 63 64. In such Writ twelve Recognitors retorned suffice in an Inferior Court
shall vest the Estate by Livery and prevent the operation of Inrolment A. 6. C. 125. By Letter of Attorny cannot be made by parcels unless so limited A. 34. What is a good Livery what not A. 207. Where the particular Tenant and he in remainder joyn in a Livery how adjudged A. 262. How it must be made by Attorny of Land in several Counties or of a Mannor A. 306 307 308. Made to three where the Feoffment was to four is good in some cases B. 73. Feoffment by Tenant for life and before Livery made by Letter of Attorny the Feoffor purchaseth the Fee and then Livery is made the Fee passeth C. 73. But that shall not pass other Lands purchased by the Feoffor in the same Vill where the Feoffment was of all his Lands in D. C. 73. Livery ouster le main What Leases or Conveyances an Heir may do before Livery sued A. 157. London Scire facias there ad discutiendum debitum A. 52. Quo Warranto lies against the City if the Mayor use authority not agreeable to Law per Gawdy A 106 107. Upon a Recognizance taken before the Mayor by custom Debt lies not but in their own Courts A. 130 131. The custom that a Feme sole Merchant may sue without her Husband A. 130 131. The Statutes of 32 34 H. 8. of Wills how far they extend to Lands in L. A. 267. The Courts at Westminster take notice of their Customs A. 284. It had no Sheriffs in the 13th year of King Edw. the First Ibid. Debt lies in the Common Pleas upon a Recognizance there Ibid. Hustings may be holden every Week B. 14. Upon Indictment at the Sessions Error lies B. 107. The Custom there Quod concessit solvere debitum alterius B. 156. Custom that every Surety shall be chargeable pro rata B. 166 167. If an Action there by Custom be removed to Westm it shall be remanded B. 167. They ought not to be impleaded in real Actions but in their own Courts C. 147. Their Liberties seised and re-granted by King Richard the Second and re-granted for 10000 Marks C. 264. M. Maihem Cutting off any Finger is a Maihem A. 139. Maintenance See Stat. 32 H. 8. For desiring a Juror to appear and to do according to his Conscience done by a Stranger B. 134 135. Against a Counsellor at Law C. 237. Mannor Whether a Rent-Charge may be parcel of a Mannor A. 14. Extending into several Vills a Grant of the Mannor in one Vill how adjudged A. 26. Granted cum pertin another Mannor which holds of it passeth Ibid Where by Grant of part of the Services of Freeholders and Demesnes a Mannor will pass A. 26. B. 41 42. A Lease of a Mannor except all Casualties and Profits of Courts the Court is not excepted A. 118 119. How it may be dissolved and after become a Mannor again A. 204. A moiety thereof by what words conveyed A. 204. B. 42. Whether a Steward of a Mannor deputed by parol may take Surrenders extra curiam A. 228. If Lessee of a Mannor attorn to the Grantee of the Reversion the Mannor passes A. 265. B. 221 222. If the Tenants pay their Rent to a Disseisee they are discharged A. 265. The Service of a Tenant may be changed from one service to another A. 266. What will pass by Grant by name of a Mannor B. 41 42 43. By what name a Mannor may pass B. 47. A Mannor in two Vills is devised to the Heir and the Lands in the one Vill to A.B. he shall have that devised to him B. 190. Lease the Demesnes the Reversion passes not by grant of the Mannor without the Lessees Attornment B. 222. The Services pass not without Attornment C. 193. Market If a stoln Horse be sold by J. S. by the name of J.D. and so entred it alters no property A. 158. Mesne The form of the Count B. 86. If it be extinct by the Lords purchasing the Tenancy Monstrans de Droit Where it lies A. 195 B. 122. Or where only a Petition de Droâ—t B. 122. C. 15. Petition of Right for a Rent-Charge granted out of Lands which are since vested in the Crown C. 190 191. All the Estates must be truly set down else all is void after Judgment C. 242. Monstrans de Faits Upon pleading a Grant of a Reversion the Deed must be shewed A. 310. And upon pleading of an Estate in an Hundred B. 74. Mort vie If the Plaintiff die after Verdict within the time that the Court takes to consider of the Law the Court may if they will give Judgment as at the first day in Bank A. 187. If the Defendant die after the first Judgment in Trespass before the Writ of Inquiry retorned yet the Action does not abate A. 263. C. 68. If one of two Defendants in Assumpsit die before Judgment if Error B. 54. Murder To leave ones Child whereby it perishes by Famine A. 327. N. Name OF a Corporation ought to be strictly alledged as to the substance A. 134 162. C. 18 19. Joan and Jane all one Name A. 147. A Corporation makes a Lease by the same name in substance and sense but not in words yet good A. 159 160 161 162 163 215. B 97 165. C. 220. Garret King of Arms and the manner of his Creation A. 249. What are Names of Dignity and what of Office only Ibid. B. and Nether B. a Vill A. 272. Executor of Executor how named A. 275. If the word Heir be a good name of purchase A. 287 288. Where the names of the Heads of what Corporations must be shewed in pleading A. 307. The best way is to sue the Defendant as he is named in the Bond though his Name be otherwise A. 322. What is a Name of Dignity and must be put in the Writ what not B. 49 In pleading any matter done before Suiters of a Court-Baron if their Names must be shewed C. 8. Ne admittas Where it lieth A. 235. Negative pregnant Defendant pleads that he permitted J.S. to have ingress into all such Lands which lay fresh adjudged good A. 136. That J. G. did not disturb the Plaintiff but by due course of Law B 197. How to avoid the pleading of a Negative praeg by a Modo forma B 198. Nisi Prius If grantable per Proviso pro Def. upon an Information at the suit of the party B. 110. Nolle prosequi As to part before Verdict in a joynt Action if it discharge the whole B. 177. Nomine pene The Heir shall not have Debt for it reserved by his Ancestor B. 179. Nonsuit The Plaintiff may be Nonsuit after Demurrer A. 105. C. 28. No Nonsuit for part of a Writ or Bill B. 177. Non est factum Where the Defendant may plead it or the special matter A. 322. By this Plea the date of the Bond nor the sealing of it at another day than which the Plaintiff declares cannot prejudice the Plaintiff C. 100. Notice How
In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 27. THe Case was That the Bishop of Exeter leased certain Lands in the County of Devon for years rendring Rent payable in Exeter aforesaid with Clause of Re-entry and the Bishop of Exeter had a Palace in Exeter aforesaid It was the Opinion of the Iustices in this Case That the Rent ought to be demanded at the said Palace and not elsewhere And if that the Lessee come to the Common Gate of the said Palace and there tender the Rent it is a good tender without more be the Gate shut or open notwithstanding that the Bishop be within the Palace and that neither he nor any of his Servants be at the Gate for to receive it for the Lessee is not tyed to open the Gate of the Palace if it be shut nor to enter into the Palace if it be open X. Mich. 4 and 5 Phil. and Mary In the Common Pleas. COpyhold Land was surrendred to the use of the Wife for life the remainder to the use of the right Heirs of the Husband and Wife The Husband entred in the right of his Wife It was the Opinion of the Iustices in this Case That the remainder was executed for a Moyety presently in the Wife and the Husband of that was seised in the right his Wife and the Wife dying first that her Heir should have it 1 Roll. Lane and Pannel's Case But if the Husband had died first his Heir should have had one Moyety XI Joscelin and Sheltons Case Mich. 4 and 5 Phil. and Mary In the Common Pleas. More Rep. 13. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant in Consideration that the Son of the Plaintiff would marry the Daughter of the Defendant assumed and promised to pay to him 400 Marks in 7 years next ensuing by such portions And upon Non Assumpsit pleaded It was found for the Plaintiff It was Obiected in Arrest of Iudgment That one of the said 7 years was not incurred at the time of the Action brought c. and that appeared upon the Declaration so as the Plaintiff had not cause of Action for the whole Mony promised And for that cause the Writ was abated by the Court by award although it was after Verdict See Br. Title Action upon the Case 108. XII 2 and 3 Phil. and Mary In the Common Pleas. IN an Assise against 4. they were at Issue upon Nul Tenant del Franktenement nosme en le brief And it was found by the Assise That two of them were Disseisors and two Tenants And after Verdict and before Iudgment one of those who were found Tenants died And that was moved in Arrest of Iudgment But it was not allowed of by the Court Because the parties had not day in Court to plead it But it was said That after Iudgment given a Writ of Error lieth In the Time of Queen Elizabeth XIII Canons Case 1 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. UPon an Evidence to a Iury in the Common-Pleas 1 Roll. 839. Vpon an Issue there this Deed was given in Evidence viz. Sciant praesentes futuri Quod Ego Richardus Canon filius haeres Richandi Canon Dedi Concessi hac praesenti carta mea Confirmavi Willielmo Compton Militi Omnia Terr Tenementa c. ad usum mei praed Richardi Joannae uxoris meae pro termino vitae absque impetitione Vasti ac etiam rectorum haered mei praefat Richardi assignatorum meorum post decessum mei praefat Richardi Joannae uxoris meae Et si contingat me praefat Richardum obire sine exitu de Corpore meo procreato Tunc Volo quod omnia dict Terr Tenementa remaneant Tho. fratri meo rectis haeredibus de Corpore suo procreatis haeredib assignat eorum And it was the Opinion of the Iustices That a good Estate tail was by that Deed limited to the said Richard in use after the death of his Wife XIV Holt and Ropers Case 2 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin by Holt against Roper the Case was J. Abbot of W. Leased to T.M. Knight a Close of Land in B. for 44 years Post 242. 243. who thereof possessed was attainted of misprision of Treason and so forfeited to the King who seised the same The Abbot and his Covent surrendred 31 H. 8. the King Leased the same to Roper for 21 years and died King Ed. 6th in the fourth year of his Reign Leased the same to one Philips To have and to hold after the Term to T.M. ended for 21 years Roper surrendred to Queen Mary who Leased the same again to Roper for 30 years In this Case It was adjudged That the Lease made to Phillips was utterly void for that the King was deceived in his Grant For the Lease made to F.M. was long time before determined by extinguishment in the Person of the King who had it by forfeiture upon the Attainder of T.M. and the Statute of 1 E. 6. Cap. 8. shall not help that Lease notwithstanding the Non-recital or Mis-recital of Leases made before For here is not matter of recital but matter of Estate and Interest which is not well limited for the Commencement of it i. the Lease to Phillips For there is not any certainty of the Commencement of it For that Lease cannot begin after the Surrender of Roper for the words of the Limitation of the beginning of it cannot serve to such Construction XV. 2 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Term for years is devised to A. The Executors of the Devisor entred into the Land devised to the use of the Devisee It was the Opinion of the Court That the same was a sufficient possession to the Devisee XVI 3 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TWo Coparceners were of a Reversion the one of them granted his Interest in it by Fine to another It was holden in that Case That the Conusee should have a Quid juris clamat for a Moyety of the said Reversion XVII Mich. 4 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Lessor mortgaged his Reversion in Fee to the Lessee for years and at the day of Mortgage for payment of the Mony he paid the Mony It was holden in this Case That the Lease for years was not revived but utterly extinct XVIII Mich. 4 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. J.N. Cestuy que use in tail 14 H. 8. by Indenture between him on the one part and J.S. of the other part In Consideration of a Marriage between his Son and Heir apparent and Joan Daughter of the said J.S. to be had Covenanted with the said J.S. That neither he nor any of the Feoffees seised to his use have made or hereafter shall make any Estate Release Grant of Rent levy any Fine or do any other Incumbrance whatsoever of any of his Mannors Lands c. But that all the said Mannors c. shall immediately descend or remain to his said Son and the Heirs
of his Body after the decease of the said J.N. It was the clear Opinion of all the Iustices in this Case That by the said Indenture No use is changed in J N. nor any use raised to the said Son and Heir but that it is only a bare Covenant XIX Andrews and Glovers Case Trin. 4 Eliz. Rott 1622. IN Trespass by Andrews against Glover The Lady Mary Dacres being seised of the Mannor of Cowdam by her Indenture bargained and sold to the said Andrews all those her Woods More Rep. 15. Post 29. Winch. Rep. 5. Vnderwoods and Hedge-Rowes as have been accustomably used to be felled and sold standing growing being in upon and within the Mannor of Cowdam c. To have and to hold c. from the Feast of S. Michael last past during the natural life of the said Lady Mary And the said Andrews for himself his Heirs and Assigns doth Covenant and Grant to and with the said Lady her Executors c. to content and pay or cause to be contented and paid to the said Lady her Executors c. yearly during the said Term 10 l. By force of which Grant he cuts down all and singular the Trees Woods and Vnderwoods in the aforesaid Mannor growing at the time of the making of the Indenture aforesaid And afterwards the said Lady by her servants felled all the other Woods and Vnderwoods growing in the same Mannor after the said felling made by the said Andrews Whereupon Andrews bringeth Trespass And the Opinion of the Court was clear That after the Bargainee had once felled that he should never after fell in the same place where the first felling was made by force of the said Grant notwithstanding the Rent yearly reserved and notwithstanding the words of the Grant viz. To have and to hold during the life of the said Dame Mary Wherefore the said Andrews durst not Demur c. XX. 6 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was A. is bounden to B. in an Obligation to pay to B. 20 l. at the Feast of our Lady without limiting in Certain what Lady-Day viz. the Conception Nativity or Annunciation And the Opinion of the whole Court was That the Deed should be construed to intend such Lady-Day which should next happen and follow the date of the said Obligation XXI Scarning and Cryers Case Mich. 7 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Rott 1851. IN a Second Deliverance by Scarning against Cryer the Defendant makes Conusans as Bailiff to J.S. and sheweth More Rep. 75 That the said J.S. and at the time of the taking c. was Lord of the Mannor of A. Within which Mannor there was this Custom time out of mind c. That the Tenants of that Mannor and other Resiants and Inhabitants within the said Mannor or the greater part of them at the Court-Baron of the said Mannor at the Mannor aforesaid holden were used and accustomed to make Laws and impose Pains as well upon the Resiants and Inhabitants within that Mannor and the Tenants of the said Mannor there being as upon every Occupier of any Tenements within the said Mannor for good government there to be had and kept and for the preservation of the Corn and Grass there growing And that the said J.S. and all those whose Estate c. distringere consueverunt pro omnibus poenis sic forisfact per Juratores Curiae praed ex assensu dictor Tenent Inhabitant residentium ibid. in forma praedict assessis impositis tam super quibuscunque tenent Maner praedict aut inhabitantibus aut residentibus infra Maner illud quam super occupatoribus aliquor Tenementor infra idem Maner ' And further said That at a Court-Baron there holden That Coram Sectatoribus ejusdem Curiae by the Homage of the said Court then charged to present with the assent of other Tenants and Inhabitants of the said Mannor it was Ordained and Established That no Tenant of the Mannor aforesaid nor any of the Resiants or Inhabitants within the said Mannor nor any Occupier of any Tenements within the said Mannor from thenceforth should keep his Cattel within the several Fields of that Mannor by By-herds nor should put any of their Oxen called Draught-Oxen there before the Feast of St. Peter upon pain Quod quilibet tenens residens c. should forfeit 20 s. And further said That the Plaintiff at the time c. Occupied and had such a Tenement within the said Mannor And that at such a Court afterwards holden viz. such a day It was presented that the Plaintiff Custodivit boves suos called Draught-Oxen within the several Fields by By-herds contrary to the Order aforesaid by which the penalty of 20 s. aforesaid was forfeited Notwithstanding the said pain de gratia Curiae illius per quosd A. E. afferratores Curiae illius ad hoc jurat assess afferrat fuit ad 6 s. 8 d. And further he said That the place in which the taking c. is within the Mannor aforesaid And that A. B. Steward of the said Mannor extraxit in scriptis extra Rotulis Curiae praed the said pain of 6 s. 8 d. and delivered the same to the Defendant Bailiff of the said Mannor to Collect and Receive by force of which he required the said 6 s. 8 d. of the Plaintiff and he refused to pay it and so avoweth the taking c. And upon this Conusans of the Defendant the Plaintiff did Demur in Law And Iudgment was given against the Conusans 1. Because he pleaded That it was presented Coram Sectatoribus and doth not shew their Names 2. The penalty appointed by the By-Law was 20 s. and he sheweth it was abridged to 6 s. 8 d. and so the penalty demanded and for which the Distress was taken is not maintained by the By-Law and a pain certain ought not to be altered 3. He sheweth that it was presented that the Plaintiff had kept his Draught-Oxen and he ought to have alledged the same in matter in fact that he did keep c. XXII Dedicots Case 7 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. DEdicot seised of certain Customary Lands Dyer 210 251. Hob. 285. surrendred the same into the hands of the Lord to the intent that the Lord should grant the same de Novo to the same Dedicot for life and afterwards to Jane his Wife during the Nonage of the Son and Heir of Dedicot and afterwards to the said Son and Heir in tail c. Dedicot died before any new Grant Afterwards the Lord granted the said Land to the Wife during the Nonage of the said Heir the remainder to the Heir in tail the Heir at that time being but of the age of 5 years so as the said Wife by force of the said Surrender and Admittance was to have the said Lands for 16 years The Wife took another Husband and died And it was the Opinion of Brown and Dyer Iustices That the Husband should have the Lands during the Nonage of
Pawnage of the Park of H. grants all his Goods and Chattels moveables and immoveables within the said Park It was holden by Weston and Dyer Iustices That the Lease of the Pawnage passeth by these words And it was said by Dyer If a Man hath a Lease for years of a House and grants all his Goods and Chattels being in the same House that as well the Lease of the House as the Goods within it pass by such a Grant. XLVII Pasch 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was said by Weston and Bendloes That a Retraxit cannot be before a Declaration which Leonard and Filmer Prothonotaries granted And Dyer said That it being before a Declaration it is but a Nonsuit and Wheatley and Filmer affirmed the same and therefore it was adjudged That such a Retraxit in the Court of Hustings before the Sheriff is no Plea in Bar. XLVIII Pasch 14 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Debt brought against Christmas who shewed forth a Protection Quia Profecturus with the Lord Hunsdon to Barwick Dyer doubted If the Protection did lie But said It should be rather Moraturus then Profecturus For a Protection Quia Profecturus to Calleis was never good but super victitation Calicii Harper contrary For Barwick is out of the Realm And he said That he was once of Counsel Where a Bill was exhibited in Parliament to make Hexham part of England and he said That in the time of the Queen that now is One Carre struck a Man who thereof died at Barwick and in an Appeal thereof brought here by the Wife Carre was dismissed XLIX Cranmers Case Hill. 14 Eliz. Rott 938. In the Common Pleas. Dyer 309 310. 2 Len. 5. 1 Len. 196. 1 And. 19. More Rep. 100. Office of Executors 118. 119. TThomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury having a Reversion in Fee of certain Lands upon a Lease for years granted the Reversion to the use of the Grantor himself for his life and after his decease to the use of the Executors and Assignees of the Grantor for 20 years next after the death of the Grantor and after to the use of Thomas his Son in tail and afterwards to the use of the Grantor in Fee The Grantor is attainted of Treason and the Queen gave the said Term of 20 years to the Wife of the Grantor who took to Husband Ed. White-Church who let the Land to A. Thomas the Son entred and leased the same Land to one Kirk who upon an Ouster brought Ejectione Firmae This Case was Argued by the Iustices Manwood the puisne Iustice conceived That the Plaintiff ought to be barred and that the Lessee of White-Church who claimed by the grant of the Queen the said Term of 20 years ought to hold the Land against the Son of the Grantor For the remainder limited to the Son is not yet begun in possession And he insisted much in his Argument upon this point That Vses limited upon any Conveyance are governed and directed according to the Rules of the Common Law As if a Feoffment in Fee be made unto the use of another for life the remainder to the use of the Lessee for life and the Heirs of his body c. now the party hath an estate tail executed in possession and that is according to the Rule of the Common Law. And he cited the Case of 40 E. 3. 20. Where Land was given by Fine to A.B. and C. and to the Heirs of the body of C. and for default of such Issue the remainder to the right Heirs of A. C. died without Issue B. dyed and afterwards A. died his Heir brought a Scire facias out of the said Fine And by Iudgment of the Court the Scire facias did not lie for the Fee was vested in the Father of the Demandant although that ex vi verbi the remainder was limited not to the Father but to his Heirs But where Vses are limited in other manner than according to the Rules of the Common Law there they shall not be ruled and governed by the Rules of the Common Law As if Lands be given to the use of one for life and to the use of such Lessees to whom the Tenant for life shall demise the same for years or life rendring Rent the remainder over to a stranger in tail and afterwards the Tenant for life makes a Lease for years or life and dieth such a Lease shall bind him in the remainder although that the Lessor had not but for life and be now dead for the Vse limited here to the Lessees which would be was limited contrary to the Rules of the Common Law. For by the Common Law such Leases made by Tenant for life are determined by his death And in this Case This Lease for 20 years after the death of the Grantor was limited according to the Rules of the Common Law and therefore it shall take effect accordingly as if it had passed in possession and not in use as if the Conveyance had been of the Land it self and that Land had been granted to the Grantor for 20 years after his death that Interest had been vested in him to sell forfeit or otherwise to dispose at his pleasure and shall not accrue to the Executors as a purchase 19 E. 2. Fitz. Covenant 25. Land was Leased to one for life and after his decease to his Executors and Assigns for 10 years the Lessee assigned the Term And by Herle it is a good Assignment For it is in the Election of the Lessee to Devise that Interest or to assign it in his life-time And see 39 E. 3. 25. A Lease was made to one for life and a year over 17 E. 3. 29. Lessee for life so as after his death the Land remain to his Executors for 8 years Lessee for life died He who had the Freehold of the Land was impleaded who rendred the Land and the Executors of the Lessee for life prayed to be received scil where as Executors do hold the Term which proves that they had the Term as Executors to the use of the Testator and so Assets therefore the same was before in the Lessee for life But by Dyer in his Argument That Case doth not prove it and certainâ—y it is not Assets For although the Executor have the same Term by purchase yet they have it as Executors for that is a good name of purchase which Harper concessit And Manwood argued further and he Cited 19 E. 3. Fitz. Covenant 24. Land was let for life and if the Lessee died within 12 years that his Executors should hold the same until the end of the 12 years The Lessee for life died and the Executors entred and the Executors of the Lessee for life brought Actions of Covenant which proved that the Executors had the Term as a Chatel vested in the Testator and not in their own Rights as Purchasors by the name of Executors See 22 Ass 37. Land demised to A. ad totam vitam suam
willed that his Son should have all his Mannors and Lands and should pay his Debts and should give certain sums of Monies for the Marriage Portions of his Daughters And the Question which was moved to the Court was Whether the first part of his Will That is to say That Hurlock and the others should have his Lands c. were void or not by the later words of his Will Dyer Iustice said That the last words of the Will did well expound the meaning of the first words and that the Will should be performed as it might be And afterwards Harper said That upon this matter Hurlock and the others had had a Decree in the Court of Wards to have the whole Lands during the years and not two parts of the Lands only Dyer Iustice said That the Will of Sir Tho. Umpton which was made mean between the Statutes of 32 H. 8. and 34 H. 8. and which is excepted by the same Statute that it should not be construed in other form than according to the first Statute was Of all his Lands And upon a Demurrer argued It was adjudged That the Will was good of two parts although that by the Will it was not divided For where a Man hath a Warrant to do a thing and he doth it and more so as he exceeds his Warrant yet it is good for that part for which it is warranted and void for the rest As if a Man makes a Warrant of Attorny to make Livery and Seisin of the Mannor of Dale and he makes Livery of the Mannors of Dale and Sale it is good for the Mannor of Dale and void for the Mannor of Sale. The Case was in a Writ of Partition And afterwards the Record was removed by a Writ of Error supposing that this Court had Erred and the Iudgment was affirmed by three of the Iustices of the Kings Bench. But because there was a Discontinuance in the Record which was erronious for that the first Iudgment was reversed but not for any other cause And such was the meaning and intent of the Statute of 32 H. 8. before the making of the Statute of 34 H. 8. of Explanation of Wills. And therefore here in the principal Case it was holden That the Will was good for two parts both to the Wife and also to Hurlock and the others And it was holden That by the Intent of the Will that the Son was to pay such sums of Monies a Hurlock was to have paid so as the Will was not for the advantage of the Heir but to be construed according to the meaning of Philpot That if Hurlock could not have the Lands c. that then the Son should have them but with such charge as aforesaid and it was no Intent to subvert the first part of the Will if the same might stand with the Law. And so it was adjudged LVII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was this A Man makes a Lease for 30 years More Rep. 94 Post 55. Winch. Rep. 5. and bargains and sells the Woods in and upon the Premisses to the Lessee and that he might carry them off the Lands during the time of 30 years The Lessee cut down all the Woods and afterwards other Wood grew up from the Stocks and the Lessee cut them also within the Term and the Lessor brought an Action of Waste for cutting of the new Wood. And it was moved by Meade Hob. Rep. 132. Serjeant If the Action of Waste would lie or not Harper Iustice Is the Bargain de bosco subbosco growing in and upon the Premisses Meade No but all his Woods in and upon the Premisses Harper The Grant is in the present tense in praesenti so as he cannot have that which shall grow there after And if he would grant all his Woods which should grow in time to come the Grant should not be good because it is not of a thing in esse And if a Man will grant all his Wood growing upon Black-Acre and there be then no Wood he cannot have any thing although that afterwards Woods grow there and if his meaning had been That he should have the Wood which should there after grow he would have expressed the same in another form Mounson If a Man grants all his Hay growing upon his Land Hob. 132. shall he have that which is growing there after No truly And if he grant all the Wooll which is growing upon his Sheep shall he have more than that which groweth this year Meade No truly But if he had granted all the Wooll growing upon the Sheep for 20 years then the same is like to our case for he hath granted that he may carry the Wooll during the 30 years Harper The same is but a Liberty to fell the Trees which where growing at the time of the Sale and to carry them when he pleaseth and not to give other Trees or Wood which should there after grow LVIII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LOvelace Serjeant moved this Case to the Court That an Assise was brought of the Office of Registership in the County of Devon And he shewed How that the Bishop of Exeter granted the Office and shewed the name of the Bishop And that after William Alley Bishop there granted the same Office after the death of the first Grantee to the Plaintiff And further he shewed That the Bishop might grant the Office ad Idoneam personam And because he doth not say in his Plaint That the person to whom it was granted is idonea persona I conceive that the Plaint is not good for if there be no such person which can exercise the Office he shall not have it For that is a Condition which is annexed to the Office that he be a fit person who shall take it And the Prothonotaries of this place ought to have skill in that which appertaineth to their Office For if such an Office should be given to a Courtier who hath not skill in that which appertaineth to the Office nor knowledge how to execute he shall not have it Also he said That he hath not shewed that the first Bishop is dead or that he hath resigned or whether that he be deprived and therefore it shall be intended that he continueth unless the contrary be shewed And then the Grant made by Alley to the Plaintiff cannot be good And for these causes and for others he prayed to know the Opinion of the Court. Dyer Iustice The matter is not before us and wherefore should we give our Opinions to serve the fancy of every person and to resolve the doubts of every Court But if the matter laid come before by Adjournment for difficulty because the Iustices of Assise are of divers Opinions or that they doubted of any thing upon such difficulty and adjournment we use to shew our Opinions and to take some pains to search our Books to Resolve the doubts but when we have not any thing before us
but are moved for the pleasure of the parties What Resolutions shall we make by speaking at random Manwood As to the first Exception I nor my Brother Jeffery do not doubt of it but that the Plaint was good notwithstanding that it is not shewed that he was idonea persona for the Law shall intend him so to be until the contrary he shewed And so it is of a grant of an Annuity as long as he se bene gesserit the Law shall intend that he carrieth himself well until the contrary be shewed But as to the other Point That he doth not shew the death of the first Bishop my Brother Jeffery doubted of it but I make no doubt of it for that is but a Recital and the Plaintiff makes his title but from Bishop Alley and therefore that is not material nor parcel of his Plaint whether the predecessor of Alley be alive or not for he doth not derive any Title from him but from Alley Dyer Can a Bishop grant an Office in Reversion without title of Prescription that they have used so to do time out of mind And here no Prescription is laid that the Bishop might so do And then as I conceive the Reversion of the Office cannot be granted for there is not any Reversion of it and it is not like unto an Advowson which may be granted that the Grantee may present when it shall be next void And as I conceive No Reversion of any Office can be granted if not by the King who hath a special Prerogative For he reciting how that such an one hath such an Office for life he may grant that such a person shall have the same Office after the death of the first Grantee And so the Queen may grant the Reversion of such an Office as if she recite that such an one is Keeper of such a Park there she may grant the Keepership of it after the death of another But if a Common person will grant the Stewardship of his Courts after the death of such a person as is now Steward or the Reversion of it the same is not good For of Offices there is not any Fee or Reversion But a Nomination which the party hath to name what person he pleaseth when the same shall become void Manwood It is the Order in the Arches and in the Prerogative Court and of all the Courts of Pauls to grant the Offices in Reversion as in the Case of Doctor Drury and others who have the Reversion of every Office which doth belong to the Spiritual Courts Dyer I do not care nor regard what they do but what they ought to do and I do not respect the person of any one in relating the Law But it may be that by words of Covenant such a Covenant may be good And of late time here a Case hath been adjudged That where one prescribed that such an one might grant an Office cuicunque personae idoneae voluerit and the Grant was made to two and because the prescription did not warrant this manner of grant it was adjudged void for when the prescription is to grant alicui personae and not quibuscunque personis by that he cannot grant it but to one person and not unto divers because the prescription doth not extend so far Manwood I conceive there is a difference betwixt such persons who have Offices for life as the Admiral of England the Lord Treasurer the Iustices of the two Benches which have Offices incident to their Courts they cannot grant any of those Offices in Reversion But a Bishop hath a Fee and therefore the Cases are not alike Dyer he hath not prescribed in the person of the Bishop here but he hath said That the Custom is That the Bishop may grant the said Office whereas in truth if there were a prescription he ought to prescribe That the Bishop for the time being might grant the said Office in possession or in reversion And so as I conceive here no Office shall be granted in reversion unless by prescription which ought to be alledged And in the time of this Queen an Office of this Court was granted to Fry and his Son by the King and the Patent was shewed here in Court and rejected and it was said there was no place in Court for two to sit there and the Office might be exercised as well by one as by two and therefore the Patent was disallowed And although that Offices are granted to two as now in the Kings Bench of late time there is not any President to warrant the same and therefore as I conceive such a Grant is not good nor warranted by the Law for I do not regard in this Case against what persons I speak Mounson In the Chancery a Patent was granted to Bagot and Swirenden of an Office in the Chancery by King Henry the 6th and in 9 E. 4. it is is disputed Whether the Grant were good or not c. LIX Mich. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was A Man Mortgageth his Lands to pay to the Mortgagee his Heirs Executors or Assigns a certain sum of Mony at a day certain The Mortgagee dieth and maketh his Heir within age his Executor and the Mortgagor pays the Mony at the day to the Heir It was holden The same shall be Assets in the hands of the Heir as Executor and that he hath not the Mony as Heir and he shall be charged with it within age LX. Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was this A Man had made a Lease for 40 years to one by Indenture if the Lessee should so long live and afterwards by another Deed he demised the same Lands and Tenements to the same Lessee To have to his Executors and Assigns for 40 years after the expiration of the first Lease And Lovelace Serjeant demanded the Opinion of the Court the Lord Dyer being then in the Star-Chamber Whether in this Case the Lessee should have the Interest in the second Lease or his Executors or whether it was a void Lease Harper Iustice said That in every Lease there are 3 things incident to make it good 1. That there be a Lessor to make the Lease 2. That there be a Lessee to take the Lease And 3. That there be a thing which should be which should be let And then he said That here although that there be a Lessor and a thing which should be leased yet here there was not any Lessee For Executors are not until after the death of the Testator But he said That if a Lease be made for years or for life and that the Executors shall have the same for certain years after his death the same is good for there is an Interest of the Term. And if a Man maketh a Lease to begin at the month of Easter his Executors may have this Term because the same was an Interest of a Term in the Lessee and the Term shall be executed at Easter But here in this
Bar for no person is named there Manwood If a Lease be made made to J.S. except Green-Close to J.D. who is a stranger the Exception is good and J.D. shall have it The Principal Case was Adjourned LXI The Lord Windsors Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. UPon an Evidence given to a Iury in the Kings Bench in an Ejectione Firmae the Case appeared to be thus That Sir Roger Lewknor Knight being seised in Fee of the Mannor of South Myms made an Indenture Anno 11. H. 8. by which Indenture he Leased the said Mannor to 20 persons to the use of Andrew Windsor afterwards Lord Windsor and Henry his Son and the Survivor of them as long as any of the said persons named in the said Indenture should live And further Covenanted by the same Indenture To stand seised of the said Mannor To the use of the said Andrew and Henry and the Survivor of them during the lives of any of the said Feoffees named in the same Indenture which Deed was made without Livery and Seisin and reserved upon it an yearly Rent and afterwards the Son died And in 22 H. 8. A Fine was levied by a stranger upon a Release to Andrew Lord Windsor And afterwards 34 of Henry 8 Andrew Lord Windsor made a Lease to one for years and died and made William and Edmond his Sons his Executors And afterwards William his eldest Son being Lord Windsor 2 3 Phil. Mary made a Lease of the same Land unto another to begin after the first Lease ended Which William died and the Lord Windsor that now is accepted the Rent and of late time agreed with one Vaughan who had married the Heir of Sir Roger Lewknor for the Reversion in Fee and afterwards the Lease made by Andrew Lord Windsor 34 H. 8. ended in the 4th year of the Reign of the Queen that now is Whereupon the second Lessee that is to say the Lessee of William Lord Windsor entred and being ousted he brought the Ejectione firmae And then and yet one of the 20 Feoffees of Sir Roger Lewknor is alive so as the Estate of Cestuy que Vie is not as yet determined And now the Question upon the first part of the Evidence is If this later Lease made by William Lord Windsor be a good Lease or not And who shall be said Occupant For when the Lord Andrew died then the Lessee as Catline said shall not be said in otherwise than according to his Lease when his occupation by Lease was lawful before And he who shall be said Occupant shall have a Freehold and if he should be Occupant he should be in by a new title Then we are to see If the Executors of the Lord which have the Rent and to whom the same is paid by the Lessee shall be said Occupant And he conceived That they should not although that they enter unless they claim the Freehold at the time of their entry for if they enter generally it shall be intended according to the Will as Executors and if he had granted his Estate to another there after his death the Grantee shall be said to be in by reason of his Grant and not as Occupant And so if he would devise his Estate the Devisee shall be in by reason of the Devise and not as Occupant Which Case of Devise Southcote denyed That he should not be in by reason of the Devise when his Estate determines with his death But if the Devisee entreth by force of the Devise he shall be in as an Occupant And also Southcote denyed that which had been said That the Lessee for years who holdeth the Lands after the death of Andrew Lord Windsor should not be an Occupant For as he said the Lessee being in possession after the death of the Lord Andrew should be said Occupant and no other for the Executors of the Lord could not be Occupant by the having of the Rent because they had not the possession of the Land for none shall be Occupant but he who is in possession Whiddon said That if the first Lease made by Andrew Lord Windsor was now in esse and that an Ejectione Firmae was brought upon that that the Lessee ought to aver That some of the Feoffees for whose lives c. were then living Southcote If a Praecipe quod reddat shall be brought against whom shall it be brought against him in the Reversion or against him in possession And if it shall be brought against the Tenant in possession then he ought to have the Freehold for it cannot be brought but against one who hath a Freehold at the least And then if the Lord William Windsor had nothing in the Land then how could he make this Lease to the Plaintiff that now is when the first Lessee continueth Occupant after the death of the Lord Andrew during the life of Cestuy que Vye And as to the Fine the Question did further arise If the Lord Andrew Windsor should have a Feesimple by that Fine For being levied as Catline said It cannot be to the first Vses because a Fine upon a Release cannot be intended to the use of any other but to him to whom it is levied unless an use be expressed in the Fine or by another Deed And upon a Fine levied upon a Release made unto Tenant life by a stranger the same is not a forfeiture of his Estate But if Tenant for life taketh a Fine Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c. the same is a forfeiture And although a Fine levied by those who have not any thing in the Lands be void Yet here it is not so and it ought to be pleaded specially and shewed that he had not anything in the Land at the time the Fine was levied as Anderson said And Catline said That this Fine was not without good advice for the Lord Brook and others who were learned in the Law were of Counsel with the Lord Windsor in the levying of this Fine so as the intent was to settle the Feesimple in himself by the Fine and not that the first Vses should stand after that And thereupon he put the Case of Putnam and Duncomb which hath much Resemblance to this Case which he argued when he was Serjeant and held the same Opinion as he holdeth now And therefore he said That although the Purchase was but of late time of Vaughan and his Wife yet the Fee was in the Lord Windsor before and this manner of purchase was to no other end but to discharge the Lands of Incumbrances as appeareth by the small sum which was paid the Land being of a great yearly value And as Vaughan confessed he took this sum of Mony because that his Council informed him that the Feesimple was in the Lord Windsor before and that otherwise he would not have sold it at such a price And he said That before that agreement the Lord Windsor told him that he had the Feesimple in himself
Whereupon Vaughan asked him Wherefore he paid the Rent To whom the Lord Windsor answered That he paid the same during the lives of the Feoffees but after their deaths he paid nothing but notwithstanding that payment that the Feesimple remained in him and that his Counsel advised him to pay the Rent to the Heirs of Lewknor who was the Wife of the said Vaughan And Catline said That if a Fine be levied upon a Release in a Scire facias against the Conusor he shall not plead that the Conusor had not any thing in the Land at time of the Fine levied And he said further That if a Disseisor be and the Disseisee levieth a Fine upon a Release that thereby his Right is gone And Note That as to the principal Case Southcote was of Opinion That the Fee was not gained by the Fine levied by a stranger to him who had the Vse before the Statute of 27 H. 8. and that if no Feesimple was in the Lord Windsor at the time of the Lease made by him that the Lease could not be good nor the Action maintainable And because the Court was divided in Opinions in both Points Catline commanded the Iury to find a Special Verdict LXII Mich. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte That it was said by the whole Court That if a Man delivereth Mony to another Man to buy Cattel or to Merchandise with although that the Mony be sealed up in a Bag yet the property of the Mony is to the Bailee and the Bailor cannot have an Action for the Mony but only an Accompt against the Bailee although that he never buyeth the Cattel or other things for the Auditors upon the Accompt shall allow him the sum and such other allowances as they shall think fit And that a stranger takes away the Mony after the death of the Bailee or in his life-time the Bailor shall not have an Action against the stranger but the Executors of the Bailee or the Bailee himself during his life And yet if the Bailee dieth no Action of Accompt lieth against his Executors because the Testator had the property of the Monies And therefore if he who takes the Mony from the Bailee promiseth the Bailor to pay him the like sum of Mony as the Bailee had received of him in his life and as should be truly proved by the Bailor there upon that Promise an Action upon the Case doth not lie against him who took away the Mony as Catline said In an Action upon the Case brought by the Master of the Rolls and another who supposed that they delivered 100 l. to one Moore and that he is dead and that the Mony came unto the hands of the Defendant and that thereupon he promised to pay the like sum which might be proved that Moore had of the Plaintiffs It was holden That the Action upon the Case did not lie Southcote Iustice said That although the property of the Mony be changed as before and that no Accompt lieth against a stranger Yet when he hath the Mony and for that cause promiseth to pay it as before it is reason that an Action upon the Case should lie upon his promise although the Law will not charge him nor the Executors upon an Accompt LXIII The Lord Cromwells Case Mich. 15 Eliz. Dyer 321 322. 2 Roll. 560 561. JEffery recited That a Replevin was brought by Franklin The Defendants made Conusans as Bailiffs of the Lord Cromwell because that the said Lord was seised of the Mannor of North-Elmes and that the Custom of the said Mannor is That the Homagers have used to make By-Laws when necessity shall be within the same Mannor and upon a pain and forfeiture and that the Lord of the Mannor for the time being might distrain in the Land of any for the Forfeiture And further saith That in Anno 6 of Ed. the 6th the Homage then whereof Franklin the Plaintiff was one made By-Law That none should put his Sheep to feed in the Pasture or Lands of the Lord upon a pain c. And that the said Franklin in the 13th year of the Reign of the Lady the Queen that now is had put his Sheep into the Pasture and Lands of the Lord to feed and for that they avow the taking in the right of the Lord Cromwell for not payment of the said Forfeiture And Jefferies of Council with the Plaintiff said That the Avowry nor the Conusans were not good For the Custom is as they themselves have shewed That the By-Law shall be made when necessity requireth and without necessity a By-Law cannot be And it is not alledged here That there was a necessity at the time of this By-Law made and then if there be no necessity they cannot make the By-Law Also it is not alledged that there were any Sheep there And when a Custom is pleaded it shall be pleaded stricti juris And at the Common Law you may see divers Cases That when a Man is to have one thing for the cause of another that he must alledge the thing for which he must have it As in 9 H. 6. Where an Abbot had granted to one That he should have Common wheresoever the Cattel of the Abbot should go there if the Commoner will justifie or make Avowry for his Common he must aver that the Beasts of the Abbot went then in such a place Field or Pasture for if they did not go there at the time that he justifieth or avoweth his Iustification or Avowry shall not be good And there it was said by Babbington Chief Iustice That if a Man grants Common whensoever his Cattel shall go in such a Pasture If the Grantor doth never put his Cattel into the Pasture the Grantee shall not have Common there and therefore he must say That he put his Beasts into the Pasture And in 15 H. 7. in the Case of an Annuity granted until he be promoted to a Benefice in a Writ of Annuity brought he must say That he is not promoted c. And if an Obligation be made to you to you my Lord for Mony when J.S. shall return from Rome you shall not have an Action upon the Bond for not payment of the Mony without alledging that J.S. is retorned See 33 H. 6. Hillary 's Case And before the Statute of Quia Emptores terrarum If a Man had made a Feoffment to hold by Fealty and the Guarding of his Castle In an Avowry for the Castle Guard that there was then War and so cause of necessity for in time of Peace he shall not be bound to Guard it And so it appeareth 34 H. 8. Where a Feoffment was made before the Statute to hold by Fealty and every year to marry a poor Maiden within the Mannor if he doth avow for not marriage he ought to alledge that there was a poor Maid that year within the Mannor So if the Tenure be to repair a Bridge that is for the Common wealth and he and all others
Customs stand with Reason And so in 5 H. 7. Where a Man prescribes That for the Pasture which the Beasts of the Tenant have taken in his Lands in the day-time that he have the Foldage of them upon his said Lands in the Night to manure his Lands is a good prescription because the party hath for it Quid pro Quo. And so where a Man prescribes to have a Farthing of every one who passeth over his Land the same is called Toll traverse and is good And so in 7 H. 4. Where a Man prescribes in Common by reason of Vicinage it is good for though it cannot be of Common Right yet because each hath Quid pro Quo it is good And so is the Custom for Fishermen to dry their Nets upon the Banks of the Lands of other Men lying upon the Sea Coasts because it is for the Common wealth and every Man hath an advantage by it but if a Man should prescribe to Fowle there upon the Lands of another that were not good Meade contrary That case is as it hath been put and divers Cases of the Common Law Custom and Statute Laws have been shewed And by common Intendment it is intended that need doth require the making of the By-Law for otherwise they would not have made it and there needs not any averment that there was need of it for that shall be taken by intendment As 19 E. 4. A Man counts of the Grant of the next Avoydance and the Count is good without shewing that that was the next Avoydance but yet it would have been better if it had been expressed And 21 H. 7. In Trespass the first day of May the Defendant pleads the Licence of the Plaintiff without shewing that it was for the same Trespass and yet it shall be intended when he pleads a Licence for the same day that it was for the same Trespass And as to the Case put upon the Statute of 1 R. 3. it hath been ruled otherwise for it shall be shewed on the other side that he was within age as it appeareth by 10 13 H. 7. Also he said that the Court here shall intend that there was a necessity sufficient without expressing of it and if there was not then it ought to be alledged on the other side As 15 H. 7. An Annuity is granted until he was advanced to a Benefice the Plaintiff shall not need to shew it but that shall come on the Defendants part And the Statute which is That no Cattel of the Plough shall be distrained where the party hath other Cattel of which a Distress may be taken there the party needs not to alledge that he had other Cattel or other Goods And as to that which hath been said That it was the better Order that needs not for the Defendant himself was one of the makers of the Order and when By-Laws are made they shall not extend but to the Tenants within the Mannor where they are made and to such only as have Lands there and not to the Lands of others which are out of the Mannor and the Defendant in this case shall not be received to say but that this is a good Custom and Order because he is a party to it and was the maker of it and that there was then a necessity for the making of it for the better ordering of the Lands and that especially when as the Defendant himself was a party to it And as to that which is said That Seisin is alledged in the Lord Cromwell in 6 E. 6. and it is not alledged that the Seisin did continue in him until 13th of this Queen It shall be intended that he continued seised until the contrary be shewed As in 11 H. 7. A Man prescribed to have Common by reason of the House c. The Avowant doth not say that he was seised of the House at the time c. of the disseisin of the Common because he once alledged Seisin of the House and that Seisin shall be intended to continue unto the time of the disseisin And so 10 H. 7. A Prior Domus Ecclesiae de C. brought Waste and supposed that it was to the disenheresin of the House and did not say praedict Domus and yet it was good and shall be referred to the said Priory And so here when he saith that he was Lord and that the By-Law was made as before and a penalty imposed and a Distress taken by the Bailiff of the Lord Cromwell for not observing the By-Law and payment of the sum assessed all being put together makes a sufficient certainty and that the Lord Cromwell continued his Seisin of the Mannor and Land And as to that which hath been said That the By-Law made and the Custom alledged to distrain in the Lands of any Man for the Offence of another is not reasonable and against the Law To that he said That the Tenants here had authority to make By-Laws and by their consents have bounden themselves to the observing and performance of them and therefore shall not now be received to say That the By-Law made by themselves was against the Law. And he said That the Customs in some places are Where there are Waste Lands that they may make By-Laws That if any Tenant or person dig Turfs in the same Waste that the Lord may distrain for such offence within any place of the Mannor and the Cattel of any person Quaere of it The Principal Case was Adjourned LXIV Mountford and Catesbys Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Action upon the Case was brought by Mountford against Catesby Dyer 328. Vaugh. Rep. 120. And the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant covenanted assumed and promised in Consideration of a certain sum of Mony to him paid and in Consideration of the payment of a Rent of certain Lands demised to the Lessee That he should peaceably and quietly enjoy the same without Interruption of any person and he was ousted by a stranger And the matter aforesaid was found by special Verdict And it was argued by Lovelace Serjeant and he prayed Iudgment for the Plaintiff And he said That there is a difference when it is said that a Man shall hold and enjoy peaceably and quietly As in Case where one warrants Land there if he be ousted by a stranger who hath not any Title to the Land he shall have an Action of Trespass against him But a Man by word or Covenant may bind himself to that which he is not bound to do by the Law. As if the Covenant and Promise be That he shall leave the Houses in as good plight as he found them there although the Law doth not bind the party to re-edifie the Houses in case they be overthrown by tempest of Wind or that they be destroyed by Enemies yet by his special Covenant he shall be bound to re-edifie them Meade contrary And that this promise shall not be taken strictly against the Lessor Hob. Rep.
35. that he shall enjoy it against all persons but only against all persons who have Title and not against those who have not any Title because against them he may have his remedy And if a Man makes a Feoffment of his Lands with Warranty and covenants that it is discharged of all Rents 1 Roll. 434. 1 Inst 389. a. 1 Len. 29. there it shall not extend to Rent Services which are incident to the Lands of Common Right In 3 H. 7. 4. the Case was The Condition of an Obligation was That the Obligor should make Appropriation of the Church of Dale such a day to such a House at his Costs and Charges discharged of Incumbrances Roll. Tit. Conditions there although there was a Pension granted thereout to another it was holden That the Obligee was not bounden to discharge it of that Pension No more than if a Man be bounden to make a Feoffment of his Land there although that he charge the Land yet he shall not forfeit his Bond But if it were that he should make a Feoffment of his Land discharged c. it is otherwise but yet he shall not be bounden to discharge it of such things with which it is charged by the Law. Barham The words are precisely That he shall enjoy it without interruption of any person so as be he interrupted by one that hath Title or no Title the Plaintiff hath cause of Action Manwood What if the words were That he should enjoy it without Suit in Law Meade That shall be intended of a lawful Suit And in the principal case although the Contract be by words yet it is upon a good Consideration that is to say Of a Fine and Income and upon the payment of the Rent And therefore as Dyer said When Catesby the Son leased the Lands to Mountford the now Plaintiff and it appeared that his Father or a stranger made claim to it and thereupon he made the promise as before shall it be intended that he should hold and enjoy the Lands peaceably without interruption of them only who had Title And that he should not have his Remedy against the Defendant upon his promise if a stranger who had not Title did interrupt him Truly he shall have his remedy against him As if the Son had promised that he should enjoy it against his Father or else that in truth if it were the Land of the Father shall it not be intended that the Son did presume that his Father should not interrupt his Lessee And that he would so deal with his Father that he should not interrupt him and it may be that upon the presumption of the good will of his Father or that he had treated with him or compounded with him that for these or the like causes the Son made the promise aforesaid And if the Father had not any Right or Title to the Land should not the Lessee have his Action against the Defendant if the Father did interrupt him for this unlawful Interruption Truly Yes For by the words it is to be supposed That the Son would so deal with his Father that the Lessee should enjoy and hold the Lands without any manner of interruption Mounson You have well tasted the Opinion of the Court upon this matter before and now you hear our Opinions again Manwood As I said the other day Cannot an Hostler take upon him that the Goods of his Guests which are within his Inn shall be safe and charge himself further therewith than he is chargeable by the Custom of the Realm and to be chargeable against every one that taketh them away Truly I conceive he may Harper The common making of Assurance is That he shall enjoy them without any lawful Interruption 1 Roll. 429. And if the Law upon the general words of Enjoying without Interruption should be intended but of lawful Interruptions It were in vain to have this word Lawful in the Deed c. LXV Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Action of Debt was brought against one upon an Obligation It was upon an Apprentice Bond The Condition of which was That if such a one did become the Apprentice of the Obligee and transport his Merchandises beyond the Seas and make a Retorn of them and maketh an Accompt unto the Obligee and payeth the Monies upon his Accompt within a certain time that then c. And afterwards the Obligee doth release by Deed to the Servant the Apprentice and not to the Obligor And in Debt brought against the Obligor he pleaded the Release And it was said by the Lord Dyer and by the whole Court That by the Release to the Servant the Obligation was saved if the Release were made before any forfeiture or that the Servant or Apprentice had broken any of the Conditions or any point according to the Covenants but if it was made after any of them was broken then such a Release to the Servant did not dispence with the Obligation which was made by the stranger because an Obligation once forfeited cannot be saved by any Act or Release made or done to a stranger LXVI Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit brought by the Patron against the Archbishop of York and the Incumbent Dyer 327. who was in by the Collation of the Archbishop after the death of the Incumbent of the Patron It was said by the Lord Dyer That of an Avoydance by Resignation or Deprivation the Patron shall have 6 months time after notice thereof given unto him to present his Clerk because it may be done secretly in the Chamber of the Ordinary and therefore in such case the Law is That the Bishop is to give notice of it to the Patron before he be bound to that knowledge of such a Presentment as it appeareth by the Case in 1 H. 7. 4. And Lowe the Prothonotary said That so is the Roll of the same year where the Issue was Whether the Patron had 6 months after the notice And then the Lord Dyer said to the Prothonotary Shew me the Roll at another day that I may compare it with my Book But if the Church become void by death of the Incumbent there the Patron is to take notice of it at his peril without any other notice thereof to be given him by the Ordinary And he said That if the Patron doth present his Clerk a Week before the 6 months be ended and the Ordinary doth refuse the Clerk for Inability because he is unlearned and then the six months pass before he presenteth another after the six months after the death of the Incumbent in such case the Bishop shall have the Collation of the Clerk because it was the folly of the Patron that he did not present his Clerk before so as the Ordinary might examine him and that thereupon if he be found to be unable that he might present another Clerk to the Ordinary within convenient time and for that cause is the 6
months given to the Patron that he provide another Clerk in the mean time And there is a good Case in 14 H. 7. which was long debated Where the Ordinary commanded the Clerk to come to him afterwards to be examined because the Ordinary had then other business And there the better Opinion of the Book is That it was a good Plea for the Ordinary That he did not refuse the Clerk but that the Clerk did not return to him again and that the 6 months passed so as he made the Collation and that the Patron made his presentation too late so as he had not convenient time to examine him Then in the Case at Bar It was moved That when the Ability and Disability of the Clerk came in Question by whom the same should be tryed because in the Case here the Bishop of York was a party to the Suit Whether by the Metropolitan of York or by the Metropolitan of Canterbury And he said That as he conceived the Tryal of the Ability should be by the Metropolitan of York and not of Canterbury But he said That if the party in whom the disability was alledged was dead so as he could not be examined the Tryal of his Ability or Disability should be by the Country as it appeareth in the Book of 39 E. 3. Manwood Iustice The Cure of Souls is to be regarded and therefore if an Enfant be to make a Presentation the same shall not be stayed for his Nonage and therefore if in such case he doth surcease and shall not present his Clerk the Law which regardeth more the Cure of Souls than the Enfancy will permit that the Ordinary shall collate to the Church if a Presentment thereto be not made within the six months And he said That if the Patron should present one but a week before the end of the six months and the Ordinary should refuse him for disability If the Patron should have other six months then next after he might then likewise present an Enfant or other disabled person to the Ordinary and so detract the time by fraud and so the Lapse by such great fraud should never devolve to the Ordinary and so the Cure should be unserved And so the Issue would be and arise upon the conveniency of the time And as to that which hath been said concerning the Ability and Disability of the Clerk I conceive the same shall be tryed by the Metropolitan of Canterbury and not by the Metropolitan of York Mounson to that intent and he said There is a good case in 14 H. 7. 21. which is a short case and not the Case which hath been vouched by which it appeareth that the presentment that shall be within 6 months shall be accompted from the time of the Avoydance and not from the time of the presentment by the whole Court And there it is said That the Ordinary shall give notice to the Patron if he be a Lay-man of the Disability of the Clerk but not if he be a Spiritual person But if the party Presentee be Criminous of that the Patron shall take as well notice as the Ordinary And afterwards the Lord Dyer caused the Record to be read and it did not appear therein at what day the Presentment was made to the Ordinary which ought to have been shewed for the great point of the Case doth rest here upon the time of the Presentment if it were before a week that the six months were ended or not Also the Ordinary saith in his Bar That the Clerk was insufficient and that he gave notice to the Plaintiff and that Nullam idoneam personam praesentavit And the Court said That that was no good manner of pleading but it had been better if it had been Nullam etiam personam idoneam praesentavit and the first form would be a Jeosail Manwood said That the time of the notice given to the Patron ought to be alledged because if the Patron sends his Clerk within a month after the Avoydance and the Ordinary will not give notice to the Patron in the mean time the same shall not be any default in the Patron And as to the notice given to the Patron he said the same was well pleaded and it shall be intended that it was given to the person of the Patron And as to the words in the Declaration scil tunc vacantem they are but void words because nothing is spoken before of any time And the Incumbent pleaded the same Plea as the Ordinary pleaded And Dyer asked If the Incumbent were Person impersonee for that none should plead that Plea but he who is Parson in fact and Incumbent LXVII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was That an Information was exhibited into the Court of Common Pleas for the Queen and the party upon a Penal Law And a Subpoena issued forth against two one of them was served with the Writ and the other not and now a new Subpoena was prayed against him who was not served And Dyer Iustice conferred with his Companions and the Prothonotary and demanded of them If the Plaintiff might Exhibit an Information in this Court Who answered That he might for this is a Court of Record and the Statute Law limiteth That it may be exhibited in any of the Queens Courts of Record Then he demanded of them If a Subpoena lay out of this place And Whetley Prothonotary said That it did Dyer said It is a strange thing to have an Attachment at the first day Manwood said In this Court it is the common usage upon an Audita Querela to award a Venire facias against the Conusee Dyer said to the Prothonotaries Advise with your selves against the morrow What Process hath been used to issue forth upon the Presidents of Information which have been before this time If a Subpoena shall be awarded And afterwards it was said by Gawdy who moved for it That he might have a Subpoena upon this matter LXVIII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte A special Verdict was found at the Bar and the Issue was taken upon a Traverse And Dyer Iustice said That a special Verdict could not be taken upon a Traverse but precisely according to the Issue and so it was agreed by the whole Court here but some Serjeants at the Bar did doubt of it LXIX Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae the Case was thus King Henry the 8th was seised of certain Lands and by his Letter Patents granted the same to Thomas Holt for life the remainder to John Holt his Son who in truth was a Bastard and the Letters Patents were Ex certa scientia mero motu c. And because the Plaintiff did suppose that the same was not a good Purchase he tooke a Lease from the Queen of the Lands intending to make void the Letters Patents because the Defendant was nullius filius And what difference there was in such a Case in Case of the
King and a Common Person was moved to the Court by Lovelace Serjeant Dyer Iustice I conceive That it is a good Purchase in Law as well in the Case of the King as in the Case of a Common Person And see to that purpose 39 E. 3. and in this Case If the King had granted the Land to John Holt without naming him Son the same had been a good Purchase But if the King had called him John the Son of Thomas without giving him a sirname there such a Purchase should not be good if he were a Bastard because he hath not Nomen Cognitum as where he hath a sirname and a Man cannot purchase by the Name of John only and then if he be called John the Son of Thomas when he is not his Son it cannot be good And such Case hath here lately been adjudged Where the Lord Powis gave certain Lands to Thomas Gray his Son by him begotten upon the Body of Jane Orwell and in truth the said Thomas was a Bastard of the said Lord Powis and the name of Jane was not Orwell but the Daughter of one Punt and the Mother of Jane who was first married to Punt betwixt whom Jane was begotten married with one Orwell and yet notwithstanding that wrong Name and that the said Thomas Gray was not the Son of the Lord Powis born of Jane Orwell but of one Jane Punt yet it was a good Purchase and Gift to Thomas Gray because it was his known Name Manwood As I take it the Letters Patents are Ex certa scientia ex mero motu and then the Kings Grant shall not be taken in such plight as the Grant of a Common Person void for incertainty because that the King takes notice of the Person of what degree he is and in the Kings Case where he takes knowledge by the words Ex certa scientia there all matter of uncertainty shall be avoided and made good but not matter which is not true And for uncertainty he said Where a thing may be taken two ways there without the words Ex certa scientia c. the best shall be taken for the King and strongest against the Patentee But by Dyer by the words Ex certa scientia c. that incertainty is saved and shall be taken strong for the Patentee and if it can any ways be taken for him then the Patent shall not be void and then when in the principal Case there is the word Son and the word Son may be taken two ways either for a base Son or a true Son there by the words Ex certa scientia the King taketh upon him to know in what manner he is Son and a base Son is a Son Quodam modo so as the Letters Patents shall not be false But where the King in his Letters Patents recites a thing which is false that shall not make the Patent good although the words be Ex certa scientia et mero motu LXX Mich. 15. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was agreed by the Court That if a Man in a Replevin pleadeth and they are at Issue and the Iury is charged and gone from the Bar and returns to give their verdict and the Plaintiff be non-suit their retorn irreplevisable shall not be awarded as in case if a verdict had been given But the party may have a Writ of second Deliverance as well as if he had been nonsuit before declaration or appearance LXXI Trin. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was The Husband levied a Fine of his Land and died and his Wife within the 5 years after the death of her Husband brought her Writ of Dower but did not pursue her Writ until 6 years were past and then she would have revived her Suit. And Meade Serjeant demanded the Opinion of the Iustices If the Wife should be barred of her Dower or not And by Manwood Iustice it was moved again If they at the Bar did agree That if a Fine be levied by the Husband and the Wife doth not make her claim within the 5 years if for that she shall be barred And he conceived That she should not be barred For he said That he who hath Title to the Land at the time of the Fine levied if he doth not sue within 5 years after his Title accrued should be barred But where the Title accrues after the Fine there he who hath Title shall not be barred by the 5 years but he may come 30 years after and make his Title and Claim But in the principal case he said That if the Fine had been levied after the death of the Husband there the Wife should be barred if she did not pursue her Right and Claim within 5 years And he agreed That if the 5 years be a Bar here that then by the Wives suffering of her Writ of Dower to be discontinued till after the 5 years were past that she should be barred because vigilantibus non dormientibus subveniunt Leges Harper said That the Discontinuance should be no Bar unto her For he said That if a gift be made to one in tail the Remainder over and Tenant in tail dieth without Issue and he in the Remainder brings a Formedon in the Remainder within 5 years and discontinueth it yet it is no Bar but that after the 5 years ended he may revive his Suit Which Manwood denyed And then Dyer came into the Court and the Case was moved to him And he said That the not prosecuting of the Action by the Wife should be a Bar unto her and that the Marriage which was before the Fine was the cause of Dower although she could not come to be endowed until after the death of her Husband And he said That the Wife could make no other to have her Dower but only by bringing of her Writ of Dower and therefore if she did surcease her time until the 5 years were past that her new claim by her new Writ would not revive the Ancient Claim and that therefore she should be barred For she could not enter into the Land to defeat the Fine And he said That as to the principal Case That it was adjudged Anno 4 H. 8. And it was also said by the Court That an Assignment of Dower made to the Wife in the Court of Wards was no sufficient claim of the Wife because she cannot have a Writ of Dower there and there by this surceasing of her demand of her Dower for the 5 years at the Common Law that she should be barred LXXII Trin. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A Man made a Lease for years and the Lessee Covenanted to make Reparations The Lessor granted the Reversion to another and the Lessee for years made his Wife his Executrix and died It was holden in this Case by the Court That the Grantee of the Reversion should not recover damages but from the time of the Grant and not for any time before But yet the
Wife the Executrix should be charged for the not Reparations as well in the time of her Husband as in her own time And if she do make the Reparation depending the Suit yet thereby the Suit shall not abate but it shall be a good cause to qualifie the damages according to that which may be supposed that the party is damnified for the not repairing from the time of the purchase of the Reversion unto the time of the bringing of the Action And it was said by Manwood That by the Recovery of the damages that the Lessee should be excused for ever after for making of Reparations so as if he suffer the Houses for want of Reparations to decay that no Action shall thereupon after be brought for the same but that the Covenant is extinct LXXIII Easter Term. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LOvelace moved the Court that in the Kings Bench this case was argued upon a Demurrer there A Feoffment was made by one Coxley who took back an Estate for life the remainder to him who should be his Heir at the time of his death and to the Heirs males of his body begotten And afterwards the Tenant for life after the Statute of 32 H. 8. suffered a Recovery to be had against him that that Recovery was good as it was at the Common Law Because the Statute doth not speak but that it shall not be a bar to him who hath the Reversion at the time of the Recovery but this remainder was in Abeyance until the death of the Tenant for life and that in the same Court it was adjudged accordingly in an Ejectione firmae and because the same was a discontinuance the Plaintiff had here brought his Formedon in the Remainder and therefore Lovelace prayed That they might proceed without delays because the Plaintiffs Title appeareth without Essoigns and feigned delays Which Dyer Iustice conceived to be a reasonable request and that it should be well so to do because as he said This Court is debased and lessened and the Kings Bench doth encrease with such Actions which should be sued here for the speed which is there And he said That the delays here were a discredit to the Court so as all Actions almost which do concern the Realty are determined in the Kings Bench in Writs of Ejectione firmae where the Iudgment is Quod recuperet terminum and by that they are put into possession and by such means no Action is in effect brought here but such Actions as cannot be brought there as Formedons Writs of Dower c. to the Slander of the Court and to the Detriment and Loss of the Serjeants at the Bar. And Lovelace shewed That divers mean Feoffments were made c. LXXIV Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte This Case was in Court An Heir Female was in Ward of a common person who tendred to her a marriage viz. his younger Son and she agreed to the Tender and the Guardian died The Heir married the younger Son according to the Tender The Executors of the Guardian brought a Writ de Valore Maritagii supposing the Tender by the Lord to be void by his death But the Court was of a contrary Opinion because the Tender of their Testator was executed LXXV Riches Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. ELizabeth Rich brought a Writ of Dower against J.S. who pleaded and Iudgment given for the Defendant and afterwards the Iudgment was reversed And she brought a new Writ of Dower and the Tenant pleaded That he always was ready and yet is c. Against which the Demandant pleaded the first Record to estop the Tenant To which the Tenant pleaded Nul tiel Record It was the Opinion of the Court That here the Demandant cannot conclude the Tenant by that Replication to plead Nul tiel Record For the Iudgment is reversed and so no Record and it cannot be certified a Record But if the Tenant had taken Issue upon the plea of the Tenant absque hoc that he was ready the same might well have been given in Evidence against the Tenant Note That the Case was That the Demandant after the death of her Husband entred into the Land in Demand and continued the possession of it 5 years and afterwards the Heir entred upon which she brought Dower It was agreed in that Case That the Tenant needed not to plead Tout temps prist after his re-entry for the time the Demandant had occupied the same is a sufficient recompence for the Damages LXXVI Vavasors Case Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NIcholas Ellis seised in Fee of the Mannor of Woodhall Leased the same to William Vavasor and E. his Wife for the life of the Wife the remainder to the right Heirs of the Husband The Husband made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his Wife for their lives the remainder to his right Heirs The Husband died the Wife held the Land and did Waste in a Park parcel of the Mannor It was moved to the Court If the Writ of Waste should suppose that the Wife held ex dimissione Nicholai Ellis or ex dimissione of her Husband It was the Opinion of the Court That upon this matter the Writ should be general viz. that she held de haereditate J.S. haeredis c. without saying any more either ex dimissione hujus vel illius For she is not in by the Lessor nor by the Feoffees but by the Statute of Vses and therefore the Writ shall be ex haereditate It was also the Opinion of the Iustices That the Wife here is not remitted but that she should be in according to the Term of the Feoffment Note in this Case The Waste was assigned in destroying the Deer in the Park And Meade Serjeant conceived That Waste could not be assigned in the Deer unless the Defendant had destroyed all the Deer And of that Opinion also was Dyer Manwood said If the Lessee of a Dove-house destroyed all the old Pigeons but one or two couple the same is Waste And if a Keeper destroy so many of the Deer so as the ground is become not Parkable the same is Waste although he doth not destroy them all See 8 R. 2. Fitz. Waste 97. If there be sufficient left in a Park Pond c. it is enough LXXVII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Action upon the Case was brought against Executors They were at Issue Vpon nothing in their hands It was given in Evidence on the Plaintiffs part That a stranger was bound to the Testator in 100 l. for performance of covenants which were broken For which the Executors brought Debt upon the Obligation depending which Suit both parties submitted themselves to the Arbitrament of A. and B. who awarded That the Obligor should pay to the Executors 70 l. in full satisfaction c. and that the Executors should release c. which was done accordingly And it was agreed by the Court That by the Release it
Land therefore it is in the Land or within the Land i. e. the Mannor For the King may distrain for the Fine as well in the same Land as in the Land of him who ought to pay it Dyer doubted of it and said That the Bishop could not distrain in the Land for this Fine but should have it by allowance in the Exchequer upon the Estretes and if the party would not pay it the Lessee should have a Subpoena against him out of the Exchequer And some were of Opinion That the Lessee could not have this Fine 2 Len. 179. 4 Len. 234. for that they were not Hereditaments within the Mannor but rather in the Exchequer or Court where the Record is LXXXII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A Man seised of a Pasture in which are two great Groves and a Wood known by the name of a Wood And also in the same Pasture there are certain Hedge-Rowes and Trees there growing Sparsim Leased the same by Indenture for years And by the same Indenture bargained and sold to the Lessee all Woods and Vnderwoods in and upon the Premisses And further That it shall and may be lawful to the Lessee to cut down and carry away all the same at all times during the Term. Harper The Hedge-Rowes do not pass by these words for they are not known by the name of Woods 14 H. 8. 2. contrary by Manwood For by such words Hedge-Rowes pass Mounson contrary For the words of the Grant may be supplyed by other Words Dyer The Hedge-Rowes shall pass for the Grant is general All Woods It was moved further If by those words the Lessee might cut them a second time or but once Harper Manwood and Mounson He may cut them but once Dyer contrary And so it should be if the words had been Growing upon the Premisses And this word Growing although it sounds in the present Tense yet it shall be also taken in the future Tense if not that the word tunc had been there for that is a word of Restraint The Case was argued in the Exchequer Chamber where I was present which was The Prior of St. John's Leased a Commandry Provided That if the said Prior or any of his Brethren there being Commanders will dwell thereupon then the said Lease to be void It was doubted If that Proviso did extend to the Successors for the word Being is in the present Tense And yet by the Opinion of Fitzherbert it shall be taken in the future Tense and so extend to the Successors Otherwise if the words had been Now being LXXXIII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Made B. his Executor and died Vid. le stat 43 Eliz. cap. 8. Office of Executors 261. B. to the intent to defraud the Creditors refused to take upon him the Executorship but caused a stranger to take upon him Letters of Administration which stranger fraudulently gave the Goods of the Testator to B. Dyer If the gift be fraudulent then by the Statute of 13 Eliz. the gift is void and then B. by the Occupation of the Goods shall be charged as Executor of his own wrong Manwood I conceive there is a difference If one makes an Executor and another takes the Goods but doth no Act which concerns the Office of an Executor as paying of Debts he is not Executor of his own wrong but a Trespassor to him who is Executor in right but if he doth any Act which belongs to the Office of an Executor then he is Executor of his own wrong Dyer That Case hath been adjudged against you and although the Books of 9 E. 4. 22 H. 6. were vouched Yet Iudgment was given against the Opinion of Manwood It was the Case of one Stoke LXXXIV Jackson and Darcyes Case Mich. 16 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Writ de Partitione facienda between Jackson and Darcy the Case was Tenant in tail the remainder to the King levied a Fine had Issue and died In that case It was adjudged That the Issue was barred and yet the remainder which was in the King was not discontinued For by that Fine an Estate in Feesimple determinable upon the Estate tail did pass unto the Conusee LXXXV Strowds Case Hill. 17 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin the Case was That Lands holden of a Subject came to the possession of the King by the Statute of 1 E. 6. of Chauntries and the King granted the Lands over In that case It was holden That the Grantee shall hold the Lands of the King according to the Patent and not of the Ancient Lord But the Patentee shall pay the Rent by which the said Land was before holden as a Rent seck distrainable of Common Right to the Lord only and his Heirs scil to him of whom the said Lands were before holden LXXXVI Tresham and Robins Case Mich. 17 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. TResham brought an Action of Debt upon a Recognizance against Robins The Condition of which Recognizance was To stand to the Arbitrament of A. and B. who made Award That Robins should have the Land Yielding and paying 10 l. per annum And that Tresham in further assurance should levy a Fine to Robins of the same Land and upon that Robins should grant and render to Tresham which is done accordingly the Rent is behind Tresham brought Debt upon the Recognizance The Defendant pleaded the special matter with this per close Unde petit Judicium if the Plaintiff should have Execution against him And by the Opinion of the whole Court the Conclusion of the Plea is not good For here is not any Execution of the same Debt but an Original Action of Debt brought in which case he ought to have concluded Iudgment Si actio It was further moved If these words Yielding and paying make a Condition And it was agreed That the words do amount to as much as So as he pay the Rent And if a Man makes a Feoffment in Fee Reddendo salvendo 10 l. for years the same is a Condition But in the principal Case It is not a Condition For it is not knit to the Land by the Owner it self but by a stranger i. e. Arbitrator but it is a good Clause to make the same an Article of the Arbitrament which the parties are bound to perform upon pain of forfeiture of the Recognizance Which Wray concessit And that this Rent should not cease by Eviction of the Land. LXXXVII The Earl of Westmerlands Case Hill. 18. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Earl of Westmerland seised of a Mannor whereof the Demesnes were usually let for three Lives by Copy 2 Len. 152. 2 Brownl 208. according to the Custom of the Mannor granted a Rent-charge to Sir William Cordell pro consilio impendendo for the term of his Life and afterwards conveyed the Mannor to Sir William Clifton in tail The Rent is behind Sir William Cordell dieth Sir William Clifton dieth
former Lease determined And as to the Attornment it was given in Evidence That B. after the notice of the Grant to C. had speech with C. to have a new Lease from him because he had in his Term but 8 years to come but they could not agree upon the price And it was the Opinion of the Iustices That the same was an Attornment because he had admitted the said C. to have power to make to him a new Lease Also the said B. being in Company with one R. and seeing the said C. coming towards him said to the said R. See my Landlord meaning the said C. Bromley Sollicitor The same is no Attornment being spoken to a Stranger Barham contrary Because that C. was present And it was holden to be a good Attornment But if that Attornment was not before that the Bishop was translated to Winchester the Lease should be void And although the Confirmation of the Dean and Chapter was before the Attornment so as no Estate was vested in C. yet it was good enough For an assent of the Dean and Chapter is sufficient be it before or after as it was holden by Catline Southcote and Whiddon But Wray contrary XCI Norwich and Norwich's Case Trin. 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. HEnry Norwich was bound by Obligation to Symon Norwich upon Condition To stand to the Award of J.S. who awarded That the said Henry should pay to Symon 150 l. at such a day And that the said Henry should find 3 Sureties to be bounden with him to the said Symon for the payment of another sum of Mony to the said Symon In Debt upon this Obligation Henry pleaded As to the 150 l. payment and as to the other point That he was always ready to become bounden c. And as to the finding of Sureties he demanded Iudgment for that as to that the Arbitrament is void See 22 H. 6. 45. 17 E. 4. 5. 21 E. 4. 75. It was holden That in such a case of such Award to find Sureties the Defendant is not to find Sureties but is only to tender his Obligation And of that Opinion was the whole Court Because it was an Act to be done by a stranger to the Award But if the Award had been of an Act to be done to a stranger by him who was party to the Award then the Award had been good But if the stranger will not accept of the Monies awarded his Obligation is saved So if the Award be That one of the parties to the Award shall discontinue a Suit which he hath against another If the Court where the Action is depending will not suffer the discontinuance of it the Award is performed And in the principal Case It was ruled accordingly Note The same day another Case was in the same Court Between Dudley and Mallery The Condition was to perform an Award c. The Defendant pleaded performance of the Award The Plaintiff assigned the breach of the Award in this because the Award was That the Servant of Mallery should pay to the Servant of Dudley 5 l. which the Defendant had not paid It was the Opinion of the Court That the Bond was not forfeited for the Servants utriusque are strangers to the Submission But if the Award had been That Mallery should pay to the Servant of Dudley 5 l. it had been good for that Mallery is a party to the Submission c. XCII Rivers and Pudsey's Case Hill. 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. JOhn Rivers Alderman of London brought a Writ of Accompt against Pudsey who said That at the time c. and now he is the Plaintiffs Apprentice and demanded Iudgment c. And it was holden by Wray Iustice That it is no Plea for although an Apprentice cannot be charged by this Action for ordinary Receipts upon his Masters Trade yet upon collateral Receipts which do not concern the ordinary Trade of his Master he shall be charged as well as another See 8 E. 3. tit Acc. 94. And F.N.B. 119. XCIII Potkins Case Hill. 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN Debt upon an Obligation by Potkin The Defendant pleaded That he himself borrowed of one Watson a certain sum of Mony paying for the forbearance thereof excessive Vsury And that the Plaintiff was bound with the said Defendant to the said Watson for the payment thereof and that he himself by this Obligation upon which the Action is brought was bound to the said Plaintiff to save him harmless against the said Watson c. And because that this Bond was a Counter-Bond for the payment of Excessive Vsury c. And it was holden by Manwood That the same was a good Bar for here the Plaintiff when he was impleaded upon the principal Bond might have discharged himself upon this matter and therefore his Lachess shall turn to his prejudice and therefore the Issue was joyned upon the excessive Vsury XCIV Abrahall and Nurse's Case Hill. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. JOhn Abrahall brought a Writ of Right-Close against John Nurse in the Court of George Earl of Shrewsbury and made protestation to prosecute that Writ in the form and nature of the Writ of the Lady the Queen of Assise of Novel disseisin at the Common-Law and made his Plaint accordingly And afterwards the Assise was taken who spake for the Plaintiff Whereupon Abrahall had Iudgment to recover After which Nurse brought a Writ of False Judgment and assigned Error in this That whereas the said Writ of Right-Close was directed to the Bailiffs of George Earl of Shrewsbury of his Mannor c. that the said Bailiffs should do full Right c. that it appeareth by the Record that the Plea was holden before the Suitors and not before the Bailiffs of George Earl of Shrewsbury For all the Precepts in the Plea aforesaid are Quod sint hic ad proximam Curiam coram Sectatoribus tenend An other Error was in this and false Iudgment was given therein because that the Roll is Praeceptum est Ministro Curiae praedict that he cause to come 12 Free and lawful Men c. videre illud tenementum c. nomina eorum imbreviare c. and the Minister of the Court retorned 12 Recognitors of the Assise aforesaid whereas by the Law of the Land 24 Recognitors in a Plea of Land ought to be retorned But notwithstanding that these Exceptions were taken Yet upon due consideration of the Court notwithstanding these Exceptions the Iudgment was affirmed See the Record Mich. 17 18 Eliz. Rot. 1301. XCV The Master and Scholars of Linckfords Case Hill. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae the Case was That the Master and Scholars of Linckford were seised of the Mannor of Haldesley in the Town of Laberhurst which Town extended into the County of Sussex and also in the County of Kent and they made a Lease to one Clifford of all their Lands in the Town of Laberhurst except the Mannor of Haldesley whereas in truth
said That he promised to find meat drink and apparel for the Plaintiff and his Wife for 3 years absque hoc that he promised to find meat and drink for two servants and Pasture for two Geldings The Plaintiff Replicando said That the Defendant did promise to find c. for 3 years next following Vpon which they were at Issue and found for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That here is no Issue joyned For the Plaintiff hath declared upon a promise to find c. for 3 years when the Plaintiff will that require The Defendant hath pleaded a promise to find apparel meat and drink for the Plaintiff and his Wife for 3 years absque hoc that he promised for two servants and two Geldings and now the Plaintiff Replicando saith That the Defendant assumed for 3 years next following so here is another Assumpsit in the Replication than that whereof the Plaintiff declared and so the Plaintiff hath not joyned Issue upon the Assumpsit traversed by the Defendant and so there is no Issue joyned for the Defendant denyeth the Assumpsit whereof the Plaintiff hath declared And the Plaintiff in his Replication hath affirmed another Assumpsit than that whereof he hath declared and that is not helped by the Statute of Jeofails For it is not a mis-joyning of Issue but a not joyning of Issues and that was holden by the Court to be a material Exception And the Lord Dyer conceived That here is a Departure for the Plaintiff in his Replication hath alledged another promise than that whereof he declared Another Exception was Because that the Plaintiff had not averred in facto that he had married the Daughter of the Defendant but by an Argument Implicative Licet but that Exception was disallowed For that the word Licet is not a bare Implicative but it is an express Averment And so it was said Plow 127. it had been ruled before See 2 Mar. Plow Com. 127 128. Buckley and Thomas Case C. Hill. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Lease for years was upon Condition Dyer 45. 1 Roll. 214. 1 Len. 3. That the Lessee should not grant over the Land at Will or otherwise He devised the same to his Executors who accepted the same only as Executors and not as Devisees And yet it was the Opinion of the Iustices That the Condition was broken Because he had done as much as lay in him to have devised the Land. 2 Roll. 684. 1 Roll. 24. 9 Co. 94. Stiles Rep. 304 305 405. Hutton Rep. 27. Clayton Rep 85. 1 Len. 113. 1 Cro. 126. Owen 94. See 31 H. 8. 45. CI. Hodgson and Maynards Case Hill. 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was said by the Iustices in this Case That if an Executor promiseth to pay a Debt when he hath not Assets no Action upon the Case lyeth against him upon such promise but contrary if he hath Assets And so it was holden That if the Heir hath nothing by descent an Action upon the Case will not lie against him upon such a promise made CII Mich. 20 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Co. 3. Inst 1. Stat. 5. Eliz. 2 Len. 12. AN Action upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. of Perjury was brought by three and they declared That the Defendant being examined upon his Oath before Commissioners If a Surrender was made at such a Court of such a Mannor of a Copyhold to the use of A. and B. Two of the Defendants swore That no such Surrender was made c. Exception was taken to the Declaration because that the certainty of the Copyhold did not appear upon the Declaration For the Statute is That in that case the party grieved shall have remedy so as it ought to appear in what thing he is grieved Quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam Another Exception was taken because that the Action in such case is given to the party grieved And it appeareth upon the Declaration That the surrender in the Negative deposing of which the perjury is assigned was made to the use of two of the Plaintiffs only and then the third person is not a party grieved For he claims nothing by the surrender and therefore and because the two parties grieved have joyned with the third person not grieved It was the Opinion of Wray and Southcote Iustices That the Writ should abate CIII Mich. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Len. 263. NOte It was said by Dyer and Manwood Iustices If one be condemned in an Action upon the Case or Trespass upon Nihil dicit or Demurrer c. And a Writ issueth to enquire of the Damages and before the Retorn of the Writ the Defendant dyeth The Writ shall not abate for that For the Awarding of the said Writ is a Iudgment And Manwood said In a Writ of Accompt the Defendant is awarded to Accompt And the Defendant doth Accompt and is found in arrearages and dieth The Writ shall not abate but Iudgment shall be given That the Plaintiff shall recover and the Executor shall be charged with the Arrearages and yet Accompt doth not lie against them CIV Mich. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 52. 2 Len. 282. Post 92. IN an Action upon Escape the Plaintiff is Nonsuit It was holden by the Iustices That the Defendant in that case shall not have Costs by the Statute of 23 H. 8. Note The words in the Statute upon any Action upon the Statute for any offence or wrong personal supposed to be done immediately to the Plaintiff Notwithstanding this Action is Quodam modo an Action within the Statute scil by equity of the Statute of Westm 2. which give expresly against the Warden of the Fleet Yet properly it is not an Action upon the Statute for that in the Declaration in such Action no mention is made of the Statute Which see the Book of Entries 169 171. And also here there is not supposed any immediate personal Offence or Wrong to the Plaintiff and an Action upon the Case it is not For then the Writ ought to make mention of the Escape which it doth not here And yet at the Common Law before the Statute of Westm 2. An Action upon the Case lay upon an Escape And so by the opinion of Dyer Manwood Mounson Iustices Costs are not given in this case and Manwood said That upon Nonsuit in an Action upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. The Defendant shall not have Costs 1 Len. 282. For that the same is not a Personal Wrong For the Writ is Disseisivit which is a real tort CV Mich. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Debt upon an Obligation to perform certain Covenants in a pair of Indentures The Plaintiff assigned the breach in one of the Covenants scil That the Defendant should do all reparations of such a House demised to him And that he had not repaired but suffered the same to decay To which the Defendant said That the
Parliament 35 H. 8. it was Enacted That the said Lady should hold part of her Inheritance and dispose of the same as a Feme sole and that the Marquess should have the Residue and that he might Lease the same by himself without his Wife for 21 years or less rendring the ancient Rent being Land which had been usually demised c. The Marquess Leased for 21 years and afterwards durante Termino praedict Leased the same Land to another for 21 years to begin after the determination of the first Lease It was moved in this Case That this last Lease was void and that for 3 Causes 1. Because the Marquess had but an Estate for life and then it could not be intended that the Statute did enable one who had but such an Estate determinable to make such a Lease which peradventure might not commence in his life-time 2. The Letter of the Statute is 21 years or under and the word Under strongly expounded the meaning of the Statute to be not to extend to such an Estate For here upon the matter is a Lease for 40 years 3. Because the Land demised is the Inheritance of the Wife And in this Case it was said That in the Case of one Heydon such a private Act was strictly construed which was That it was Enacted That all Copies for 3 Lives granted by the Lord Admiral of the Lands of his Wife should be good The Admiral granted Leases in Reversion for 3 Lives And it was holden That that Grant was not warranted by the Statute Dyer said The words are general Omnes dimissiones and therefore not to be restrained unto special Leases scil to Leases in possession Manwood said A Feme Covert by duresse joyns in a Lease with her Husband the same shall bind her CXI The Queen and Sir John Constables Case Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 5 Co. Constables Case A Quo Warranto was brought by the Queen against Sir John Constable who claimed certain Wreck in the County of York The Defendant pleaded That Edward Duke of Buck. was seised of such a Mannor to which he had Wreck appendant and that he was de alta proditione debito modo attinctus and that found before the Escheator And shewed further That the said Mannor descended to Queen Mary who granted the same to the Earl of Westmerland who granted the same to the Defendant Vpon which It was demurred And Exception was taken to the Plea because the Attainder is not fully and certainly pleaded It was argued by Plowden That the Attainder was certainly pleaded scil debito modo attinctus And it is shewed That the Wreck is appendant to the Mannor and then if the Defendant hath the Mannor he hath the Wreck also and if he hath the Mannor it is not material as to the Queen how he hath it for the Queen doth not claim the same but impeacheth the Defendant for using there such a Liberty But if the Heir of the said Duke had demanded the Mannor there against him the Attainder ought to have been pleaded certainly And it was said by him That the Interest of the Queen in the Sea extends unto the midst of the Sea betwixt England and Spain But the Queen hath the whole Iurisdiction of the Sea between England and France because she is Queen of England France c. And so it is of Ireland CXII Hill. 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant for life made a Feoffment of White-Acre of which he was seised for life and made a Letter of Attorny to deliver Livery and Seisin secundum formam Chartae before Livery the Tenant purchased the Fee and afterwards Livery was made It was resolved by the Court in this Case That all passed But if the Feoffment had been of all his Lands in D. and the Letter of Attorny accordingly and before Livery made the Feoffee had many Lands there If he purchased one Acre after the Livery should not extend to that Acre because the Authority was satisfied by the other Acre CXIII Banks and Thwaits Case Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Case was That A. had pawned an Indenture of Lease for years of a Messuage and Lands to Banks Thwaits intending to purchase the same required Banks to deliver him the said Lease and he would give Banks 10 l. whether he bought it or no at what time he would request the 10 l. Post 200. And Banks delivered the same to Thwaits accordingly Post 200. And afterwards brought an Action upon the Case and declared upon the whole matter and concluded Licet saepius requisitus c. without alledging a request express in certain and the day and place of it It was said by Cook That here the monies did not grow due before Request nor is payable before Request and therefore a Request ought to be made in facto And so he said It was ruled in this Court in an Action upon the Case betwixt Palmer and Burroughs and he said that the Mony was not due by the Promise but by the Request And it was the Opinion of the whole Court That although it be a duty Yet it is not a duty payable before Request And the Request makes a Title to the Action But if A. selleth to B. a Horse for 10 l. there is a Contract and a Request in facto need not be layed And the Opinion of the Court was also That upon this matter the Plaintiff could not have an Action of Debt for there is not any Contract for the thing is not sold but it is a Collateral promise grounded upon the delivery And by Clench Here the Request is traversable And afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff And it was said It was so ruled in Alderman Pullisons Case in the Exchequer Post 201. CXIV Segar and Boyntons Case Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 156. IN Trespass the Case was this King Henry the 8th Anno 27 of his Reign gave the Mannor of D. to Sir Edward Boynton Knight and to the Heirs Males of his body Sir Edward Boynton had Issue Andrew his eldest Son and C. the Defendant his younger Son and died Andrew Boynton Covenanted by Indenture with the Lord Seymore that the said Andrew Boynton would assure the said Mannor to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the said Lord and his Heirs The said Lord Seymore in recompence thereof should assure other Lands to the use of himself for life the remainder to the use of the said Andrew Boynton in tail who 37 H. 8. levyed a Fine of the said Mannor without proclamations to two strangers to the uses according to the said Agreement and before any Assurance made by the said Lord The said Lord was Attainted of Treason and all his Lands were forfeited to the King And afterwards the said Andrew Boynton made a Suggestion to Queen Mary of the whole matter and upon his humble Petition the said
he conceived That this Clause ex uberiori gratia did extend to pass more than passed before For he conceived That the Queen intended more liberally viz. the Reversion For this is not any matter of Prerogative but the same is a matter of Interest which might also in the Kings Case pass out of the King by general words See 3 H. 7. 6 7 Br. Patents 48. A Grant of the King ex insinuatione doth not hinder the force of the words ex mero motu And it was the Opinion of the whole Court That the Reversion which was in the King did not pass by that Grant For the whole scope of the Patent was as he conceived to grant only that which the King had then ratione attincturae Anderson conceived the Patent insufficient because the Petition was not full and certain Also he said That ex speciali gratia c. would not help this Case For the Estate tail is not recited but only that he was seised de Statu haereditario c. so the Queen was deceived c. Periam contrary The Queen was advised of the Mischief and granted such Estate with which he parted by the Fine And as to the other Point Walmesley conceived That the Fine with proclamations should bind the tail And as to the Objection which hath been made That the Conusor at the time of the Fine levied was not seised by force of the entail The same had been a good matter to have alledged to avoid a Common Recovery in the Tenant to the Praecipe but not to this purpose For if there be Tenant in tail and he levieth a Fine although he was not seised at the time of the Fine levied by force of the entail yet such a Fine shall bind the issue So if Tenant in tail discontinueth and disseiseth the Discontinuee and so levies a Fine And he conceived That the issue in tail is bound by the Statute of 4 H. 7. even of the Gift of the King. See 19 H. 8. 6 7. Where it is holden That the Issue in tail is bound by the Statute of 4 H. 7. And where it hath been Objected That it doth not extend but to such Fines which make Discontinuance at the Common Law The same is not so For if Tenant in tail of a Rent or Common levieth a Fine with proclamations it is clear that the issues shall be barred by it And he much relyed upon 29 H. 8. Dyer 32. Tenant in tail of the Gift of the King levieth a Fine or suffereth a Common Recovery although it be not a Discontinuance because that the Reversion is in the King yet it is a bar unto the Issue But Note That that was before the Statute of 34 H. 8. See Wisemans Case 27 Eliz. Cook 2 Part. And see the Lord Staffords Case 7 Jac. Cook 8 Part 78. CXV Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Man seised of Lands called Hayes 3 Cro. 674. 2 Cro. 21 22 which extended into two Towns A and B. Devised Hayes-Land in A. to his Wife for life and after to his Son and if the Son die without issue then Hayes-Land shall remain to his 3 Daughters c. The Son died without issue It was the Opinion of Anderson and Periam Iustices That all Hayes-Land should not pass by the said Devise but only that which was in A. CXVI Henry and Brode's Case Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action of Trespass the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant simul cum J. S. and another Clausum suum fregit 1 Len. 41. And Exception was taken to it because here it appeareth upon the Plaintiffs own shewing That the Trespass whereof c. was made by the Defendant and another and therefore the Writ brought against Brode only was not good But if it had been simul cum aliis ignotis personis It had been good enough But here the Plaintiff hath confessed another person trespassor with the Defendant See 2 H. 7. 15. 8 H. 5 5. 14 H. 4. 22. Yet afterwards in the principal Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXVII Barker and Taylers Case Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 3 Co. Sir George Browns Case THe Case was A Woman Tenant in tail within the Statute of 11 H. 7. accepted a Fine Sur Conusans de droit come ceo c. and by the same Fine rendred the Land to the Conusor for 1000 years It was moved If this Conveyance and Disposition was within the penalty of the Statute For the Statute speaks of Discontinuances c. And it was the clear Opinion of the Court That the same is within the Statute for by such practice the meaning of the Statute might be defeated And if such Render for a 100 years should be good by the same reason for 1000 years which is as great a mischief and as dangerous to those in Reversion as Discontinuances And by Rhodes Iustice It hath been adjudged That if a Woman who hath title of Dower if before she be endowed she will enter and levy a Fine the same is within the said Statute and yet she is not Tenant in Dower See 5 Mar. Dyer 148. Penicocks Case And 36 Eliz. Cook 5 Part. Sir George Brown's Case CXVIII Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 221. Ante 9. A By his last Will willed That his Lands should descend to his Son but willed That his Wife should take the profits thereof untill the full age of his said Son of 21 years to maintain and bring him up and died The Wife took Husband and died during the nonage of the Son It was the opinion of Wray and Southcote Iustice That the second Husband should not have the profits until c. For nothing is devised to the Wife but a Confidence and she is as a Guardian or Bailiff to aid the Enfant which by her death is determined and cannot accrue to the Husband But if the Husband had devised the profits of the Land to the Wife until the age of the Enfant for to bring up and educate Ut supra Wray said The same amounted to a devise of the Land and so a Chattel in the Wife which should accrue to the Husband CXIX Stamps Case Mich. 24 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was John Stampe being possessed of a Term for years granted the same to Thomas Stampe his Brother 12 May 20 Eliz. And afterwards 8 Octob. 21 Eliz. he himself being in possession of it Mortgaged the same to one P. who suffered him to continue his possession Thomas Stampe granted his Estate to John Stampe who mortgaged the same to one G. who suffered the said John Stampe to continue in possession until 10 December 22 Eliz. G. entred John Stampe came to the said P. and requested him that he would grant all his Estate to B. and C. to whom the said John Stampe was endebted for security of their Monies To whom the said P. said That if he would find
confirms it is a void Confirmation And 7 E. 6. Br. Grants 154. A Man possessed of a Lease for 40 years grants so many of the said years which shall be to come at the time of his death it is a void Grant for the incertainty Afterwards Shuttleworth moved another point viz. The Plaintiff hath declared of a Trespass done 1 Januarii 23 Eliz. The Defendant shews in Evidence a Lease for years to him made 14 Januarii the same year which is 13 days after the Trespass whereof the Plaintiff hath declared and it shall not be intended that the Plaintiff had another Title than that which he hath alledged and forasmuch as he hath not disclosed in himself any Title Tempore transgressionis the Plaintiff should punish him in respect of his first possession without any other Title And although it may be Objected That where the Defendant hath given in Evidence That Williamson leased to the Defendant that is not sufficient and the words subsequent 14 Januarii are void as a nugation and matter of surplusage Truly the Law is contrary for rather those words ante Transgressionem shall be void because too general and shall give way to the subsequent words after the videlicet because they are special and certain As the Case late adjudged The Archbishop of Canterbury leased three parcels of Land rendring Rent of 8 l. per annum viz. for one parcel 5 l. for another 50 s. and for the third 40 which amounts to 9 l. 10 s. It was adjudged That the videlicet and the words subsequent concerning the special reservation of the Rent was utterly void because contrary to the premisses which were certain viz. 8 l. and that the Fermor should pay but 8 l. according to the general reservation but in our case the words precedent are general i. e. ante Transgressionem and therefore the words subsequent which are special and certain shall be taken and the general words rejected As in Trespass the Defendant pleads That A. was seised of the Land where and held it of the Defendant and that the said A. 1 die Maii 6 Eliz. aliened the said Land in Mortmain for which he within a year after viz. 4 Maii Anno 7 Eliz. entred now the same is no bar for upon the evidence it appeareth that the Lord hath surceased his time and the words within the year shall not help him for they are too general and therefore at the subsequent words viz. c. Cook on the Defendants part took Exception For it appeareth here upon the Evidence of the Defendant which is confessed by the Demurrer of the Plaintiff That upon this matter the Plaintiff cannot punish the Defendant for this Trespass for he was not an immediate Trespassor to the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff hath declared upon a Trespass done 1 Januarii 23 Eliz. And it is given in Evidence on the part of the Defendant and confessed by the Plaintiff c. That 22 Eliz. Cordell Savell levied a Fine to Williamson by force of which the said Williamson entred and was seised and so seised 14 Januarii 23 Eliz. leased to the Defendant Now upon this matter the Plaintiff cannot have Trespass but the Defendant for Williamson was the immediate Trespassor to him for he entred 22 Eliz. And at length after deliberation had of the premisses by the Court The Court moved the Plaintiff to discontinue his suit and to bring de novo a new Action in which the matter in Law might come into Iudgment without any other Exception But the Plaintiff would not agree to it Wherefore it was said by Wray Chief Iustice with the consent of his Companions Begin again at your peril for we are all agreed That you cannot have Judgment upon this Action CXXVI Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was A. made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of his younger Son in tail and after to the use of the Heirs of his body in posterum procreand and at the time of the Feoffment he had Issue two Sons and after the Feoffment had Issue a third Son The younger Son died without Issue Vpon a Motion at the Bar it was said by Wray Iustice That after the death without Issue of the second Son the Land should go to the third Son born after the Feoffment for this word in posterum is a forcible word to create a special Inheritance without that it had been a general tail CXXVII Smith and Smith's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LAmber Smith Executor of Tho. Smith brought an Action upon the Case against John Smith That whereas the Testator having divers Children Enfants and lying sick of a mortal sickness being careful to provide for his said Children Enfants The Defendant in Consideration the Testator would commit the Education of his Children and the disposition of his Goods after his death during the minority of his said Children for the Education of the said Children to him promised to the Testator to procure the assurance of certain Customary Lands to one of the Children of the said Testator And declared further That the Testator thereupon Constituted the Defendant Overseer of his Will and Ordained and appointed by his Will That his Goods should be in the disposition of the Defendant and that the Testator died and that by reason of that Will the Goods of the Testator to such a value came to the Defendants hands to his great profit and advantage And upon Non Assumpsit pleaded It was found for the Plaintiff And upon Exception to the Declaration in Arrest of Iudgment for want of sufficient Consideration It was said dy Wray Chief Iustice That here is not any benefit to the Defendant that should be a Consideration in Law to induce him to make this promise For the Consideration is no other but to have the disposition of the Goods of the Testator pro educatione Liberorum For all the disposition is for the profit of the Children and notwithstanding That such Overseers commonly make gain of such disposition yet the same is against the intendment of the Law which presumes every Man to be true and faithful if the contrary be not shewed and therefore the Law shall intend That the Defendant hath not made any private gain to himself but that he hath disposed of the Goods of the Testator to the use and benefit of his Children according to the Trust reposed in him Which Ayliffe Iustice granted Gawdy Iustice was of the contrary Opinion And afterwards by Award of the Court It was That the Plaintiff Nihil Capiat per Billam CXXVIII Amner and Luddington's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. Rot. 495. In the Kings Bench. A Writ of Error was brought in the Kings Bench by Amner against Luddington Mich. 26 Eliz. Rot. 495. 2 Len. 92. 8 Co. 96. And the Case was That one Weldon was seised and leased to one Peerepoint for 99 years who devised the same by his Will in this manner viz. I Bequeath to my Wife the
That the Defendant should answer over CXXXVI Hering and Badlock's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 80. IN a Replevin the Defendant avowed for Damage-feasant and shewed That the Lady Jermingham was seised of such a Mannor whereof the place where c. and leased the same to the Defendant for years The Plaintiff said That long time before King Henry 8th was seised of the said Mannor and that the place where c. is parcel of the said Mannor Demised and Demiseable by Copy c. and that the said King by such a one his Steward demised and granted the said parcel to the Ancestor of the Plaintiff whose Heir he is by Copy in Fee c. And upon that there was a Demurrer because by this Bar to the Avowry the Lease set forth in the Avowry is not answered for the Plaintiff in Bar to the Avowry ought to have concluded and so was he seised by the Custom until the Avowant praetextu of the said Term for years entred c. And so it was adjudged CXXXVII Rosse's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Ante 83. IN Trespass brought by Rosse for breaking of his Close and beating of his Servant and carrying away of his Goods Vpon Not guilty pleaded the Iury found this special matter scil That Sir Thomas Bromley Chancellor of England was seised of the Land where c. and leased the same to the Plaintiff and one A. which A. assigned his moyety to Cavendish by whose Commandment the Defendant entred It was moved That that Tenancy in Common betwixt the Plaintiff and him in whose right the Defendant justifies could not be given in Evidence and so it could not be found by Verdict but it ought to have been pleaded at the beginning But the whole Court were clear of another Opinion and that the same might be given in Evidence well enough It was further moved against the Verdict That the same did not extend to all the points in the Declaration but only to the breaking of the Close without enquiry of the battery c. And for that cause it was clearly holden by the Court That the Verdict was void And a Venire facias de novo was awarded CXXXVIII Gurney and Saers Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Ejectione firmae was brought by Gurney against Saer who pleaded That Verney was seised and leased the same to Baker for 21 years 8 Eliz. Baker 14 Eliz. assigned his Interest to Rolls who 15 Eliz. leased the same to Topp for 10 years and afterwards Rolls granted the residue of his Term to A. Verney 16 Eliz. leased the same Land to Stephen Gurney for 21 years to begin after the determination surrender or forfeiture of the first Lease rendring Rent with Clause of Re-entry And afterwards Verney granted over the Reversion in Fee to Hampden To which Grant A. and Topp attorned Topp leased to B. at Will A. and Topp surrendred B. held himself in by force of the Tenancy at Will And the said Surrender was made privily and secretly without the notice of the said Stephen Gurney The Rent reserved upon the Lease made to Stephen Gurney is demanded as now begun by the said Surrender Hampden entred as for the Condition broken for the non-payment of the said Rent And the Lease made to the said Stephen Gurney was pleaded Quod praedictus Johannes Verney per Indenturam suam sigillo ipsius Stephani Gurney sigillat demisit c. And that was holden a material Exception For here upon the matter doth not appear any Lease made by Verney For here upon the pleading it appeareth That Verney had accepted a Deed of Gurney purporting a Demise by Verney to Gurney which Gurney had sealed but there did not appear any such Deed sealed by Verney and therefore no Lease ut supra And although a Condition may be pleaded by Indenture sealed with the seal of the other party yet a Conveyance cannot be pleaded by Deed as it is here unless sealed with the seal of the party Agent scil the Feoffor Grantor Lessor And for that cause Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Another Exception was taken because that after the Grant of the Reversion by Verney to Hampden the surrender of A. and Topp is pleaded whereas A. ought not to surrender for his Estate was not a Reversion for years but a Lease in Reversion and a Lease for years to begin at a day to come which could not be surrendred See 4 H. 7. 10. But if A. had granted his Interest by way of Reversion where Attornment had been as one Releaseth to him the Reversion for years it is good contrary to him who hath a Lease in Reversion But as to that it was said by the Court That this surrender by A. was good enough for in as much as the Interest which A. had at the time of the surrender was in Rolls a Reversion after his Grant to Topp and there it remained and continued in its nature as to that point notwithstanding that by the Grant it passed in another manner than as a Reversion Another Exception was taken because that in the pleading of the Surrender it is not alledged That at the time of the Surrender Hampden was seised of the Reversion 7 E. 3. 3. He who claims by Cestuy que use ought to alledge the Seisin and Continuance of Seisin to the said use at the time of the Feoffment or Grant notwithstanding that Seisin was alledged before And 10 H. 7. 28. Hewbade's Avowry he there pleaded That A. was seised of a Mannor and thereof levied a Fine to B. that C. the Tenant upon whom the Avowry was made attorned c. And Exception taken because it is not shewed in the Avowry That B. the Conusee was seised of the Mannor at the time of the Attornment And it was holden a good Exception On the other side it was said and affirmed by the Court That in all Cases where an Inheritance is once alledged in a Man the Law shall presume the Continuance of it there until the contrary be shewed See 1 Eliz. the Case between Wrotesley and Adams Plow Com. 193. And 15 Eliz. between Smith and Stapleton Plow 431. Which Wray and Gawdy Iustices granted Ayliff Iustice to the contrary Another point was moved If upon this secret Surrender notice ought to have been given to Gurney who had an Interest for years to begin upon the said Surrender For some conceived That Gurney without notice given him of the said Surrender should not be prejudiced by the Condition aforesaid And of that Opinion clearly was Wray Chief Iustice Note In this Case That Saer the Defendant presently after the Iudgment entred cast in a Writ of Error into the Court and assigned an Error in fact scil That Gurney the Plaintiff in the first Action within age appeared by Attorny whereas he ought by Gardein or Prochein Amy. And it was the Opinion of the Iustices upon the first Motion
he might be disseised But because the words of the Indictment were Expulit disseisivit which could not be true if the party expelled and disseised had not Freehold the Exception was disallowed Another Exception was taken to the Indictment For these words In unum tenementum intravit and this word Tenementum is too general and an uncertain word and therefore as to that the party was discharged But the Indictment was further In unum Tenementum decem acras terrae eidem pertinent And therefore as to the 10 Acres the party was enforced to Answer CL. Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Granted to B. a Rent-charge out of his Lands to begin when J.S. died without Issue of his body J.S. died having Issue which Issue died without Issue Dyer said The Grant shall not take effect For J.S. at the time of his death had Issue and therefore then the Grant shall not begin and if not then then not at all And by Manwood If the words had been To begin when J.S. is dead without Issue of his body then such a Grant should take effect when the Issue of J.S. dieth without Issue c. Dyer If the Donee in tail hath Issue and dieth without Issue The Formedon in Reverter shall suppose that the Donee himself died without Issue For there is an Interest and there is a difference betwixt an Interest and a Limitation For if I give Lands to A. and B. for the Term of their lives if any of them dieth the Survivor shall have the whole But if I give Lands to A. for the life of B. and C. now if B. or C. die all the Estate is determined because but a Limitation and B. and C. had not any Interest See Cook 5 Part Bradnell's Case CLI Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Enfeoffed B. upon Condition That if he pay 10. l. to the Feoffee his Executors or Assigns 4 Len. 232. 1 Len. 285 286. Hill. 12. Car. 2 B.R. Goodyer and Clarks Case within 3 yeares next ensuing that then it should be lawful for him and his Heirs to re-enter The Feoffee hath Issue two Sons whom he makes his Executors and dieth before the day of payment The Ordinary commits â—etters of Administration to J.S. during the minority of the Executors Manwood conceived That it is a most sure way for A. to pay the Monies to the Executors for they remain Executors notwithstanding the Administration committed to another For the Administrator in such case is but as Bailiff or Receivor to the Executors and shall be accomptable to them Which Harper and Dyer Concesserunt And Manwood said If in this Case the Monies be paid to one of the Executors it is sufficient and the same well paid but that Conditional Feoffments are as a Sum in gross and not in nature of a Debt Which the rest of the Iustices granted CLII. Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seised of a Mannor seased the same for years rendring Rent with Clause of re-entry and afterwards levied a Fine Sur Conusans de Droit to the use of himself and his Heirs The Rent being demanded is behind Dyer A. cannot re-enter for although in right the Rent passeth without Attornment yet he is without remedy for it is without Attornment and it would be hard without Attornment to re-enter c. It was moved further If here the Conusor be Assignee within the Statute of 32 H. 8. Manwood The Reversion of a Termor is granted by Fine there wants privity for an Action of Debt Waste and Re-entry But if the Conusee dieth without Heir although that in right it was in the Conusee yet the Lord by Escheat shall make Avowry and yet the Conusee by whom he claimeth could not And in the Case at Bar the Conusee himself could not but the Conusor being Cestuy que use who is in by the Act of Law 1 Inst 309. shall avow and shall re-enter without Attornment For the Conusor is in by the Statute of 27 H. 8. Harper The Heir of the Conusee shall avow and re-enter before Attornment Dyer 13 H. 4. The Father leaseth for years rendring Rent with Clause of re-entry the Father demands the Rent which is not paid the Father dieth the Son cannot re-enter For the Rent doth not belong unto him And therefore in the Case at Bar the Conusee cannot avow for the Rent before Attornment therefore not re-enter CLIII Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT is Enacted by the Statute of 5 Eliz. Cap. 8. That no person shall cut down any Oak Trees but between the first day of April and the last day of June but Timber imployed and bestowed in or about Buildings or Reparations of Houses c. And upon an Information upon that Statute the Defendant pleaded That he cut down the said Oak Trees and thereof made Laths to be bestowed in building and that he had sold them to J.S. who had imployed part of them in building and is imploying the residue in the same manner Windham The intent of the Defendant in cutting down the Oaks was not to have them imployed in building but to sell them Although it is not necessary for the satisfaction of that Statute that the Oaks presently after the cutting be imployed about building For if the Lessee of a Messuage who is to have House-bote seeing that his Messuage will want reparation cutteth down a Tree for such intent although there be not such urgent occasion at present that it ought to be presently repaired the same shall not be said Trespass for it is good Husbandry to have such Timber to be seasonable which cannot be without some reasonable time between the cutting down and the imployment Periam If at the time of the cutting the Vendor or Vendee had an intent to employ them about building it is good enough And it is a strong Case here because the Defendant imploys the Timber himself in Laths which is not of any use but for building and cannot be made but of Timber CLIV. Eve and Finch's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. PEter Eve and John Finch brought an Action of Trespass against Nathaniel Tracy and Margaret his Wife and upon the pleading the Case was that John Finch Father of J.F. the Plaintiff seised of the Mannor of St. Katherines held the same of the Queen by Knight service in Chief and was also seised of the Land where the Trespass was done being holden in Socage and so seised 6 Junij 20 Eliz. for the preferment of the said Margaret then his Wife enfeoffed of the said Mannor A. and B. unto the use of himself and the said Margaret and their Heirs And that the said John the Father had not any other Land but that before mentioned and that the said Mannor at the time of the said Feoffment and at the death of the said John the Father attingebat ad duas partes of all the Lands and Tenements of the said
and that was 31 years as if I make a Lease during the Term that J. S. hath in the Mannor of D. and J. S. hath 40 years in it now although that J S. surrendreth or forfeiteth it yet he shall hold over but he shall have it for 40 years for my Lease refers to the time and not to the estate In the like manner here G. cannot have the same Term which J. had nor for 31 years after the death of J. but so much of the said 31 years shall be cut off in the interrest of it as J. had enjoyed it and G. shall have as many years as J. hath left and G. shall perform so much of my Will as J. at his death within the Term aforesaid shall not have performed As if I Lease my Land to one until he hath levied 100 l. and if he dieth before that he hath levied it then J. S. shall have such Term for the levying of it the first Lessee levieth 50 l. and dieth J. S. may levy the residue but not the whole And although that the Iury saith that if the Term be extinct then they find for the Defendant although that it be extinct yet they are not to take Conusance what the Law is thereupon but that is the Office of the Iudges As 13 E. 3. the Iury found that the Son was born during the Elopement and so Bastard that Conclusion of the Verdict is not to the purpose but the Court ought to judge upon the premises of the Verdict If upon the birth during the Elopement the party be Bastard or not And afterwards Manwood with the assent of his Companions the Barons Commanded That Iudgment should be entred for the Plaintiff Which was done accordingly CLX The Bishop of Bristow's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Exchequer NOte It was holden by Manwood Chief Baron in this Case That if a Lease be made for years rendring Rent 1 Cro. 398. More Rep. 891. with Clause of Distress And afterwards the Rent and Reversion are extended upon a Statute or seised into the Kings hands for Debt if the Lessee payeth the Rent according to the Extent the same is not in any danger of the Condition for that now the Lessee is compellable to pay it according to the Extent CLXI Hill. 26 Eliz. In the Exchequer THe Queen by her Letters Patents granted to J. S. catalla Utlagatorum Felonum de se within such a Precinct More Rep. 126 127. One who was endebted unto the Queen is felo de se within the Precinct It was the Opinion of all the Barons and so Ruled That notwithstanding the Grant by the said Letters Patents That the Queen should have the Goods for to satisfie her Debt CLXII Tuker and Norton's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was An Infant being in Execution upon a Condemnation in Debt brought a Writ of Error His Father and his Brother was his Bail It was the Opinion of the Iustices That they two only should enter into the Recognizance That the Enfant shall appear and that if the Iudgment be affirmed that they shall pay the Mony and not that they shall render the Body of the Enfant again to Prison for that when once he is discharged of the Execution he shall never be in Execution again CLXIII Marsh and Jones's Case Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 117. IN a Replevin the Case upon the Evidence was That before the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum A Man made a Feoffment in Fee to hold of him by the services Solvend post quamlibet vacationem sive alienationem the value of the annual profits of the Lands c. It was holden by the Court That value shall be intended which at the time of the Feoffment was the value and not as it is now improved by success of time CLXIV Annesley and Johnsons's Case Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione Firme upon Evidence the Case was That Roger Wake was seised c. and before 27 H. 8. enfeoffed certain persons to his use c. and they being so seised to the use aforesaid The said Roger by his Will willed That his Feoffees and Executors should found a Chauntry in perpetuity and a Priest there to say Mass pro anim ' c. and that they procure a Licence to alien in Mortmain and also an Incorporation for such Chauntry Priory And that the said Lands should be conveyed to such a Priest c. And also that every such Priest should be School-Master there And that post dictam Cantariam sic fundatam stabilitam the said Priest should say Mass c. Roger Wake died The Feoffees and Executors did not procure any Corporation or Licence to alien in Mortmain nor make any estate to the Chauntry Priest But the appointing a Priest who said Mass according to the Will of the said Roger and was also a School-Master and took the profits of the said Lands as owner of them and died After which one Vere was appointed to be School-Master there but he was meerly a Lay-person and so continued until his death and took the profits of the Land And upon part of the Land he built a House and there dwelt and kept a School And after his death one Curtis was appointed by the Executors to teach there and he was a Lay-man and there taught many years and afterwards he took Orders and became a Priest and said Mass and other Divine Service and continued School-Master also And 26 H. 8. the same was presented for a Chauntry for First-Fruits and first-fruits were paid for it as appeared by a Particular which was shewed in Evidence And also 2 E. 6. it was presented for a Chauntry and the possessions of it seised into the Kings hands And it was much insisted upon That Vere being a meer Lay-man that the same was a forcible Interruption of the Reputation of the Chauntry But it was the Opinion of the whole Court to the contrary And that notwithstanding That no Corporation was obtained yet because that the Priest was appointed by colour of the Will and he said Mass according to the Will although Vere who succeeded him was a meer Lay-man and not a Priest yet afterwards when Curtis came being appointed but a School-Master being also a meer Lay-man yet afterwards when he took upon him Orders and demeaned himself as a Chauntry Priest there ratione institutionis by the Will of Wake which is confirmed by the Certificate and also by the Presentment The first Reputation is revived and the Law shall not construe That Curtis took the profits in the Quality of a School-Master but as a Priest for the Law hath respect to the Will of the said Wake which was the ground of all these proceedings and that although he did not say Mass within 5 years before the Statute of 1 E. 6. And Note That the Certificate of 26 H. 8. was That Rich. Curtis was
to all Quietness seeking all means to disquiet his Neighbors and hath used himself as a Lawless person and having Process to serve upon one in the Parish viz. the Parson did keep the Process and would not serve it but on the Sabbath day in the time of Divine Service not having regard to her Majesties Laws or the Quiet of his Neighbours Vpon which Bill the Iustices to whom it was exhibited awarded Process against the Plaintiff to find Sureties for his good behaviour It was the Opinion of the Iustices That upon this matter an Action would not lie CLXXVII Mason's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. MAson Leased certain Lands to one R. for years and afterwards leased the same Lands to one Tinter for years Tinter Covenanted with the Defendant That if the said R. should sue the said Mason by reason of the later Lease that then he would discharge or keep harmless without damage the said Mason and also would pay to him all the Charges which he should sustain by reason of any suit to be brought against the said R. in respect of the said former Lease And Mason by the same Indenture Covenanted with Tinter That the said Land demised should continue to the said Tinter discharged of former Charges Bargains and Incumbrances And now upon the second Covenant Tinter brought an Action of Covenant and shewed That the said R. had sued him in an Action of Ejectione Firme upon the said first Lease and had recovered against him c. And Mason pleaded in Bar the said second Covenant intending that by that later Covenant the Plaintiff had notice of the said former Lease made unto R. so as the first Lease shall be excepted out of the Covenants of former Grants for otherwise there should be circuity of Action But the Opinion of the whole Court was to the contrary For the Covenant of Mason shall go to the discharge of the Land but the Covenant of Tinter only to the possession CLXXVIII Knight and Beeches Case Pasch 27 Eliz. Rott 1127. In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 173. Coke 5. Rep. 55. 1 Len. 12. 2 Len. 134. WIlliam Knight brought Ejectione Firme against William Beech. The Case was That the Prior of St. Johns of Jerusalem 29. H. 8. with the assent of his Covent leased by Indenture divers Houses in Clarken-well in the County of Middlesex for fifty years to one Cordel rendring Rent 5 l. 10 s. and 11 d. at four Feasts of the year usual in the City of London viz. for such a Messuage called The High-House 14 s. for another House 3 s. 11 d. for another House xx s. c. Et si contingat dictum annualem redditum 5 l. 10 s. 11 d. a retro fore in parte vel in toto ultra aut post aliquem terminum solutionis in quo solvi deberet per spatium trium mensium c. quod tunc ad omnia tempora deinceps ad libitum c. liceret dicto Priori Successoribus suis omni tali personae personis quam vel quas dictus Prior Successores sui nominarent appunctuarent sine scripto in omnia dicta tenementa totaliter re-entrare c. And afterwards 32 H. 8. the said Hospital of St. Johns was dissolved and the possessions of it granted to the said King and afterwards the said King 36 H. 8. gave the said House upon which the said Rent of 20 s. was reserved to one Audley c. in Fee And afterwards the now Queen being seised of the residue a Commission issued out of the Exchequer bearing Date 8 Maii 23 Eliz. Ad inquirendum Utrum the Defendant to whom the Interest of the said term did appertain perimple visset performasset omnes Provisiones fact reservat in super praedict Indenturam necne Office was found before the Grant and after 25 August following the said Queen by her Letters Patents gave the said House called The High-House to Fortescue the Lessor of the Plaintiff and afterwards Tres Mich. the Commission was retorned by which it was found all as aforesaid Et quod Termini Festi Solutionis in London are Michaelmas Christmas Annunciation and Mid-summer and that at the Feast of Michaelmas such Rent was behind for the space of three Months c. It was argued in this Case by Gawdy Serjeant on the part of the Plaintiff That here are several Rents for the entire Sum by the viz. is distributed into several Portions which make several Rents and to that purpose he cited Winter's Case 14 Eliz. Dyer 308. A Lease for years is made of the Mannors of A.B. and C. rendring for the Mannor of A. xx s. and for the Mannor of B. x s. and for the Mannor of D. x s. with a Condition for the Non-payment of the said Rents or any of them or any part or parcel of them within one Month c. then a Re-entry Here are several Rents And he conceived That a Condition in the Case of the King might be apportioned For a Rent-charge and a Condition are in the King in better Condition than in a Subject for the thing may distrain for a Rent-charge in all the Lands of him who is seised of the Land out of which such a Rent is issuing and if a Rent-seck be due to the King he may distrain for the same and the King shall never demand his Rent which he hath reserved with Clause of Re-entry and it appeareth in the Register That if before the Statute of Westm 3. the King purchaseth parcel of the Land holden of him the Rent shall be apportioned which was not in the Case of a Common person and there are in the Exchequer divers Presidents to that effect scil If A. be bounden in a Recognizance to B. and afterwards enfeoffeth the King of part of his Land and C. of the other part If B. be afterwards attainted of Treason so as the said Recognizance accrueth to the King that now notwithstanding that he hath part of the Land lyable to the Recognizance he shall have Execution of the residue And see F. N. B. 266. If after the Recognizance acknowledged the Conusor enfeoffeth of certain parcels of his Lands several persons and of the Residue enfeoffeth the King that Land which is assured to the King is discharged of the Execution but the residue shall be charged So that the possession of the King doth alter the Nature of the Rent Condition and Execution Fenner Serjant Contrary And he said That this Grant before Office retorned was not good for without Office the King cannot enter multo minus his Patentee and that the King by the Grant hath interrupted the Relation of the Office As if a Man by Indenture bargaineth and selleth his Lands and afterwards makes Livery to the Bargainee and afterwards the Deed is enrolled Now the party shall not be said to be in by the Bargain and Sale but by the Livery for the Livery hath interrupted the
hath not any estate in the later Acre for the cause aforesaid Afterwards It was moved What thing passed to the second Son by that Devise And the Lord Anderson conceived That the words in the Will Usually Occupied with it did amount to as much as Land let with it and then the 60 Acres were not let with it and therefore did not pass Windham Iustice held the contrary and he said Although they do not pass by the words Occupied with it yet it shall pass to the Son by the name of Jacks or the Lands appertaining to Jacks To which Anderson mutata opinione afterwards agreed CLXXXIV Wroth and the Countess of Sussex Case Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Co. 6. Rep. 33. 1 Len. 35. 4 Len. 61. THe Case was this In Anno 4 5 of King Philip and Queen Mary A private Act of Parliament was made by which it was Enacted That the Mannor of Burnham was assured to the Countess of Sussex for her Ioynture with a Proviso in the Act That it should be lawful for the Earl of Sussex to may a Lease or Leases for 21 years and afterwards a year before the first Lease was ended he made another Lease for 21 years and this second Lease was to begin and take effect from the end of the first Lease And if this second Lease were a good Lease within the intent and meaning of the Act was the Question Popham the Queens Attorny General said That it was not 1. Because it was a Lease to begin at a day to come And 2. Because it was made before the first Lease was ended But he said It may be Objected That the Act saith Lease or Leases It is not the sense of the Act that he might make Leases in the Reversion but the sense and meaning of the Makers of the Act was That he might make Leases in possession and not Leases in futuro for if it should be so then he might make a Lease for 21 years to begin after his death which should be a great prejudice to the Countess and against the meaning of the Act which was made for her advantage The Lord Treasurer and Sir Walter Mildmay Knight have a Commission from the Queen to make Leases of the Queens Lands for 21 years because the Queen would not be troubled It was holden That by virtue of that Commission they could not make any Leases but Leases in possession only But all other Leases which did exceed the Term of 21 years and in Reversion were to pass by the hands of the Queen and her Attorny General and not by them only by virtue of their said Commission And if I grant to one power before the Statute to make Leases of my Land for 21 years he cannot make any Lease but only Leases in possession and he cannot Lease upon Lease for by the same reason that he might make one Lease to begin in futuro by the same reason he might make 20 several Leases to begin in futuro and so frustrate the Intent of the Act. It was Marshall's Case upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. of Leases to be made by Bishops The Bishop of Canturbury made a Lease to him for one and twenty years and afterwards he made a Lease unto another for 21 years to begin at the end of the first Lease And it was holden That the second Lease was void But in the great Case which was in the Exchequer-Chamber upon this Point There the second Lease was in possession and to begin presently and to run on with the other Lease and therefore it was adjudged to be good because the Land was charged with more than 21 years in the whole And if the Earl had done so here it had been a good Lease Wray Iustice said That if the second Lease had been made but two or three years before the expiration of the first Lease that then it had been utterly void but being made but 2 or 3 days or months before the expiration of the first Lease he doubted If it should be void or not The Statute of 32 H. 8. makes Leases for 21 years to be good from the day of the date thereof And a Lease was made to begin at a day to come And yet it was holden by two of the Iustices in the Court of Common Pleas That it was a good Lease And by two other Iustices of the same Court it was holden the Lease was not good And Clench Iustice said That there was no difference If it be by one Deed or by two Deeds And therefore he held That if the Earl had made a Lease for 21 years and within a year another the same had been void if it were by one Deed or two Deeds for that he did exceed his authority And he said In the principal Case If there had not been a Proviso he could not have made a Lease and therefore the Proviso which gave a power to make a Lease for 21 years should be taken strictly There was a Case of the Lord Marquess of c. that it should be lawful for him to make Leases for 21 years by a Statute And he made another Lease to begin after the end or expiration of the first Lease and it was doubted Whether it were a good Lease or not because he had not made any Lease before But if both were made by force of the Statute all held That the second Lease was void At another day the Case was argued by Daniel for the Lease in Reversion to begin at a day to come And he said That in a Statute the words alone are not to be considered but also the meaning of the parties and they are not to be severed Also he said That a Statute-Law is to be expounded by the Common-Law And by the Common-Law If one giveth power unto another to make Leases of his Lands he might make Leases in Reversion because an Authority is to be taken most beneficially for them for whose cause it was given So that if a Man grant an authority to another to make Estates of his Lands by those general words he may make Leases for years or for life Gifts in tail Feoffments or any Estates whatsoever If one gives a Commission to another to make Leases for one and twenty years of his Lands he may make a Lease in Reversion and so it was holden in the Dutchy in the Case between Alcock and Hicks Also he said That this Lease was a good Lease by the Statute-Law For the Statute of Rich. 3. gives authority to Cestuy que Use that he may make Estates in Reversion The Statute of 27 H. 8. which gives authority to the Chief Officer of the Court of Surveyors to make Leases if it had stayed there he might have made Leases in Reversion Therefore the Statute goes further and saith Proviso That he shall not make a Lease in Reversion See 19 Eliz. Dyer 357. The Statute of 35 H. 8. of Leases to be made by the Husbands
for the variance is in a thing which is matter of surplusage and so much the rather because the said A. had not another House in D. c. CLXXXVI Lucas and Picroft's Case Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was That an Assise of Novel Disseisin was brought in the County of Northampton of two Acres of Lands 2 Len. 41. and as to one Acre the Tenant pleaded a plea tryable in a Forreign County Vpon which the Assise was adjourned into the Common Pleas and from thence into the forreign County Where by Nisi prius It was found for the Plaintiff and now in the Common Pleas Snag Serjeant prayed Iudgment for the Plaintiff and cited the Book 16 H. 7. 12. Where an Assise is adjourned into the Common Pleas for difficulty of the Verdict they there may give Iudgment But all the Court held the contrary For here is another Acre of which the Title is yet to be tryed before the Iustices of Assise before the tryal of which no Iudgment shall be given for the Acre of which the Title is found And the Assise is properly depending before the Iustices of Assise before whom the Plaintiff may discontinue his Assise And it is not like to the Cases of 6 E. 4. and 8 Ass 15. Where in an Assise a Release was pleaded dated in a forreign County which was denyed Wherefore the Assise was adjourned into the Common Pleas and there found by Enquest not the Deed of the Plaintiff's Now if the Plaintiff will release his Damages he shall have Iudgment of the Freehold presently But in our Case parcel of the Land put in View remains not tryed which the Plaintiff cannot release as he may his Damages 2 Len. 199. and therefore the Court remanded the Verdict to the Iustices of Assise CLXXXVII Hare and Mellers Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Post 163. HUgh Hare of the Inner-Temple brought an Action upon the Case against Phillip Mellers and declared That the Defendant had exhibited unto the Queen a slanderous Bill against the Plaintiff charging the said Hugh to have recovered against the Defendant 400 l. by Forgery Perjury and Cosening And also that he had published the matter of the said Bill at Westm c. In this Case it was said by the Court That the exhibiting of the Bill to the Queen is not in it self any Cause of Action For the Queen is the Head and Fountain of Iustice and therefore it is lawful for all her Subjects to resort unto her ad faciendam Querimoniam But if a subject after the Bill once exhibited will divulge the matter therein comprehended to the disgrace and discredit of the person intended the same is good cause of Action And that was the Case of Sir John Conway who upon such matter recovered And as to the words themselves It was the Opinion of the Court That they are not actionable For it is not expresly shewed That the Plaintiff hath used perjury forgery c. And it may be that the Attorny or Sollicitor in the Cause hath used such indirect means not known to the Plaintiff And in such case it is true That the Plaintiff hath recovered by forgery c. and yet without reproach And by perjury he cannot recover for he cannot be sworn in his own Cause It was adjudged against the Plaintiff CLXXXVIII Moore and the Bishop of Norwich's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit by Moor against the Bishop of Norwich c. It was found for the Plaintiff and thereupon issued forth a Writ to the Bishop which was not retorned Vpon which an Alias issued forth Vpon which the Bishop retorned That after Iudgment given in the Quare Impedit the same Incumbent against whom the Action was brought was Presented Instituted and Inducted into the same Church and so the Church is full c. And if that was a good retorn It was oftentimes debated Windham cited the Case L. 5 E. 4. 115 116. A Quare Impedit against Parson Patron and Ordinary and pendant the Writ the Parson resigned and the Ordinary gave notice of it to the Patron and afterwards by Lapse the Ordinary presented the same Incumbent who resigned And afterwards the Plaintiff in the Quare Impedit had Iudgment to recovers And it was holden Because the same Incumbent is now in by a new title scil by Lapse and the same person against whom the recovery was had and that appeared to the Court he should be removed See 9 Eliz. Dyer 260. and 21 Eliz. Dyer 364. And it was said by the Lord Anderson What person soever is presented and admitted after the Action brought unless it be that the title of the Patron be paramount the title of the Plaintiff upon such Recovery he shall be removed And so in the principal case It was adjudged That the Retorn of the Bishop was not good Wherefore he was fined 10 l. and a Sicut alias awarded upon pain of 100 l. CLXXXIX Parret and Doctor Matthews Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Praemunire was brought and prosecuted by the Queens Attorny General and Parret 1 Len. 292. against Doctor Matthews Dean of Christ-Church in Oxford and others for that they procured the said Parret to be sued in the City of Oxford before the Commissary there in an Action of Trespass by Libel according to the Ecclesiastical Law In which Suit Parret pleaded his Freehold and so to the Iurisdiction of the Court and yet they proceeded there and Parret was Condemned and Imprisoned And afterward the said Suit depending the Queens Attorny withdrew his Suit for the Queen It was now moved to the Court If notwithstanding that the party Informer might proceed in his suit there See 7 E. 4. 2. the King shall have Praemunire and the party grieved his Action See Br. Praemunire 13. for by Brook None can have Praemunire but the King. Cook There is a President in the Book of Entries 427. In a Praemunire the words are Ad respondendum tam Domino Regi quam R F. and that upon the Statute of 16 R. 2. And see ibid. 429. tam Domino Regi de Contemptu praedict quam dicto A.B. de Damnis But it was holden by the whole Court That if the Queens Attorny will not ulterius prosequi the party grieved cannot maintain that Suit For the principal matter in the Praemunire is the Conviction and the putting of the party out of the Kings protection and the damages are but accessary and then the Principal being Released the damages are gone And it was also holden That the Presidents in the Book of Entries are not to be regarded For there is not any Iudgment upon any of the pleadings there CXC Archeboll and Borrell's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ARcheboll brought an Action upon the Case against Borrell and declared That the Defendant had procured one L. to bring an Appeal of the death of J.S. against
the now Plaintiff To which Endictment the now Plaintiff peaded Not guilty and upon that he was acquitted The Defendant pleaded That the now Plaintiff was endicted of the said death in the County of S. scil of the stroak and of the death of the dead in the same County To which the Plaintiff by Replication said That the said J.S. was struck in the said County of S. but died in the County of D. so as this Indictment found in the County of S. is void by the Common Law and by the Statute of 2 E. 6. the party ought to be Indicted in the County where the party died and not where the stroke was given And upon that Replication the Defendant demurred in Law. Broughton The Plaintiff ought to be barred 1. The Plaintiff was not lawfully accquitted for the proceedings are not by due process For upon the Writ of Appeal no Pledges are retorned Which see 11 H. 4. 160. Then if the Appeal was not duly sued the Plaintiff was not duly acquitted and then Conspiracy or Action upon the Case doth not lie For such suit doth not lie but where if the Plaintiff had been found guilty he should have Iudgment of life and member Which shall not be upon an insufficient Appeal 9 H. 5. 2. 2. Because it is not shewed in the Declaration If the Defendant did flie or not 3. The Declaration wants these words Falso Malitiose as they are in the Writ of Conspiracy And also it is not shewed If the Plaintiff in the Appeal be sufficient or not For if he be sufficient the Abettors shall not be enquired See Westm 2. And as to the Action it self he conceived That it doth not lie by Bill but by Originial Writ against those who are found Abettors See 2 E. 2. Fitz. Action upon the Statute 28. such suit by Writ But see 25 Eliz. It was holden Such suit doth not lie by Writ And see Book of Entries 43 44. Flemming to the contrary It needs not to be shewed That the Plaintiff found Pledges ad prosequendum For without that the Writ is good enough and although that the Writ be not well executed yet it is good For our Action is not grounded upon the Record of Appeal but at the Common Law and the Record is but Conveyance to our Action And also there needs not in the Declaration falso malitiose for they are implyed in the words Abettavit procuravit And he conceived That this Action is at the Common Law and not only upon the Statute of Westm 2. Which see Stamford 172. And see 3 E. 3. Fitz. Conspiracy 13. Conspiracy lieth upon an Endictment of Trespass as well as upon an Endictment of Felony for the Law hath provided remedy in every Case where a Man is damnified As 43 E. 3. 20. A Writ of Disceit was brought for that the Defendant by Fraud and Collusion had procured J.S. to brign a Formedon against the Plaintiff of such a Mannor by reason whereof the Plaintiff was put to great charges and holden maintainable And the Statute of West 2. is in the affirmative and therefore it doth not abridge the Common Law but the subject may take the advantage of the Common Law if he pleaseth For it may be that the Course according to the Common-Law will more avail him than that upon the Statute For upon the Statute Law If the Abettors have not any thing the party is without remedy but by the Common Law the party grieved shall have excution upon the body 13 E. 2. Conspiracy holden maintainable against one who procured one to sue an Appeal against the Plaintiff See Fitz. Conspiracy 25. Fitzh Na. Br. 98. If A. procures B. to sue an Action against me to vex and molest me an Action of Disceit lieth And as to the matter of the Endictment I conceive that it is not any bar For the Endictment is meerly void because it was found in the County where the stroke was and not in the County where the party strucken died where of right it ought to be and that by the Statute of 2 E. 6. Then if the Endictment be insufficient it is as no Endictment and then the Plea cannot excuse the Defendant Which see 20 E. 4. 6. If the Endictment be not sufficient the Appellee shall wage Battail and the Abettors shall be acquitted Vide inde 19 E. 3. Coron 444. 26 H. 8. 2. And by the Common Law the Plaintiff might at his pleasure bring an Appeal where the Plaintiff was strucken or where he died but in such case the tryal shall be by both Counties And 3 H. 7. 12. Appeal was brought in the County where the party was stricken And 44 H. 7. 18. the Appeal was brought in the County where the party died and there it is said That in an Appeal the Plaintiff may declare as if the thing were done in both Counties but the Endictment ought to be in one County only And 43 E. 3. 18. A Man strucken in one County and dieth in another County the Appeal shall be brought in the County where he died In an Action upon the Case brought in the County of Essex the Plaintiff Declared That the Defendant held certain Lands by reason of which he ought to repair a Wall in the County of Essex juxta le Thames and that the Plaintiff had Land in the County of Middlesex adjoyning to the said Wall and for want of repairing the said Wall his Land in the County of Middlesex was drowned and the Writ was allowed being brought in the County of Essex See 6 H 7. 10. Clench I conceive this Action doth not lie by the Common Law For no Writ of Conspiracy was at the Common Law before the Statute And vide F. N. B. 114. F. If the Plaintiff in an Appeal be Nonsuit Conspiracy lieth but contrary if he be acquitted for he shall have his remedy against the Abettors c. Plowden This Action lieth at the Common Law and an Endictment is no Plea in this Action and it is not grounded upon the Statute as a Conspiracy is and so it well lieth although the Abettors be not Enquired Gawdy Serjeant This is an Action by the Common Law For in all cases where one procures damages to another so as the party is put to charges an Action lieth a fortiori where the procurement extends to the danger of life And see F. N. B. 116. F. Men conspire to have a false Office found of my Lands which Office is found by such procurement Conspiracy lieth And the Statute of 2 E. 6. doth not alter the Law before for it is in the affirmative See the Statute Cap. 24. Gawdy Iustice Conceived That the Endictment did not excuse the Defendants in this Action but against those who are sworn to give Evidence for the King and not others For they may well procure an Appeal malitiously notwithstanding the Endictment Walmesley Serjeant conceived That the Action doth not lie at the Common Law For in
the 18th day Cook The Iudgment for the Queen upon an Information of Intrusion is Quod defendens de Intrusione transgressione Contemptu praedict convincatur c. And afterwards a Commission shall issue forth for to enquire of the Mean profits and there the Defendant may shew this matter in taking of the damages And if the Intrusion be at any time in the Information it is sufficient enough to have Iudgment upon it and in our Case the Continuance is laid 18 May. Egerton Sollicitor The Record warrants the Iudgment given upon it For possession laid in the Queen is sufficient to this Information And here Payn doth not answer the Queens title but traverseth the Intrusion And therefore he being found Intrudor by Verdict Iudgment ought to be given upon it For the Iury have found the Intrusion generally and specially 17 May. And that cannot be assigned for Error for it is part of the Verdict of which Error doth not lie but Attaint For if any Error was it was in the Iury and not in the Court. Which Manwood Concessit Tanfield As to the Case of Continuance of an Intrusion it is clear That every continuance ought to have a beginning for a thing which hath no beginning cannot be continued and here is not any beginning for the beginning which is laid in the Information is pretended to be 17 May and that cannot be causa qua supra Popham If an Information be brought of an Intrusion where in truth there is not any Record to prove it and the Iury find the Intrusion shall you have a Writ of Error upon it And every continuance of Intrusion is an Intrusion This Matter had been good Evidence to the Iury. Sed non habet locum hic c. CXCVI. Sir John Southwell's Case Hill. 28 Eliz. In the Exchequer SIr John Southwel of the County of Lanc. 7 July 2 Len. 132. 19 Eliz. made a Conveyance of all his Land to divers Feoffees and their Heirs upon Condition That they should find him and his Wife and so many persons in his House c. prefer his Daughters in Marriage pay his Debts c. And if there fell out at the years end upon Accompt made by the Feoffees any surplusage that then at the end of every such year they should answer such surplusage as should then remain in their hands unexpended of the Rents and Profits of his said Lands with Clause of Revocation c. Afterwards the said Conveyance being in force came the Statute of 23 Eliz. concerning Recusants Vpon which Statute the said Southwel was now Indicted And afterwards a Commission issued out of the Exchequer to the Sheriff of Lancast to enquire of the Lands of the saith Southwel And although against the said Conveyance it was given in Evidence That after that Conveyance the said Sir John Southwel had granted Trees out of the said Lands and had taken Fines and Incomes for Leases c. Yet the Iurors charged to enquire would not find That the said Sir John had any Lands c. And by special Commandment of the Queen it was referred out of the Exchequer to all the Iustices of England If the Lands of the said Sir John Southwel contained ut supra were subject to the said Statute and the penalties thereof And upon great deliberation had It was by them all Resolved and Agreed That notwithstanding that Conveyance the said Lands were lyable to the said Statute And as to the Iurors which against their Evidence given unto them for the Qeeen gav their Verdict ut supra process was awarded against them out of the said Court for to appear before the Lord Treasurer and the Barons of the Exchequer And for their said Contempt they were committed to the Fleet and each of them fined 20 l. CXCVII Hill. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Writ of Entry Sur Disseisin The Tenant said That the House in demand is within the City of London and that the said City is antiqua Civitas And that King Hen. 3. Concessit civibus Civitatis praedict quod non implacitentur de Terris Tenementis suis c. extra muros Civitatis praedict And further said That he himself is Civis London c. and demanded Iudgment of the Writ Note in the pleading before the Tenant said illis rectum teneatur intra Civitatem praedictam secundum Consuetudinem Civitatis praedict And to this Plea Exception was taken because that the Tenant doth not shew before whom by their Custom they ought to be impleaded It was the Opinion of the whole Court That the Tenant ought to have shewed That the Citizens for their Lands ought to be impleaded in the Hustings c. And the general words in the plea scil Sed illis rectum teneatur intra Civitatem praedictam secundum Consuetudinem Civitatis praedict did not supply the defect aforesaid After It was awarded by the Court That the Tenant answer further c. CXCVIII. The Lord Anderson's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Lord Anderson Chief Iustice of the Common Pleas 1 Roll. 189. brought an Action of Trespass by Bill for breaking of his House in the City of Wor. against one A. Citizen of the said City Now came the Mayor and Communalty of the said City and shewed their Charter granted to them by King E. 6. and demanded Conusans of Pleas. And by the Award of the whole Court the Conusans shall not be granted because that the Priviledge of this Court whereof the Plaintiff is a principal Member is more antient than the Patent upon which the Conusans is demanded For the Iustices Clarks and Attornies of this Court ought to be here attending to do their Offices and Services as belongs unto them and shall not be impleaded or compelled to implead others elsewhere than in this Court. And this Priviledge was given to this Court upon the Original Erection of it And such was the Opinion of the whole Court. And as for the Conusans it was denyed CXCIX Cocket and Robston's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. ARthur Cocket Thomas Andrews and A. his Wife 2 Len. 118. Post 192. 230. 1 Len. 219. 1 Len. 302. brought an Action of Accompt against Robston and Declared That one Mountford by the hands of Jo. Wase had delivered 100l to the Defendant pro relevamine of the said Arthur and Anne The Defendant pleaded Ne unque Receiver pur accompt render Vpon which they were at Issue And Iudgment was given That the Defendant should accompt Who before Auditors assigned alledged That he had expended the said 100l in the Education of the said Arthur and Anne by the space of 8 years after the delivery of the said 100l Vpon which they were at Issue And upon Evidence it was shewed on the Plaintiffs part That heretofore the said Arthur brought a Writ of Accompt against the said Robston as Guardian in Socage for the Land of the said Arthur discended And upon the
the Plaintiff who said That the Extent by computation of time according to the value to which it was extended is not yet satisfied The Verdict hath found that the Extent continued until 22 Eliz. hut doth not say that it was then expired and ended And I conceive also that this Extent doth not evict the Interest of Sir Thomas Cotton or turn it into a possibility The extent is Quousque leventur denarii but yet a Limitation of time is in Law understood although by a Casualty such time may be abridged or extended Which see 15 H. 7. 16. by Fairfax Where a Man is bounden by Statute to pay 40 l. and the Conusee sueth Execution upon it and the Land extended is rated at 10 l. per annum now it shall be intended by a common intent that in 4 years the party may be satisfied and therefore after the 4 years the Conusor shall have a Scire facias so upon the matter it is a Lease for 4 years So 7 H. 7. 12. by Keble to the same purpose And 15 E. 4. 5. by Brian for the Law shall not intend a casualty without alledging of it for the same shall not be by imagination And therefore If the Conusor will have the Land within the Term he ought to alledge That the Conusee hath levied the duty by an extraordinary Casualty and shew it specially And so where the Conusor sueth a Scire facias and the Conusee will hold the Land over he ought expresly to surmise some extraordinary occasion wherefore he could not levy the duty upon the Land within the Term Which see by Brian 15 E. 4. 5. and 44 E. 3. The Conusee of a Statute after extent maketh a Lease for 3 years yet it may be that the duty shall be levied within one year but if it be so then a Scire facias shall issue forth against the Conusee and not against the Lessee for the Law intends that the whole estate of the Conusee is not granted but that he hath a Reversion in him but if he hath granted his whole estate then a Scire facias shall issue forth the Grantee So here although that this extent in our Case would continue by computation of time for some of the years of the Term granted to Sir Thomas Cotton yet it is intended that the extent did run out and was determined before the expiration of Sir Thomas Cotton's Term so as notwithstanding that Sir Thomas Cotton hath an Interest left in him which he may grant It will be Objected How can it be said an Estate for years when as he might hold over the years As to that such an Interest may be put off in divers Cases As 15 H. 7. A Man grants to another the third Avoidance of such a Church and dieth seised his Wife is endowed of the Church she shall have the third Avoidance and the Grantee shall have the 4th Avoidance and so per talem intervenientem occasionem the benefit shall be delayed and so here in our case And then the estate by Extent being prima facie certain so as it cannot by intendment surmount the Term of Sir Tho. Cotton as it appeareth upon the Extent the estate shall be taken to continue according to the extent of the years and then a certain Interest doth remain in Sir Thomas Cotton which he may grant over which is not a possibility but rather a Reversion So and to such purpose is the Case of 7 H. 5. 3 4. If the eldest Son entreth after the death of his Father and afterwards his Mother recovereth Dower that shall take away the possessio fratris but if the Son maketh a Lease for life and the Wife recovereth Dower against the Lessee there shall be possessio fratris for the Reversion doth remain in the Lessor notwithstanding the eviction of the estate for life And 7 H. 6. 2. there it is holden by Goddard and Strange That where the Term of the Wife was extended upon the Statute of the Husband who died the Wife shall have the residue of the Term and avoid the extent as to her Term which proves that all the Term is not drawn to the Conusee by the Extent but that an Interest doth remain in the Lessee notwithstanding that And see by Seton 29 Ass 64. If Lessee for life Leaseth to him in the Reversion for life yet he hath a Reversion in him And 31 Ass 6. A. is bound by Statute to B. and his Land extended by force of it C. recovers against B. in Debt and the Land extended by him upon the Statute 1 Roll. 887. is now extented by Elegit A. grants his Estate to the Conusee it is no surrender which proves that B. hath an Interest And so in our Case an Interest doth remain in Sir Thomas Cotton notwithstanding the Extent A. makes a Lease for years to begin at a day to come and before the day A. is disseised The Lessee notwithstanding this Disseisin may grant his Interest for he never was in possession and therefore it cannot be turned into a Right As to the second point If Robert Cotton may enter within the time of the Extent without a Scire facias and that rests upon this point If this Lease shall be subject to the Extent I conceive clearly that it shall not It hath been said That our Lease is not good But I conceive it without question that our Lease is good enough For it is made by the Husband and Wife and the Wife after the death of her Husband by Acceptance of the Rent might affirm the Lease But the Statute is the act of the Husband alone therefore the Conusee of the Fine shall not avoid the Lease for it is but voidable So the King grants Lands durante beneplacito and afterwards grants the Reversion over the Patentee shall not avoid the Estate But if this Lease had been made by the Husband only it had been void and then the Conusee of the Fine should avoid it as it was lately adjudged in Harvy and Thomas 's Case And I conceive That if Tenant in tail acknowledgeth a Statute and afterwards makes a Lease according to the Statute of 32 H. 8. and dieth the Lessee shall not hold the Land subject to the Statute for then the Rent should not be paid to the Issue in tail during the Statute which is against the Stat. of 32 H. 8. And see also 8 Eliz. Dyer 252. The Chaplain of a Donative Chappel Leased for 99 years which was confirmed by the Patron who was Tenant in tail of the Patronage which was appendant to a Mannor whereof he was seised in tail and afterwards he had Issue and died The Statute of Chauntries cometh after the death of the Incumbent the King shall avoid this Lease And in our Case after the Coverture the Conusee is in by the Wife and then he shall avoid the Statute extended upon it And if so then there needeth not any Scire facias as the
Issue in tail may enter upon the Conusee of a Statute acknowledged by his Father For if Execution had been sued against the Issue in tail it had been a Disseisin And see 2 R. 3. 7. That in such case the Wife or her Heirs may enter upon the Conusee And by Consequence the Conusee who is in by her c. Cook contrary I conceive that this Grant of this Lease by Sir Thomas Cotton to his Son is not good 2 Roll. 48 1 Cro. 15. 1 Inst 22. b. for it is but a possibility and no Interest I agree all the Cases which have been put before for Law but they cannot be applyed to this Case The Book in 7 H. 6. 2. is That if the Term of the Wife be extended upon the Statute of the Husband that the Wife shall have the residue after the death of the Husband but it doth not say that the Wife or her Husband may grant it during the Extent which is the matter now in Question And I conceive That Sir Thomas Cotton hath but a possibility For the Conusee upon the Extent hath but an incertain Interest And although it may be by some means reduced to a certainty in the Chancery where the Costs and Damages shall be assessed yet until it be reduced to a certainty it cannot be granted And therefore it is clear That if I have a Term for 8 years in Land and grant it unto another until he hath levied 100 l. and all his Costs of suit for it by this Grant all the Interest of the Term is in the Grantee and nothing is in me but a possibility 8 Co. Mannings Case And so it was holden in the Common Pleas by the Lord Anderson the day when he was made Chief Iustice there At which time this Case was put Lands of the yearly value of 20 l. are Leased to one until he hath levied 100 l. And the matter was What estate the Grantee hath And it was holden That if Livery be not made that he hath but an estate at Will for the profits of the Lands are incertain the one year more and the other year less And Bromley Lord Chancellor was then of the same Opinion Then if in case of a Lease it be so it shall also be so in case of an Extent and in both the Cases the whole Interest is out of the parties And 19 Eliz. the Case was in this Court That the Lessee for years devised his Term to his Executors for the payment of his Debts and Legacies and after the payment of them the residue of the years he devised to his Son The Executors enter which is an assent to the remainder he in the remainder grants his Interest And it was holden void because it was but a possibility and so incertain and although it might be reduced to a Certainty afterwards yet the same is not sufficient for it ought to be reduced to a certainty at the time of the grant And 17 Eliz. in this Court the Case was That Land was given to the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the Husband the Husband makes a Lease for years and dieth the Wife enters and entermarrieth with the Lessee And it was moved If the Interest of the Lessee by the entermarriage was extinct And it was holden That it was not for it was but a possibility and not an Interest quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam And if a possibility cannot be extinct then it cannot be granted And he denyed the Case put by Stephens Where a Man seised of Lands Leaseth the same for years to begin at a day to come and afterwards before the day the Lessor is disseised now during that Dissesin the Grantee cannot enter for his future Interest For the Feesimple being turned into a Right so also shall be the Interest And that is proved by Delamere's Case A Feoffment in Fee was made to the use of A. for life and afterwards to the use of C. for life and afterwards to the use of D. in Fee and afterwards A. enfeoffed a stranger who had notice of the use The same doth take away all the other uses and said Feoffee although he had notice of the use yet he shall not be seised to the first use for the estate out of which the first uses do arise is taken away and then also the uses And he said also That the Lease made to Sir Thomas Cotton is not good for it was made 11 Eliz. And it is found by Verdict That 10 Eliz. a Writ of Extent issued forth upon the Statute then was the Lands in the hands of c. during which time the Lord Mount joy and his Wife could not make the Lease aforesaid to the said Sir Thomas Cotton And as to that see 5 E. 3. Retorn of the Sheriff 99. See the Case of 3 E. 6. Dyer 67. Stringfellow's Case Then admitting the Lease to Sir Thomas Cotton yet the Lessee cannot put out the Conusee without a Scire facias for the Conusee is in by matter of Record Also here this Lease made by the Husband and Wife without any Rent reserved is utterly void and then the Conusee shall take advantage of it 9 H. 7. 24 18 E. 4. 2. And so was it ruled in the Case of Seniori puero in the case of an Enfant And see 7 Eliz. Dyer 239. Where the Provost of Wells being Parson impersonee of the Patronage of W. Leased the Tythe for 50 years rendring Rent which was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter but not by the Patron and Ordinary And afterwards by Act of Parliament the Provostry was united to the Deanery cum primo vacare contigerit The Provost died the Dean accepteth the Rent The same shall not bind the Church for the Lease is void as it is of a Parson or Prebend c. And so the Dean shall take advantage of it although not privy to it See 16 Eliz. Dyer 337. Lands given to a Parson and his Successors for to find Lights and he Leaseth the same for life The Rent is so imployed accordingly The Incumbent dieth The Successor accepteth the Rent the King grants it over The Patentee shall avoid the Lease as the Successor might have done before the Statute if he had not accepted the Rent but the acceptance before the Statute shall bind the Successor for that it was but a voidable Lease And the Case between Harvy and Thomas which hath been put on the other side serves to our purpose for there the Conusee shall avoid a Lease in Law which is void and here in the Principal Case the Lease is void for that no Rent is reserved upon it Wherefore c. It was adjourned CCVI. Beadle's Case Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was That A. Leased to B. certain Lands for 40 l. per annum 2 Len. 115. And a stranger Covenanted with A. That B. should pay him 40 l. for the Farm and Occupation
and his diet for himself his servants and horses Vpon which the Debt in demand grew but the said Young was not at any price in certain with the Defendant nor was there ever any agreement made betwixt them for the same It was said by Anderson Chief Iustice That upon that matter an Action of Debt did not lie And therefore afterwards the Iury gave a Verdict for the Defendant CCXI. Heidon and Ibgrave's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 148. A Writ of Right was brought by Heidon against Ibgrave and he demanded the third part of 40 Acres of Land in the County of Hertford and they were at Issue upon the meer Right Vpon which the Grand Assise appeared And first the 4 Knights were specially sworn to say upon their Oath Whether the Tenant hath better right to hold the Land than the Demandant to demand it And afterwards the rest of the Iurors were sworn generally as in other Actions And there was some doubt made Whether the Demandant or the Tenant should first begin to give Evidence And at the last it was Ruled by the Court That the Tenant should begin because he is in the affirmative And it was said by Periam Iustice That so it was late adjudged in the Case betwixt Noell and Watts And upon the Evidence the Case was That King Hen. the 8th by his Letters Patents gave to the Demandant the Mannor of New-Hall and all the Lands in the Tenure and Occupation of John Whitton before demised to Johnson and in the Parish of Watford And the truth was That the said 40 Acres whereof now the third part was in demand were in the Occupation of the said John Whitton but were never demised to Johnson nor in the Parish of Watford And by the clear Opinion of the Court the said 40 Acres did not pass for the circumstances of the Deed are not true scil the Demise to Johnson and the being in the Parish of Watford but both were false But if the said Land had had an especial name in the Letters Patents then it had been well enough notwithstanding the misprision in the rest And by Anderson If upon the particular it had appeared that the Demandant had paid his Mony for the said 40 Acres peradventure they had passed CCXII. The Dean of Gloucester's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Dean and Chapter of Gloucester brough a Writ of Partition against the Bishop of Gloucester upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Partition And it was moved That upon the words of the Statute that the Action did not lie in this Case for the Statute doth not extend but to Estates in Ioynt-Tenancy or in Common of Lands whereof such Ioynt-Tenants or Tenants in Common are seised in their own right And also it is further said That every such Ioynt-Tenant or Tenant in Common and their Heirs shall have Aid to deraign the warranty without speaking of the word Successors And by Periam and Windham Iustices The Writ doth not lie But Anderson seemed to be of a contrary Opinion CCXIII. Hare and Meller's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HUgh Hare of the Inner-Temple brought an Action upon the Case against Philip Meller and declared Ante 138. That the said Defendant had exhibited to the Queen a scandalous Bill against the Plaintiff charging the said Hugh to have recovered against the said Defendant 400 l. by Forgery Perjury and Forswearing and Cosenage And also that he had published the matter of the said Bill at Westm c. It was said by the Court That the exhibiting of the Bill to the Queen is not in it self any cause of Action for the Queen is the Head and Fountain of Iustice and therefore it is lawful for all her Subjects to resort to her to make their complaints But if a Subject after the Bill once exhibited will divulge the matter comprised in it to the disgrace and discredit of the person intended the same is a good cause of Action And so was the Case of Sir John Conway who upon such matter did recover And as to the words themselves It seemeth to the Court That they are not Actionable For it is not expresly shewed That the Plaintiff had used Perjury Forgery c. And it may be that the Attorny or Sollicitor in the Cause hath used such indirect means the Plaintiff not knowing it and in such case the Plaintiff hath recovered by Forgery c. and yet without reproach And by perjury he could not recover for he could not be sworn in his own Cause And Stanhops Case was remembred by the Court which was That Edward Stanhop of Grays-Inn brought an Action upon the Case against one who had Reported That the said Edward Stanhop had gained his Living by swearing and forswearing And by the Opinion of the Court The Action did not lie for those words do not set forth any actual forswearing in the person of the Plaintiff but it might be in an Action depending between the Plaintiff and a stranger that another stranger produced as a Witness had made a false Oath without any procurement or practice of the Plaintiff in which Case it might be that the Plaintiff had gained by such swearing CCXIV. Cheverton's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HEnry Cheverton brought a Quare Impedit and Counted That he was seised of the moyety of the Church of D. that is to say To present qualibet prima vice and that J.S. is seised of the other moyety that is to say To present qualibet secunda vice c. And Exception was taken to the Count Because it was not shewed how the special Interest did begin scil by Prescription Composition or otherwise for it is clearly against common Right and therefore that ought to be shewed See Dyer 13 Eliz. 229. CCXV Edmond's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Case against Edmonds the Case was That the Defendant being within age requested the Plaintiff to be bounden for him to another for the payment of 30 l. which he was to borrow for his own use to which the Plaintiff agreed and was bounden ut supra Afterwards the Plaintiff was sued for the said Debt and paid it And afterwards when the Defendant came of full age the Plaintiff put him in mind of the matter aforesaid and prayed him that he might not be damnified so to pay 30 l. it being the Defendant's Debt Whereupon the Defendant promised to pay the Debt again to the Plaintiff Vpon which promise the Action was brought And it was holden by the Court That although here was no present consideration upon which the Assumpsit could arise yet the Court was clear That upon the whole matter the Action did lie and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCXVI Farrington and Fleetwood.'s Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer BEtween Farrington and Fleetwood the Case was upon the Stat. of 31 H. 8. of Monasteries 2
Also the words Of the Mannor of Fremmington and Hundred are put amongst others which are Mannors in truth By which he conceived That the Devisor did not intend to pass but one Mannor and no other Herediatments by this Mannor of Fremmington There is a Rule in Law That in the Construction of a Will a thing implyed shall not control a thing expressed But here If by implication the Rent shall pass then the Mannor of Camfield is not passed which was the intent of the Testator to pass and that by express words See 16 Eliz. Dyer 330. Clatches Case No Implication of any Estate in remainder can serve when a special Guift and Limitation is made by the Devisor himself See also 16 Eliz. Dyer 333. Chapman's Case But in our Case here there are not sufficient words to warrant any Implication for neither in truth nor in common reputation was it taken for a Mannor 27 H. 6. 2. Green-Acre may pass by the name of a Mannor although it be but one Acre of Land because it is known by the name of a Mannor See acc 22 H. 6. 39. And see Where before the Statute of Uses A Man had recoverors to his use and he willeth by his Will That his Feoffees sell his Lands they might sell And he said That if a Man seised of a Mannor parcel in Demesne and parcel in Service and he granteth the Demesnes to one and his Heirs and afterwards deviseth his Mannor peradventure the Services shall pass but this Rent hath not any resemblance to a Mannor Gawdy This Rent shall pass by the name aforesaid Favourable Construction is always given in Wills according to the meaning of the Devisor and no part of his Will shall be holden void if by any means it may take effect Then it here appeareth that his intent was That upon these words something should pass to the Devisee concerning the Mannor of Fremmington for otherwise the words Of the Mannor of Fremmington are void and frivolous which shall not be in a Will if any reasonable Construction may be made For it is found expresly by the Iury That neither at the time of the Will made nor at the time of the death of the Testator the Devisor had any thing in the said Mannor of Fremmington but the said Rent of 130 l. per annum And it may well be taken That the Devisor being ignorant what thing a Mannor is thought that this Rent was a Mannor because that she had Rents and Services out of the said Mannor For in Construction of a Will the words shall serve the intent And therefore if a Man Deviseth That his Lands shall be sold for the payment of his Debts his Executors shall sell them for the intent of the Devisor names the sellers sufficiently And See Plowden 20 Eliz. 524. L. after the Statute of 27 H. 8. deviseth that his Executors shall be seised to the use of A. and his Assigns in Fee whereas then there was no Feoffees to use the same was holden a good devise of the Land to A. But the Iustices conceived That the Devisor was ignorant of the operation of the Statute in that case and therefore his ignorance was supplyed See Br. Devises 48. 29 H. 8. A. had Feoffees to his use and afterwards after the Statute of 27 H. 8. and 32 H. 8. he willed That his Feoffees should make an Estate to B. and his Heirs It was holden by Baldwin Shelley and Mountague Iustices That it was a good Devise And see 26 H. 6. Fitz. tit Feoffments Faits 12. A Carue of Land may pass by the name of a Mannor therefore a fortiori a Rent for Rents and Services have more affinity and more resemble a Mannor than a Carue of Land. And it cannot be intended that the meaning of the Testator was to grant the Mannor it self in which he had not any thing especially by his Will for Covin Collusion or indirect dealing cannot be presumed in a Will. Also The Marchioness for 4 years together before her death had the Rent and Services of the said Mannor and she well knew that she her self had not any thing in the said Mannor but the said Rent and Services and therefore it shall be intended that the same was her Mannor of Fremmington A. seised of a Capital Messuage and great Demesnes lying to it Leased the same for years rendring Rent and afterwards devised to another all her Farm in such a place And it was Ruled in that Case That by that Devise the Rent and the Reversion passed See the Case between Wrottesley and Adams Plow 19. 1 Eliz. by Anthony Brown and Dyer Periam Iustice conceived That this Rent might be divided well enough But by Anderson It is but a Rent-Seck Periam It is distrainable of Common right Anderson doubted of it But all the Iustices agreed That the Rent might be divided but there should not be two Tenures The Lord Mountjoy being advised that this Rent did not pass but descended to the Heir being the full third part of the Lands entred into the Residue and made a Lease of the Mannor of Camfield unto the Plaintiff upon which the Ejectione firmae is brought And afterwards the Plaintiff seeing the Opinion of the Court to be against him and for the Devise of the Rent for the reasons aforesaid Discontinued his Suit c. CCXIX. Williams and Drew's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Widow of Williams who was Speaker of the Parliament brought Dower against Williams and Drew upon the Grande Cape Williams made default And now came Drew and surmised to the Court That he is not Tenant of the Land But further he saith That the Husband of the Demandant Leased the said Lands to him for 50 years and that this Action is brought by Covin to make him lose his Term and prayed to be received And the Opinion of the whole Court was That although he was party to the Writ yet he should be received and that by the Statute of Gloucester for he is in equal mischief And the Court was also clear of Opinion That upon the default of Williams the Demandant should not have Iudgment for a moyety for that the Cause of the receipt trenched to the whole And by all the Iustices but Rhodes If Iudgment had been given upon the deault of both i. e. Williams and Drew yet the Term of Drew should stand but Drew should be put out of possession and put to his Action And Anderson conceived That the Resceit upon that Statute did not lie unless that Covin be alledged betwixt the Demandant and the Tenant to make him to lose his Term and that Covin is traversable Which all the other Iustices denyed for the Covin ought to be averred but ought not to be traversed And also they all but Anderson were clear of Opinion That in this Case of Receipt the party shall not plead upon his Receipt as upon the Statute of Westminster but he shall be received
such a County the same is not good Causa qua supra The Issue here is Non potuit fodere in praedicta Minera de Greenbourn by the space of 7 years and a half From whence shall the Visne come for the tryal of this Not from Durham where the Lease was made for there is no nearness between the place where the Lease was made and this Issue But if the Issue had been That the Lessor had not any thing in the Mines tempore dimissionis it might have been tryed where the Lease was made Another Exception was taken because the Plea is Quod non potuit fodere in 3 4 5 6 7 8. dimidio 10 11. and that appears to be 7 years and a half And the Iury find Quod non potuit fodere per spatium 7 annorum tantum without speaking of the half year and so they have not given a full Verdict As to the first Exception It was said by Cook If a thing be alledged in pleading which is Issuable and there is not laid down any place of it although that no Issue be joyned upon it yet because he hath prevented the other of his Plea to it Iudgment given in such case shall be reversed And so it was Ruled between Matthew and Stransham So upon the Statute of Usury the Informer charged the Defendant For that by way of corrupt bargain he had received so much and did not shew the place although that no Issue was joyned upon it but they were at Issue upon another point yet if Iudgment in such case be given it shall be reversed And in all Actions upon the Case where request is necessary and the Plaintiff ought to alledge it the place of the Request ought to be shewed And he said That this Issue ought to be tryed where the Mines demised are and here no place is alledged where the Mines are but only in Com. Dunelmens and yet a Visne of the City of Durham hath tryed this Issue which ought not to be but the Visne should come de Corpore Comitatus Clark Baron If Issue be joyned upon taking of the profits it shall be tryed where the Land is but non Debet or Detinet where the Lease was made so Ne lessa pas By Cook The Issue is Non potuit fodere and that is local therefore it shall be tryed where the Mines are Manwood Non potuit fodere non potuit gaudere are not local but non fodit non gavisus fuit is local and shall be tryed where the Mines are And here it is not shewed how he was hindered to dig c. and the Issue is de potentia non de actu Tanfield As to that which Cook hath said That the Visne in this Case shall come de Corpore Comitatus It is not so for such Visne never shall be but where the Issue is No such Town Hamlet or place known Tanfield In another Case the Tryal shall be de Corpore Comitatus As in False Imprisonment The Defendant justifies That the common voice and fame was c. there the Visne shall be de Corpore Comitatus 11 E. 4. 4 5. And see also 21 Eliz. the Case of Constantine and Gynne which see now Reported by the Lord Cook in Dowdell's Case Cook 6. Part 48. And as to the defect of the Verdict upon the half year the Record is not so for the Record is Dimidio anni decimi undecimi and so two half-years make one whole year and so but 7 years in which the disturbance is supposed to be done And see as to the Visne de Corpore Comitatus 22 E. 4. 4. Fitz. Visne 27. Another Exception was taken because the Declaration is That the Lease was made at Durham in Comitatu Dunelm and doth not say also in Setberg for such is the name of the County Palatine But as to that it was said Every Writ of Execution which goes into the County Palatine is directed Episcopo Dunelmens Cancellario suo Quod det in mandatis Vicecom suo c. And Durham was called Setberg in Ancient time and the name of the County Palatine there is commonly called Dunelm Setberg and their Pleas there are entred Placita coram Justiciariis Dunelm Setberg but the same is amongst themselves only and all directions from hence to them are Episcopo Dunelm without any mention of Setberg and a President was shewed to the Court to such effect Manwood Levied by Distress and so nothing arrear shall be tryed where the Lease is made Clark That is true For by the So the Plea before is waived And see 8 H. 5. 10. Where an Issue is to be tryed in Lincoln c. or such a Town which is a Franchise The Venire facias shall be of Lincoln and not de Vicineto Lincoln for then the Iury should be as well of the County adjoyning as of Lincoln it self which the Visne of Lincoln cannot do But Venire facias de Suburbiis of Bristow was awarded good And if in the Case at Bar the Defendant had pleaded That the Plaintiff had entred into part of the Mines and so suspended his Rent upon which they are at Issue the some by Manwood shall be tryed by a Iury de Corpore Comitatus The Issue here is If the Defendant might enjoy these Mines secundum veram intentionem dimissionis praedict and that is referred to the Demise which was made at Durham and therefore this Issue may be well tryed there And afterwards at another day It was holden That all the Issues are Jeofails But as to the want of the place the same was holden a material Exception See the Case of Mines Plow Com. 337. Exception was taken to the Information because it was not laid down there in what Town or Hamlet Newlands lay And it was holden The same had been a material Exception if the Defendant had not demurred upon the Information in which case no Tryal by Iury is to be c. And he said Misnosmer shall be tryed where the Writ is brought c. so never administred as Executors c. Manwood Here the Lease is laid to be made at Durham in a place certain If then there be not any other local thing laid which may draw the Tryal elsewhere it shall be tryed at Durham where the Lease is made An Enfant makes a Lease for years rendring Rent and afterwards re-enters and avoids his Lease by reason of his Nonage and title is found against him by that Lease upon which he pleads Nonage it shall be tryed where the Lease is made c. And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCXXIV. Blunt and Ward 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer WHere an Order was made That such a one should have the mean profits and issues of such Lands It was holden The same is not to be intended That the party shall have the Crop which grows upon the Land by the manurance of another but the value of the
Land as it might be Leased And so it is where the Sheriff retorns Issues c. for the Corn there growing may be of the value of 40 l. where the Land is but of the value of 10 l. CCXXV. Weshborn and Mordant's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 103. 1 Cro. 191.199 1 Len. 247. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That whereas he was possessed of a piece of Land containing 2 Acres called Parsonage lying adjoyning to a certain River from the 20th of May 29 Eliz. usque diem impetrationis istius Brevis c. the Defendant had the said 20th day of May estopped the said River with certain Loads of Earth and so continued estopped until the 14th of February by reason of which his Land was drowned and so he had lost the profit of it for the said time It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That upon the Declaration it doth not appear that there is any cause of Action for the Plaintiff hath made title to the Land drowned from the 20th day so as that day is excluded and the Nusance is laid to be done the said 20th day and if so then he cannot complain of any wrong the Nusance being laid to be before any possession of the Plaintiff To which it was answered That although the stopping was made before the possession yet the Continuance of it after is a new wrong for which an Action lieth As 5 H. 7. 4. It was presented That an Abbot had not cleansed his Ditch c. by reason of which the Highway is estopped The Successor shall be put to Answer to that Indictment by reason of the Continuance of it See that continuance of a Nusance is Quasi a new Nusance 14 15 Eliz. Dyer 320. And it may be that the Plaintiff was not damnified until a long time after the 20th of May scil after the Estopping and the words of the Writ here are satisfied and true Afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCXXVI The Queen and Scot's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Queen brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of London and Scot And the Case was 1 Len. 40. A. seised of an Advowson in gross holden of the Queen in Chief aliened the same by Fine without Licence of the King The Church became void The Conusee presented the Queen without Office found brought a Quare Impedit The Question was If the Queen without Office found should present It was agreed by the whole Court That if the alienation had been by Deed only there the Queen without Office should not have the presentment For upon such alienation by matter in fait without Licence no Scire facias shall issue without Office found of the alienation But upon Alienation without Licence by matter of Record a Scire facias lieth before Office. And in the last Case the Queen shall have the Issues from the time of the Scire facias retorned but in the first Case from the time of the Office found See Stam. Prerogat see 8 E 4. 4. It was then moved That if the Queen being entituled to present ut supra pardon the Conusee all alienations without Licence and Intrusions If the Estate of the Incumbent thereby be confirmed But the Court would not argue that Point CCXXVII Sir Thomas Holland and Bonis's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin 1 Len. 183. 2 Len. 12. Owen Rep. 138 139 the Defendant made Conusans as Baily to Tho. Lord Howard and shewed That the Prioress of the late dissolved Priory of Hallywell was seised of the Mannor of Priors in the County of Hertford and granted the same by words of Dedi concessi pro certa pecuniae summa to the Lord Audley Chancellor of England and his Heirs who died thereof seised and that the said Mannor inter alia descended to Mary Daughter and Heir of the said Tho. Lord Audley who died thereof seised by force of which the said Mannor descended to the said Tho. Lord Howard c. And shewed That the Conveyance by the Prioress bore date 4. Novemb. 29 H. 8. and then enrolled in the Chancery The Plaintiff in bar of the said Conusans shewed That after the making and inrolling of the said Conveyance the said Prioress Leased the Lands to Sir Hen. Parker for 99 years and conveyed the said Lands to himself and further shewed That the said Conveyance specified in the Conusans fuit primo deliberatum 4. November 31 H. 8. without that that the said Prioress the said 4. Novemb. 29 H. 8. dedit concessit the said Mannor to the said Lord Audley Vpon which it was demurred And it was the clear Opinion of the Court That the Averment de primo deliberatum against a Deed enrolled ought not to be received For by the same reason it might be averred Nunquam deliberatum and so upon the matter Non est factum It was further Objected That a Bargain and Sale by a Corporation is not good For a Corporation cannot be seised to another's use and the nature of such a Conveyance is to take effect by way of use in the bargain and afterwards the Statute draws the possession to the use But the Court utterly rejected the said Exception as dangerous for that such were the Conveyances of the greater part of the possessions of Monasteries And it was in this Case said by Shuttleworth Serjeant That although such a Corporation could not take an Estate to another's use yet they might charge their own possessions with an use to another CCXXVIII The Queen and the Bishop of Gloucester's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Queen recovered in a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Gloucester and one S. in which Quare Impedit the Bishop pleaded as Ordinary scil Quod ipse nihil habet nec habere clamat in Ecclesia praedict neq in Advocatione ejusdem nisi Admissionem Institutionem c. And now the Bishop and S. the Incumbent brought a Writ of Error And If this Writ of Error brought joyntly by the Bishop and the Incumbent was well brought was the Question Some held That the Bishop had not cause to bring Error for that he had disclaimed in the Church and the Patronage of it For if in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant disclaims he shall never have a Writ of Error 16 E. 3. 7. Fitz. Error 78. And Note That in the Writ of Error at the Bar the perclose was Ad grave damnum Episcopi whereas the Bishop could not be grieved by the said Iudgment because he had nothing nor claimed any thing in the Church c. Wray The Writ of Error had been the better if those words ad grave damnum Episcopi had been left out for the Bishop hath lost nothing And it was Objected by some If the Iudgment in this Case be reversed the usual Iudgment cannot be given scil That the Bishop shall be restored to
all which he lost c. Wray The Bishop shall joyn for Conformity of Law and for privity of Record and the Plea of the Bishop is not so strong as a Disclaymer For in case of a Disclaimer the Iudgment is That the Plaintiff shall take nothing by his Writ but in the case of the Bishop here the Iudgment is Quod querens recuperet praesentationem suam versus dictum Episcopum ad Ecclesiam praedictam See 35 H. 6. 4. Fitz. Error 35. And afterwards in the principal Case the Writ of Error was awarded good CCXXIX Williams and Linford's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. EDward Williams brought an Action upon the Case against Linford 2 Len. 111. for slanderous words concerning the Title of the Plaintiff's Lands viz. Williams is nothing worth and do you think that the Mannor of D. is his It is but a Compact betwixt his Brother Thomas and him And declared further That at the time of the speaking of these words there was a Communication with one J.S. to give the said J.S. the said Mannor of D. for his Mannor of R. and that by reason of the said slanderous words 1 Cro. 346.787 the said J.S. durst not proceed in the said intended exchange It was Objected That upon this matter an Action upon the Case did not lie because the slanderous words were not spoken to him who should be purchasor of the Lands but unto a stranger For in the Case betwixt Smith and Johnson Johnson was in speech with one to sell his Land to him and Smith said to him who should be the purchasor of them Will you buy Johnson's Land Why it is troubled with more Charges and Incumbrances then it is worth Wray There is not any difference be the words spoken to the parties or unto a stranger for in both Cases the Title of the Plaintiff is slandered so as he cannot make sale of it It was adjudged for the Plaintiff CCXXX Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Poor Woman brought an Action of Trespass for breaking of her Close and declared of a Continuance by 6 years And upon Nihil dicit had Iudgment to recover Vpon which a Writ of Enquiry of Damages issued forth and now came the Woman and shewed to the Court That the Iury had found too little Damages scil but 40 s. whereas the Land was worth 5 l. per annum and that the Trespass had been continued for 6 years and prayed that the said Writ might not be received and that the Court would award another Writ to have a better Enquiry of the Damages But the whole Court denyed it For so there might be infinite Enquiries But some time at the request of the Defendant when excessive Damages are found or any misdemeanour is alledged in the Plaintiff in procuring or using such a Writ of Enquiry of Damages We use to relieve the Defendant with a new Writ but never the Plaintiff because it is his own Act. And by Rhodes The late Countess of Darby brough a Writ of Dower and had Iudgment to recover and she surmised That her Husband died seised and prayed a Writ of Enquiry of Damages and had it And because too small Damages were found she would have suppressed the said Writ and procured another but she could not have it And at the last she was driven to bring in the said Writ Which she did accordingly CCXXXI Lawson and Hare's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 2 Len. 74. IN a Replevin by Lawson against Hare of the Temple who Avowed because he himself was seised of a Hundred And that he himself and all those whose Estate he hath in the said Hundred have used to hold a Leet within the said Hundred at such a place every year And that at every time such Leet should be holden The Inhabitants within the said Precinct have used to pay to the Lord of the Leet 16 d. for the Leet-Fee and that they have used to distrain for the same And shewed That at a Leet there holden 5 July 26 Eliz. c. The Plaintiff replyed absque hoc that they used to distrain And it was found for the Defendant And it was moved in arrest of Iudgment Because the Defendant in making his Title to the Leet by Prescription Conveys the Hundred to him by a Que Estate without shewing a Deed of it See 11 H. 4. 242. Quod fuit concessum per Anderson Windham Periam and Rhodes contrary But if the Hundred it self had been in Question then the Exception had been material but here the Defendant intitles himself to a thing by reason of the Hundred and then it is sufficient for him to say That he is seised of the Hundred be it by right or by wrong Admit That by this not shewing the Avowry be vitious and defective It is to be considered if it be not helped by the Statute of Jeofail's 1 Cro. 217.245 18 Eliz. And therefore it is to be considered If an Avowry be within the meaning of the said Statute Anderson Although that the Avowant be quasi an Actor to have a Retorn of the Cattel if the Distress be adjudged lawful yet in truth he is Defendant and not Plaintiff And if the Defendant will justifie the taking and not avow he is meerly Defendant And although that he avow to have a Retorn yet he cannot be said Plaintiff no more than the Tenant who voucheth over another to recover in value may be said Plaintiff And therefore an Avowry cannot be said a Count or Declaration but a Answer to the Count or Declaration Windham and Periam conceived That an Avowry is within the Statute For it comprehends title And an Answer to an Avowry is said a Bar to an Avowry and an Avowry is in the place of a Declaration Admitting That an Avowry is within the Statute If the not shewing of the Deed be such a defect which may be helped by the Statute Anderson conceived That it was But the Plaintiff might have demurred upon the Avowry for not shewing of the Deed and have had iudgment But when he hath traversed the Prescription as to the point of the distress and the same is found against him Now it shall be intended that the Avowant hath a Deed although he hath not shewed it Windham The Title of the Avowant to the Hundred is the Foundation and ground of the Suit for if the Avowant hath not a Deed to make him a sufficient title to the Hundred he cannot have the Leet and if no Leet then no Leet-Fee and then the Avowant hath no cause to distrain Another Exception was taken to the Avowry because the Avowant hath not shewed any Seisin of the Leet-Fee And by Periam Such a seisin ought to be shewed in some person certain For although it needs not always to lay a Seisin in shewing by whose hands the seisin was had for the Inhabitants are charged and no person certain yet the seisin ought to be
shall plead That he had not bought modo forma For if he hath bought of A.B. or J.S. the same is not material nor traversable Which Case Cook denyed to be Law. And he also conceived That the Information upon the Quo Warranto is not sufficient For by the same the Defendant is charged to hold a Court and it is not shewed what Court For it may be a Court of Pipowders Turn c. See 10 E. 4. 15 16. acc Shute Iustice The Quo Warranto contains two things in it self 1. A Claim And 2. An usurpation and here the Defendant hath answered but to the Vsurpation but saith nothing to the Claim And it hath been holden in this Court heretofore That he ought to answer to both And he said That it hath been holden in a Reading upon the Statute of Quo Warranto which is supposed to be the Reading of Iustice Frowick That a Quo Warranto doth not lie upon such Liberties which do not lie in Claim as Felons goods c. which lieth only in point of Charter CCXXXVI Venable's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was 1 Inst 351. a. Hughs Queries 13. A Lease was made to A. and B. for their lives the remainder to Tho. Venables in tail who 3 Eliz. was attainted of Felony 23 Eliz. there was a General Pardon Tho. Venables 24 Eliz. levied a Fine and suffered a Recovery to the use of Harris Serjeant Office is found Harris traversed the Office and thereupon was a Demurrer It was argued by Leake That Traverse did not lie in this Case 4 H. 7. 7 Where the King is entituled by double matter of Record the party shall not be admitted to his Traverse nor to his Monstrans de Droit but is put to his Petition Which see 3 E. 4. 23. in the Case of the Earl of Northumberland Where Tenant of the King is Attainted of Treason and the same is found by Office. See also 11 H. 4. in the Case of the Duke of Norfolk And the same is not helped by the Statute of 2 E. 6. Cap. 8. for the words are Untruly found by Office but here the Office is true By this Attainder Tho. Venables is utterly disabled to do any Act For by Bracton a Person attainted forisfacit Patriam Regnum Haereditatem suam 13 E. 4. One was attainted of Felony And before Office found the King granted over his Lands Also he is not helped by the General Pardon For before the General Pardon he had a special Pardon therefore the General Pardon nihil operatur as to him But by the Iustices the forfeiture doth remain until the General Pardon Harris to the contrary And he put the Case of Sir James Ormond 4 H. 7. 7. Where the King is entituled by matter of Record and the subject confesseth the title of the King and avoids it by as high matter as that is for the King Traverse in that case lieth and if the King be entituled by double matter of Record if the party avoids one of the said Records by another Record he shall be admitted to his Traverse And so here we have the Pardon which is a Record and that shall avoid the Record for the King And here the Pardon hath purged the forfeiture in respect of the Offence And he said That Tenant in tail being attainted of Felony shall not lose his Lands but the profits only for he hath his Interest by the Will of the Donor and it is a Confidence reposed in him and as Walsingham's Case is he cannot grant over his Estate And see in Wroth's Case Annuity granted pro Consilio impendendo cannot be granted over or forfeited for there is a Confidence See Empson's Case Dyer 2. and 29 Ass 60. If the Issue in tail be Outlawed of Felony in the life of his Father and gets his Pardon in the life of his Father after the death of his Father he may enter But by Thorp If the Issue in tail gets his Pardon after the death of his Father then the King shall have the profits of the Lands during the life of the Issue And the Case of Cardinal Pool was debated in the Parliament 27 Eliz. That he being Dean of Exeter was seised of Lands in the right of his Church and was attainted of Treason It was holden he should forfeit the profits of such Lands But admit That by this Attainder the Land be forfeited yet the party hath the Freehold until Office found See Nicholls Case Plow Com. And also the Case of the Dutchy in Plow Com. acc And here the Pardon hath dispensed with the forfeiture A Tenant of the King aliens in Mortmain before Office found the King pardons it it is good The Lord Poynings conveyed all his Lands to Sir Adrian Poynings who was an Alien and after made a Denizen and the King pardoned and released to him all his right in the said Lands without any words of grant and adjudged the same did bind the King And he said he had a good president 14 H. 7. Where a General Pardon before seisure into the hands of the King was allowed good contrary after a seisure without words of Grant. See Br. 29 H. 8. Br. Charter of Pardon 52. If a Man be attainted of Felony and the King pardons him all Felonies executiones eorundem and Outlawries c. and releases all forfeitures of Lands and Tenements and of Goods and Chattels the same will not serve but for life of Lands if no Office be found but it will not serve for the goods without words of restitution and grant for the King is entituled to them by the Outlawry without office But the King is not entituled to Land until Office be found See Ibid. 33 H. 8. 71. The Heir intrudes and before Office found the King pardons now the Heir is discharged as well of the Issues and profits as of the Intrusion it self But a Pardon given after the Office found is available for the Offence but not for the Issues and profits And he cited the Case of Cole in Plowden where a Pardon was granted mean between the stroak and the death See 35 H. 6. 1. 16 E. 4. 1. 8 Eliz. Dyer 249. Brereton's Case 11 Eliz. Dyer 284 285. Egerton Sollicitor contrary This Traverse is not good for he who traverseth hath not made title to himself as he ought upon which the Queen may take Issue for it is in the Election of the Queen to maintain her own title or to traverse the title of the party At the Common Law no Traverse lay but where Livery might be sued but that is helped by the Statute of 34 E. 3. but where the King is entituled by double matter of Record as in our Case he is no Traverse was allowed until 2 E. 6. Cap. 8. And in such Case two things are requisite 1. That the Office be untruly found 2. That the party who is to be admitted to his Traverse have just title or Interest
Case 18 Eliz. Plow Com. 485 486. Where it is holden That upon Attainder of Treason by Act of Parliament the Lands were not in the King without Office in the life of the person attainted upon the words of the Act shall forfeit See Stamford 54 55. acc 3. He conceived That this Interest which came to the King by this Attainder was but a Chattel and then it is released by the Pardon And so he conceived If it be a Freehold For the words of the General Pardon are large and liberal Pardon and Release all manner of Treasons c. And all other things causes c. and here forfeitures are pardoned And also this word Things is a transcendent c. And although it be a general word yet by the direction of the General Pardon it ought to be beneficially expounded and extended as if all things had been especially set down Also the words are Pardon them and their Heirs therefore the same extends to Inheritances for any Offence not excepted for there is the word Heirs And the third branch doth concern only Chattels and that is by the word Grant where the former is by the words Release and Acquit See Br. Charter of Pardon 71. 33 H. 8. Tenant of the King dieth seised the Heir intrudes Office is found in that case by Pardons of all Intrusions the Offence is pardoned but not the Issues and Profits But by the Pardon aforesaid all is pardoned And here in our Case the Office is void For the Statute makes all Precepts Conditions void c. being awarded upon such Forfeitures See also in the second Branch Vexed and inquieted in Body Good Lands c. And see also amongst the Exceptions That persons standing endicted of wilful Murder and forfeiture of Goods Lands Tenements grown by any Offence committed by such person By which he conceived That if that Exception had not been the Land of such a person if he had been attainted upon such Indictment should be forfeited As to the Traverse he conceived That in as much as the Office is true our plea is a Monstrans de Droit although it concludes with a Traverse We vary from the Office in number of persons and in the day of the Feoffment and every Circumstance in the Kings Case is to be traversed and our plea in substance doth confess and avoid the Office. Although the King here be entituled by double matter of Record i. e. the Attainder and the Office yet one of the said Records is discharged by another Record i. e. the Pardon and then there is but one Record remaining scil the Office and therefore our Traverse doth lie And he conceived That at the Common Law there was a Traverse as where it was found by Office That the Lessee of the King had done Waste or cessed for two years and there it is said That the Lessee and Tenant in an Action brought against them may traverse the Office Therefore traverse was at the Common Law where the King was entituled by single matter of Record So upon an Office finding an Alienation without Licence Traverse was by the Common Law. See Traverse in such Case in the Case of William de Herlington 43 Ass 28. See Br. Traverse 54. Petition is by the Common Law and Traverse by the Statute Frowick in his Reading See Stamf. Prerogat 60. That Traverse in the Case of Goods was at the Common Law but Traverse for Lands found by Office by 34 E. 3. Cap. 14. therefore the remedy was by Petition See now Cook 4. Part the Sadler's Case 55 56. Traverse was at the Common Law concerning Freehold and Inheritance but that was in special Cases when by the Office the Land is not in the Kings hands nor the King by that is in possession but only by the Office and entituled to the Action and cannot make seisure without suit there in a Scire facias brought by the King in the nature of such an Action to which he is entituled the party may appear unto the Scire facias and traverse the Office by the Common-Law CCXXXVII Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Writ was awarded out of the Court of Admiralty against Sir Tho. Bacon and Sir Tho. Heydon to shew cause wherefore Whereas the Earl of Lincoln late High Admiral of England had granted to them by Patent to be Vice Admirals in the Counties of Norfolk and Suffolk the said Letters Patents ought not to be repealed and annulled And so the said Writ was in the nature of a Scire facias It was moved by Cook That although the Admiral had but an Estate for life yet the Patent did continue in force after his death As the Iustices here of the Common Pleas although they have their places but for life may grant Offices which shall be in force after their death And because the same matter is determinable at the Common Law he prayed a Prohibition For in the Admiralty they would judge according to the Civil Law The Court gave day to the other side to shew cause why the Prohibition should not be awarded CCXXXVIII Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Len. 302. Ante 150. Post 230. ACcompt was brought by Harris against Baker and damages were given by the Iury It was moved to the Court That damages ought not to be given by way of damages but the damages of the Plaintiff shall be considered of by way of Arrearges But see the Case Hill. 29 Eliz. in C. B. betwixt Collet and Andrews And yet 10 H. 6. 18. in Accompt the Plaintiff Counted to his damage but did not recover damages 2 H. 7. 13. 21 H. 6. 26. The Plaintiff shall not recover damages expresly but the Court shall given Quoddam incrementum to the Arrearages Cook said That it had been adjudged That the Plaintiff should recover Damages in an Accompt ratione Implicationis non Detentionis CCXXXIX Long 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was holden in this Case If a Feoffment in Fee be made of a Mannor to which an Advowson is appendant and Livery is made in the Demesnes but no Attornment that in such case the Advowson shall pass but none of the Services CCXL Barns Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. BArns brought an Action of Trespass for taking of his sack of Corn The Defendants justified in the behalf of the Town of Lawson in the County of Cornwell because That King Phil. and Queen Mary granted to them of the said Town a Market to be holden within the said Town and that the Plaintiff came to the said Town with a sack of Corn and the Vendor would not pay Toll for which cause they took the said sack of Corn. And Iudgment was given for the Defendant Vpon which Error was brought and assigned for Error because that the Defendant pleads the Letters Patents with the date of the place year and day without saying Magno sigillo Angliae sigillat For it was holden that
hic in Curia prolat is but form And afterwards the Iudgment was reversed for default of the said matter Magno sigillo Angliae sigillat And by Anderson Iustice Patents are good without Inrollment and that was adjudged in Hungate's Case CCXLI. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber DEbt brought upon an Obligation Post 266. The Defendant pleaded payment apud Lockington in the Parish of Killmerston And the Venire facias was awarded de Lockington And that was assigned for Error in the Exchequer Chamber upon a Iudgment given in the Kings Bench That the Venire ought to be de Killmerston See 6 H. 7. 3. 11 H. 7. 23 24. 9 E. 4. 3. Trespass for Entry in the Mannor of D. in S. the Visne shall come de Vicineto de S. and not from the Mannor Contrary if it be for the entry into the Mannor of D. only for there it shall be de Vicineto Manerii Cook said There was a Case very late adjudged in the Kings Bench A Lease was pleaded to be made at Ramridge End in Luton and that he himself was of Opinion That the Venire ought to have been of Ramridge End and not of Luton But the Court Over-Ruled the same against him It was said in the principal Case That Lockington shall be intended a Town as this Case is For a Parish may contain many Towns. And afterwards the Iudgment was affirmed CCXLII. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass for breaking his Close The Defendant pleaded That heretofore he himself brought an Ejectione Firmae against the now Plaintiff of the same Land in which the Trespass is supposed to be done and had Iudgment to recover c. and demanded Iudgment if against c. It was moved That the Bar was not good 1 Len. 313. because that the Defendant had not averred his title And the Recovery in one Action of Trespass is no Bar in another c. Quod Curia concessit But as to the matter the Court was clear That the Bar was good And by Periam Who ever pleaded it it was well pleaded For as by Recovery in an Assise the Freehold is bound so by Recovery in an Ejectione firmae the possession is bound And by Anderson A Recovery in one Ejectione Firmae is a Bar in another Especially as Periam said if the party relyeth upon the Estoppel And afterwards Iudgment was given That the Plaintiff should be barred CCXLIII Peter's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. WIlliam Peters being Plaintiff in an Action of Debt in the Common Pleas came to London this Term to prosecute his Action And afterwards he was committed to the Marshalsey by the Lord Hunsdon Chamberlain of the Queens houshold and one of her Privy Council And now an Habeas Corpus issued out to the Keeper of the Marshalsey to have the body of the said Peters in Court And at the day the Keeper retorned the said Writ That the said Peters was committed to the said Prison by the said Lord and shewed the Warrant for it there to remain and to Answer before the Lords of her Majesties Council to such matters c. Causa vero detentionis mihi omnino incognita est The Court examined the said Peters upon his Oath If he came to London to prosecute his said Cause Who answered That he did And the Court also examined the said Keeper If he had acquainted the said Lord with the said Writ Who said That he had so done but he shewed him not any Cause Wherefore by the Award of the Court Peters was discharged of his Imprisonment CCXLIV Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleass SErjeant Fenner demanded the Opinion of the Court in this Case A. Devised Lands to his Wife for life 1 Co. 155. and afterwards to B. his Son and his Heirs when he should come to the age of 24 years and if his Wife died before his said Son should attain his said age of 24 years that then J.S. should have the said Land until the said age of the said Son A. died J.S. died the Wife died the Son being within the age of 24 years If the Executors of J.S. should have the Land after the death of J.S. until the said age of the Son was the Question Anderson and Periam conceived That he should not For this Interest limited to J.S. by the Will was but a possibility which was never vested in him and therefore could not by any means come to his Executor Rhodes and Windham doubted of it Fenner put the Case in 12 E. 2. Fitz. Condition 9. Where Land is mortgaged to J.S. upon payment of Mony to J.S. such a day or his Heirs and before the said day J.S. by his Will deviseth That if the Mortgagor pay the Mony that then A. B. should have them That this Devise of this possibility is good Quod omnes Justiciarii negaverunt And Windham put the Case between Weldon and Elkington Plow Com. 20 Eliz. 519. Where Lessee for years devised his Term to his Wife for so many years of the said Term as she should live And if she died within the Term that then his Son Francis should have the Residue of the Term not encurred Francis died Intestate the Wife died within the Term The Administrator of Francis had the residue of the Term and yet nothing was in Francis the Intestate but a Possibility A Lease was made to one Hayward his Wife and one of his Children Habendum to Hayward for 99 years if he should so long live and if he die within the said Term that then his said Wife should have the said Term for so many years which should be to come at the time of the death of her Husband And if she died also before the said Term That then the Child party to the Devise should have it for so many years of the said Term as should not be expired at the time of the death of the Wife And the Case of Cicill was vouched 8 Eliz. Dyer 253. A Lease was made to William Cicill pro termino 41 annorum si tam diu vixerit Et si obierit infra praedictum terminum extunc Uxor praedicti William Cicill habebit tenebit omnia singula praemissa pro residuo termini praed incompleto si tam diu vixerit Et si the said Eliz. obierit infra praedict terminum tunc William Cicill filius c. And it was holden by Catlyn and Dyer That these remainders were void For the Term is determinable upon the death of William Cicill the Father and the Residue of the said Term cannot remain And by Anderson The remainders of the Term limited ut supra are void For every remainder ought to be certain but here is no certainty for it may be that the first possessor of the Term may live longer or die sooner so as he in the remainder doth not know what thing he shall have And so also conceived Rhodes Iustice And he put the Case between
and it was assigned for Error because that in the Declaration it is alledged That the Wife Administred the Goods of the Intestate and did not shew that she was Administratrix c. and took Letters of Administration 2. It is not alledged That the Wife had Goods of the Testator at the time of the promise for otherwise she shall not be bound For it is but Nudum pactum for Executors or Administrators not having Assets shall not be charged And it was holden here That Request is not necessary for the debt was before the promise so as the Request is not any cause of the Action CCLIII Matthews's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the King Bench. NOte That a Bill of Perjury upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. was sued by the Queen and the party because that the Defendant being one of the Homage c. did present with the rest of the Homagers That the Plaintiff had cut down certain Trees c. Whereas in truth he had not cut down any And it was holden by all the Iustices That for this matter the Bill did not lie upon this Statute For this branch of the Statute is to be intended of Perjury in Depositions only And by Tanfield A Bill doth not lie upon the Statute upon Perjury committed in an Answer to a Bill in Chancery See 41 Eliz. Flower 's Case CCLIV Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Co. Rep. Gatewards Case IN a Replevin The Defendant avowed for Damage Feasant The Plaintiff in bar of the Avowry shewed That every Inhabitant in every Messuage in the said Town had used to have Common in the place where c. Glanvile argued That the prescription was not good for want of Capacity in the party who pretends Interest for it is not certain but applyed to a Multitude and he put divers Cases in proof of it 22 H. 6. 21 H. 7. 1. Mar. Dyer 100. The King grants a Rent probis hominibus of Islington the same is void for they are not capable Harris I conceive That the Prescription is good And he granted That a confused Multitude cannot prescribe in a matter of Interest but in an Easement or discharge As in a Way to the Church and that by reason of Custom in the Land and not in the persons See 7 E. 4. 26. Where it is pleaded That all the Inhabitants within such a Town time out of mind c. have used to have Common there c. And for a Township to have a Way to the Church And good by Danby And by Littleton it ought to be pleaded by way of usage And 18 E. 4. 3. All the Inhabitants of such a Town may well prescribe And he cited Bracton 222 223. Communia quandocunque ex longo usu sive constitutione cum pacifica possessione continue non intermixta ex scientia negligentia patientia Dominor ' ita etiam amitti potest per negligentiam non usum And he vouched Britton fol. 144. Common is obtained by long sufferance and also it may be lost by long negligence c. CCLV. Pye and Grunway's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass brought by Pye against Grunway and one B. The Plaintiff declared against Grunway only who pleaded not guilty And it was found for the Plaintiff And in Arrest of Iudgment it was moved That the Plaintiff in declaring against one only had falsified his own Writ To that it was said That at the uttermost it is but a discontinuance so but matter of form and so relieved by the Statute of 18 Eliz. But it was said by the Court that it may be That B. was outlawed at the Plaintiffs suit and then the proceedings is determined as against him And the Court demanded of the Clerks If the use of the Court be not so in such case to declare That Grunway simul cum B. utlagat ad sectam Querentis did the Trespass Who answered Not in this Action but in an Action of Debt it is otherwise And afterwards notwithstanding that Exception Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff CCLVI. Thorp and Wingfield's Case Trim. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Waste the Plaintiff declared upon a Lease for years generally and the truth of the Case was That the Plaintiff had made a Lease for years to one A. which Lease being in force for two years he Leased the same Lands for years as he hath declared to begin presently and the Waste which is assigned in the Declaration was done during the first Lease And now If the Defendant upon this matter might plead No waste done was the Question And it was said by the Court That such a plea should be perilous for the Defendant for it shall be found against him and if he pleadeth the special matter aforesaid scil The former Lease in esse at the time of the Waste committed after the expiration of which Lease no Waste was done If the second Lease be not by Indenture it should be a good Plea but if by Indenture then the Plaintiff would estop him by the Indenture to shew that the second Lease hath another beginning than the Indenture purports and then the Waste shall charge the Defendant And although the Plaintiff had not declared upon a Lease by Indenture yet if the Defendant pleaded the special matter aforesaid he by way of Replication shall estop the Defendant to plead any other beginning of the Term than the Letter of the Indenture doth purport and the same shall be no Departure for it is matter which strengtheneth the Declaration CCLVII Botham and the Lady Gresham's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Prohibition by Botham and Couper 1 Len. 94. 1 Cro. 71. 1 Len. 128. Post 265. against the Lady Gresham who had impleaded them in the Spiritual Court for Tythe-Hay and made their Suggestion That time out of mind c. they had paid to the Vicar of the said Parish 4 d. for the Tythe of Hay of every Acre It was moved That upon that surmise a Prohibition ought not to be granted for that a Modus Decimandi shall never come in Question But the party ought to have pleaded the same matter in the Spiritual Court scil That the same doth appertain to the Vicar and not to the Parson and then if the Vicar sueth for the Tythe of the Hay the Modus Decimandi will come in Question and although that he hath averred in his surmise that the Tythe-Hay belongeth to the Vicar yet that is not material And afterwards a Consultation was awarded CCLVIII. Rush and Heighgate's Case 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer 2 Len. 121. Co. 4. Rep. Palmers Case PRocess was awarded out of the Exchequer against Rush for the levying of the sum of 200 l. which he owed to the Queen Vpon which It was found by Office That Rush 22 Junii 22 Eliz. was possessed of Lands for the Term of divers years then and yet to come And the Debt of the Queen began
12 Feb. 17 Eliz. And upon the Retorn of this Office came one Heighgate and shewed That the said Rush 16 Eliz. was possessed of the said Lease and the same year assigned the same to the said Heighgate and traversed the Office. Exception was taken to the Inquisition Because that the Lease is not certainly set forth scil the number of the years in certainty Cook The Office is sufficient enough notwithstanding this Exception for the Queen is a stranger to the Lease and therefore she shall not be driven to set forth the certainty See 7 E. 6. Plowden 85. Partridge's Case upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. concerning pretended Titles c. there the Informer declared That ihe Defendant had Leased Lands for years against the said Statute c. without shewing the number of the years and the Information was holden good enough for it is impossible that a stranger have notice of every certainty c. and it is dangerous to meddle with such a particular certainty of the Lease and to miss it And in this Case for as much as Heighgate comes to this Lease not by voluntary Contract but by compulsory means scil by Execution upon the Statute he cannot by common Intendment have notice of every particular Circumstance and Article of the Lease as he may in case of a voluntary Contract And also although in pleading the number of the years ought to be expressed yet in an Inquisition such precise pleading is not requisite See 15 H. 7. 7. An estate tail and dying seised of it was found by Office without shewing of whose gift it was and good enough CCLIX Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer ONe exhibited a Bill in the Exchequer Chamber upon the Statute of 2 E 6. Cap. 13. to have the treble value for not setting forth his Tythes according to the said Statute But it was clearly holden by the Court That the Bill did not lie upon that matter for the Plaintiff hath his remedy for the same in the Court of Pleas in the Exchequer And also for that there shall be no suit or proceedings according to the Order of the Exchequer Chamber in Cases of Conscience upon any penal Statute CCLX Body and Tassell's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer NOte That in the Case between Body and Tassell It was holden by Baron Clark That if a Man lendeth Mony and for the forbearing of it contracts for more than 10 l. in the 100 l. That the Bond made for it is void presently and that if he doth receive excessive Interest that he shall forfeit treble the value CCLXI Markham and Pitts's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case upon a Trover by Markham against Pitts the Defendant after an Imparlance pleaded an Outlawry of the Plaintiff And it was holden by some to be a good Bar and therefore it may be pleaded after Imparlance As 16 E. 4. 4. in Debt upon a Specialty But not in Debt upon a Contract Trespass Battery Imprisonment c. for such matters the King shall not have by Outlawry CCLXII Crane and Juniper's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THomas Crane brought an Action upon the Case against Juniper and one John Matthew upon an Assumpsit and declared That in Consideration that the Plaintiff took upon him That whereas William Matthew was endebted unto him in divers sums of Mony at the time of the death of the said William that he would not molest the said Defendants being Executors of the said William Matthew before the 10th day of May next following the Defendants promised to pay to the Plaintiff debitum praedict at the said 10th day of May And declared further Quod non molestavit and yet although saepius requisit the Defendants had not paid him c. And upon Non Assumpsit pleaded It was found for the Plaintiff And it was Objected That the Plaintiff had not maintained nor averred his Assumpsit for the words of it are Non molestavit nominatos Executores Testamenti ultimae Voluntatis William Matthew but he ought to have averred more specially quod non molestavit Juniper Matthew named Executors of William Matthew nor any of them by their names Also he ought to have pleaded Quod non molestavit before the said 10th day of May according to his promise And also he ought to have shewed in his Declaration how that he did not trouble them for the Debt of the Testator c. CCLXIII Walcot and Powell's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was That in an Action of Debt brought against the Husband and Wife The Plaintiff declared upon an Obligation made by the Wife dum sola fuit and the Writ was in the Detinet tantum And upon Iudgment given in that Action a Writ of Error was brought in the Kings Bench And that matter was assigned for Error And by Cook The Writ ought to be in the Debet Detinet for the Husband hath the Goods of the Wife in his own right and so is the Register 140. CCLXIV Wigmore and Wells's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THree were bound in a Bond by these words Obligamus nos quemlibet nostrum Conjunctim And it was holden by the Court to be a joynt Bond and not several for the word Quemlibet is expounded by the word Conjunctim CCLXV. Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer IT was holden by the Court in this Case That if a stranger entreth upon the Farmor of the Queen that by such Entry he hath gained the Estate for years and if he doth make a Lease unto another his Lessee may maintain an Ejectione Firmae CCLXVI. Abbot's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ALice Abbot brought an Action upon the Case upon 5 several Assumpsits and in the close of her Declaration it was Et praedict J.S. licet saepius requisitus c. and so there was but one licet saepius requisitus to all the 5 Assumpsits whereas every several Assumpsit ought to have his several demand for one general Request for all is not sufficient For it hath been adjudged Where one is endebted to me severally in several sums of Mony made upon request or demand made And I go to him and say to him Pay me what you owe me the same is not a sufficient demand or request Wray If one lendeth me Mony to repay it when he shall be required Licet saepius requisitus is not sufficient but if the Plaintiff declareth upon a Cum indebitatus fuisset the Defendant assumed to pay there Licet saepius requisitus is sufficient CCLXVII Stackford's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. STackford was endicted for disclosing the Counsel of the Queen and of his Companions being sworn upon the Grand Enquest for the County of Middlesex in this manner It was intended by the Iury to endict the Brother of the said Stackford as a common Barrettor and he disclosed the same to
that the Queens Attorny said That it is true that Thomas Robinson was possessed but it is further said That Thomas granted it to Paramour and so the Interest of Thomas is confessed on both sides and therefore the Iury shall not be received to say the contrary But the Opinion of Manwood Chief Baron was That if the parties do admit a thing per nient dedire the Iury is not bound by it but where upon the pleading a special matter is confessed there the Iury shall be bound by it And afterwards the Issue was found against Robinson the Defendant CCLXXIII Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Debt by A. against B. upon an Obligation the Defendant pleaded tender of the Mony according to the Condition upon which the parties were at Issue And after the Defendant pleaded That after the Darrein Continuance the Debt now in demand was Attached in the Defendants hands according to the Custom of London for the debt of C. to whom the Plaintiff was endebted It was the Opinion of the Court That the Plea was insufficient for it is altogether contrary to the first Plea. And also the Court held That in an Action for the debt depending here in this Court the debt cannot be attached and the Court would not suffer a Demurrer to be joyned upon it but over-ruled the Case without any Argument For it was said by Wray Chief Iustice That it was against the Iurisdiction of the Court and the Priviledge of it CCLXXIV Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was holden by the Court That if a Copyholder in Fee dieth seised and the Lord admits a stranger to the Land who entreth that he is but a Tenant at Will and not a Disseisor to the Copyholder who hath the Land by descent because he cometh in by the assent of the Lord c. CCLXXV Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Ejectione firmae was brought de uno Cubiculo and Exception was taken to it But the Exception was disallowed The Declaration was special viz Leas unius Cubiculi per nomen unius Cubiculi being in such a House in the middle story of the said House And the Declaration was holden good enough and the word Cubiculum is a more apt word than the word Camera And such was the Opinion of Wray Chief Iustice And it was said That Ejectione firmae brought de una rooma had been adjudged good in this Court. CCLXXVI Johnson and Bellamy's Case Rot. 824. Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae It was holden by Special Verdict 1 Cro. 122. That W. Graunt was seised of certain Lands and by his Will devised the same to Joan his Wife for life And further he willed That when Rich. his Brother should come to the age of 25 years that he should have the Land to him and the Heirs of his body lawfully begotten W. Graunt died having Issue of his body who was his Heir Rich. before he attained the age of 25 years levied a Fine of the said Lands with proclamations in the life and during the seisin of Joan to A. sic ut partes finis nihil habuerunt And If this Fine should bar the Estate in tail was the Question And the Iustices cited the Case of the Lord Zouch which was adjudged Mich. 29 Eliz. Where the Case was Tenant in tail discontinued to E. and afterwards levied a Fine to B. That although that partes finis nihil habuerunt yet the said Fine did bind the Estate tail But the Serjeants at the Bar argued That there was a difference between the Case cited and the Case at Bar For in the Case cited the Fine was pleaded in Bar but here it was not pleaded but found by Special Verdict To which it was said by the Court That the same is not any difference For the Fine by the Statute is not any matter of Estoppel or Conclusion but by the Statute binds and extincts the entail and the right of it And Fines are as sufficient to bind the right of the entail when they are found by Special Verdict as when they are pleaded in Bar. And Periam Iustice said A Collateral Warranty found by Special Verdict is of as great force as pleaded in Bar. And afterwards Iudgment was given That the Estate tail by that Fine was utterly barred and extinct CCLXXVII Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was A Man made a Lease for life rendring Rent at Michaelmas and further Leased the same to the Executors of the Lessee until Michaelmas after the death of the Lessee It was affirmed by Cook That in that Case it was adjudged That the word Until shall be construed to extend to the Term unto the end of the Feast of St. Michael and so the Rent then due payable by the Executors for without such Construction no Rent should be then due because the Term ended before Michaelmas CCLXXVIII Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ONe was bounden to stand to the Award of two Arbitrators who awarded That the party should pay to a stranger or his Assigns 200 l. before such a day The stranger before the day died B. took Letters of Administration The Question was If the Obligee should pay the Mony to the Administrator or if the Obligation was discharged It was the Opinion of the whole Court That the Mony should be paid to the Administrator for he is an Assignee And by Gawdy If the word Assigns had been left out yet the payment ought to be made to the Administrator Which Cook granted CCLXXIX Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Defendant in Debt being ready at the Bar to wage his Law was examined by the Court upon the points of the Declaration and the cause of the Debt upon which it appeared that the Plaintiff and Defendant were reciprocally endebted the one to the other And accompting together they were agreed That each of them should be quit of the other It was the Opinion of Periam and Anderson Iustices That upon that matter the Defendant could not safely wage his Law For it is but an agreement which cannot be executed but by Release or Acquittance CCLXXX Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in tail Covenanted with his Son to stand seised to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his Son in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Father The Father levied a Fine with proclamations and died It was moved by Fenner If any Estate passed to the Son by that Covenant for it is not any discontinuance and so nothing passed but during his life and all the Estates which are to begin after his death are void Anderson Iustice The Estate passeth until c. And he cited the Case of one Pitts where it was adjudged That if Tenant in tail of an Advowson in gross grants the same in Fee and a Collateral Ancestor releaseth with warranty and dieth
that the same is a good bar for ever CCLXXXI Ognell's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin against Ognel who avowed for Rent Clayton Rep. 91. the Plaintiff was Nonsuit the Question was Whether the Court might assess Damages without a Writ of Enquiry of Damages It was the Opinion That they might for they are not in respect of any local matter but they accrue to the Avowant for the delay in the non-payment of the Rent Contrary where Iudgment is given for the Plaintiff there the Court shall not assess the Damages for he ought to recover for the taking of his Cattel of which the Iudges cannot take notice and the Damages may be greater or less according to the value of the Cattel and the Circumstances of the taking and delaying of them CCLXXXII Hitchcock and Harvy's Case Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. HItchcock brought an Action of Trespass for breaking of his Close and spoyling of his Grass against Harvey and the Case was That A. was seised of the Land in which c. and granted to the Plaintiff proficuum of such a Mead called Tentry Mead post falcationem inde scil the Ear-grass And it was found by Verdict That Ear-grass is such Grass which is upon the Land after the mowing until the Feast of the Annunciation after It was moved If such a Grantee might have Trespass Quare Clausum fregit And it was the Opinion of the Court 1 Cro. 421. That he could not but for spoiling the Grass he might Clench Iustice If a Man be Outlawed in an Action personal The Queen hath the profits of the Land and lets the same to another He shall have an Action of Trespass Quare Clausum fregit Which Shute granted And afterwards because the Iury had given Damages entire as well for the breaking of the Close as for the spoyling of the Grass the Plaintiff could not recover the Damages CCLXXXIII Chard and Tuck's Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 41. 1 Cro. 15 16 114 170.130 Shep. Touch. 94. Bro. Tit. Judgment 83. IN an Ejectione firmae by Chard against Tuck It was found by special Verdict That A. was seised of a Messuage and of a Curtilage and of a Garden to the same belonging in Fee and that the Curtilage was on the back side of the said House and the Garden next beyond the said Curtilage the Garden being divided from the Curtilage by a Wall and a Door through the Wall into the Garden from the said Curtilage and no Way to either of them but through the House And it was further found That the said A. by his Will devised the said Messuage to B. The Question was If by that Devise the Curtilage and Garden did pass Vide inde Br. 23 H. 8. Feoffments 53. Where a Feoffment is made of such a Messuage cum pertinentiis they shall pass Curtilage is a member at the least an Appendix of a Messuage And by the clear Opinion of the whole Court in the Case at Bar It was Resolved That by this Devise the Curtilage and Garden did pass And it was said by Wray Chief Iustice It matters not Whether the Curtilage and Garden be before the House or behind it for in both Cases they shall pass CCLXXXIV Baxter's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer AN Information in the Exchequer was exhibited against Baxter of Cambridge upon the Statute of 7 E. 6. Cap. 5. of Wines and the selling of them against the purview of the said Statute To which the Defendant pleaded That King Rich. the second in the 5th year of his Reign Granted unto the Chancellor and his Deputy and the Scholers of the Vniversity of Cambridge Custodiam assisae panis vini Cervisiae correctionem punitionem eorundum 4 Inst 229. And that the Queen that now is confirmed the said Grant in the third year of her Reign by her Letters Patents which were after confirmed by Act of Parliament 13 Eliz. And so pleaded to the Iurisdiction of the Court. Vpon which It was demurred in Law. Harris argued for the Queen and said That the Defendant could not plead that matter to the Iurisdiction of the Court at that time for it is now too late for that he hath oftentimes imparled and that generally In which case the Court having general and ordinary Iurisdiction and Authority to hold plea of such matters shall have Conusans of them notwithstanding the matter which hath been shewed and set forth On the other side It hath been said Quod Assisa venit de assidendo that is to have the Assise as well in respect of the price as of the measure Which although it be admitted yet the same shall not help them For they of Cambridge have not Assisam ipsam but only Custodiam assisae i.e. that the Assise set down by the Queen and her Councel be well kept And that no other price or measure be used in the uttering of Wines Popham The Queens Attorny to the same intent The Statute of 51 H. 1. Ordains That when Wheat is at such a price in the Market then every penny Loaf is to weigh so much and so when Barley is at such a price then so much Beer shall be sold for a penny And that was the general Assize limited by the said Statute In these Cases the Vniversity cannot appoint another Assize than that which is set down by the said Statute but to take care that the said Statute be well executed in such Assise See the Statute of 31 E. 1. of Wines scil That Wines shall be sold according to the Assize of the King i. e. 12 d. the Gallon And in that matter the Vniversity hath Custodiam only i.e. the survey of the Assize and the execution of it and authority to punish the Offences against the said Statutes as well in the price as in the measure according to the said Statutes and not otherwise c. And as to the Statute of 7 E. 6. Cap. 5. By which it is provided That the said Statute shall not be prejudicial to any of the Inhabitants of Oxford or Cambridge or unto the Chancellor or Scholers there to impair their Liberties c. The same ought to be intended that the Liberties and Franchises which the Vniversities had before by the Grant ut supra c. i. e. to punish such Offences against the Assise according to the old Statutes For the said Statute of 7 E. 6. Cap. 5. being in the Affirmative doth not take away the punishment appointed by any other Statute but doth continue the same And a further penalty is appointed propter ulteriorem poenam And as to that which hath been said That by the said Grant of Rich. the 2d 3 Cro. 52 62 they have granted to them Cognitionem omnium Actionum personalium inter partem partem That will not help the Vniversity in this Case For the Informer by the Statute hath Liberty to
to the Bar because he hath not shewed that at that time of the cutting it was not Fawning time Poph. 158. 2 Cro. 637 679. for at the Fawning time his prescription doth not extend to it and that was holden to be a material Exception but because that the Plaintiff had replyed and upon his Replication the Defendant had demurred the Court would not resort to the Bar but gave Iudgment upon the Replication and therefore Nihil Capiat per breve CCXC. Brocas's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. BRocas Lord of a Mannor Covenanted with his Copyholder to assure to him and his Heirs the Freehold and Inheritance of his Copyhold And the said Copyholder in Consideration of the same performed Covenanted to pay such a sum It was the Opinion of the whole Court That the said Copyholder is not tyed to pay the said sum before the assurance made 1 Roll. 415. and the Covenant performed But if the words had been In Consideration of the said Covenant to be performed then he is bounden to pay the mony presently and to have his remedy over by Covenant CCXCI. Ireland and Higgius's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared Owen Rep. 93. That he was possessed of a Greyhound ut de bonis suis propriis and that such a day he lost it and that it came to the hands of the Defendant by Trover and that the Defendant afterwards in Consideration thereof promised the Plaintiff to deliver the said Greyhound to the Plaintiff and shewed his request Ley The Action doth not lie For of those things which are ferae naturae the Plaintiff hath not any property but ratione fundi as of Deer c. And in Trespass for them he cannot say suos but only Quare claufum fregit lepores cepit without saying suos And to that purpose were cited 3 H. 6. 56. 18 E. 4. 14. 10 H. 7. 19. 22 H. 6. 12. 14 Eliz. Dyer 106. Sir John Spencer's Case And it was holden That the Action did not lie And if not for a Hawk much less for a Hound CCXCII Ognell and Trussell's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Star-Chamber A Bill was Exhibited in the Star-Chamber by Ognell of London against one Trussell of Warwickshire setting forth such matter That whereas the said Trussell had for good Consideration sold and assured unto the said Ognell a Mannor Now to gratifie a great person who earnestly desired the said Mannor he for effecting thereof practised by fraudulent means to avoid the said assurance and practised by other persons to be Indicted of a Robbery supposed to be committed before the said Assurance and compounded with the Lord of the Fee that if he be attainted so that by such Attainder the said Mannor should escheat to the said Lord That he upon request should reassure to the said Trussell the said Mannor in Fee after Pardon obtained which was promised to him by the said great Parsonage Vpon which Indictment Trussell was Arraigned and Convicted upon Evidence which he himself procured to be falsly given against him And all that was to extort the Land which was lawfully sold before And upon the Bill Trussell demurred in Law because he is a person attainted of Felony and so dead in Law and therefore shall not be put to answer Hatton Lord Chancellor It is not reason that he be put to Answer for Nemo tenetur seipsum prodere And thereupon the Bill was referred to Anderson and Periam Iustices to Consider If the Defendant should be put to answer or not Who certified unto the Court That although the Defendant be attainted ut supra and so quodam modo dead in Law to all intents yet in Criminal Causes he shall answer Wherefore it was ordered That he answer accordingly CCXCIII Cardinal and Arnold's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CArdinal brought an Action upon the Case against Arnold and declared That the Dean and Chapter Ecclesiae Cathedralis Cantuar. per nomen Decani Capituli Ecclesiae Cathedral Metropolitan Christian Cantuar. Leased unto Seckford for years the Mannor of Hadley by force of which he was possessed And so possessed granted to the Plaintiff the Office of Stewardship of the said Mannor and the Defendant disturbed him The Defendant pleaded a Lease absque hoc that the said Seckford granted And it was found for the Plaintiff And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That that Lease being made in the manner aforesaid was void For the Declaration is That the Dean and Chapter Ecclesiae Cathedralis Cantuar where the Lease is made by the name ut supra Here are two several Names therefore two several Corporations therefore Decanus Capituli Ecclesiae Cathedralis Cantuariensis did not Lease But Decanus Capituli Ecclesiae Cathedralis Metrapolitan Christi did Lease CCXCIV. Anderson and Hayward's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Copyholder of Inheritance of a Mannor in the hands of the King is ousted It was holden in such case That he hath not gained any Estate so as he may make a Lease for years upon which his Lessee may maintain an Ejectione firmae but he hath but a possession against all strangers And also in that Case It was holden That if a Copyholder dieth his Heir within age he is not bound to come at any Court during his Non-age to pray Admittance Or to tender his Fine Also that if the death of his Ancessor be not presented nor proclamation made he is not at any Mischief although he be of full age CCXCV. Brightman's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber UPon a Writ of Error brought upon a Iudgment given in the King Bench The matter was A. Leased for 20 years to B. two Acres of Land rendring Rent with Condition of Re-entry who Leased one of the said Acres to C. for 10 years And afterwards granted the Reversion of the said Term in the said Acre to A. It was holden by the Iustices That the same was no present suspension of the said Condition because there was not any possession CCXCVI. Fitzhugh's Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Dower against Fitzhugh who pleaded in bar a Fine with proclamations and 5 years passed after the death of the Husband of whose seisin she demanded Dower To which the Demandant said That within the 5 years after the death of her Husband she brought a Writ of Dower against the now Tenant and delivered the same to the Sheriff c. but did not shew that the Writ was Returned upon which the Tenant did demur in Law. It was holden by Periam Iustice That the Fine is not avoided by such manner of Claim For the words of the Statute are So that they pursue their Claim or Title by way of Action or lawful Entry within the 5 years but here the Demandant hath not pursued c. therefore she shall not be Retained by the said Statute
CCXCVII. Mounson and West's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Len. 88. IN the Case of Mounson and West which see in Leon. 1 Part 88. Where the Case was in Trespass the parties were at Issue and at the Return of the Pannel the Defendant challenged the Array because it was made by B.A. who took to Wife the Cosen German of the Plaintiff et ex ea had Issue living the Mother being dead Vpon which it was demurred in Law. Now this Term came the Plaintiff and offered to relinquish his Demurrer and confess the Cosenage and prayed a Writ to the Coroners It was the Opinion of the Court That he might so well do by the Law because the Demurrer is not made up Which matter the Prothonotaries excused because the Demurrer was not subscribed with a Serjeants hand To which it was said by the Court That a Demurrer upon a Challenge is not like to a Demurrer upon a Plea For in case of a Demurrer upon a Challenge as soon as the Demurrer is agreed upon at the Bar it is good enough without other Circumstance and the Prothonotaries of right ought to enter such Demurrer CCXCVIII Fetherstone and Hutchins's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared That whereas one Hill had recovered in an Action of Debt against J.S. 10 l. upon which a Capias was awarded against the said J.S. by force of which the Plaintiff Arrested him and so being under his Arrest the Defendant in Consideration that the Plaintiff would suffer the said J.S. to go at large circa negotia sua and to go to his own House And also in Consideration of 2 d. paid to the Defendant he promised to pay to the Plaintiff the said 10 l. It was holden by the Court That the same was a void promise within the Statute of 23 H. 6. for the Consideration to let the Prisoner go at large is not lawful and if part of the Consideration is naught so is the whole And Adjudged accordingly CCXCIX Gore and Wingfield's Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Debt upon an Obligation 4 Len. 208 The Obligation was written in this form Know all by these presents That I H. Wingfield am bound to William Gore c. in the sum of c. For the payment of which sum I give full power and authority to the said Gore to levy the said sum upon the profits of the Bailiwick of Swinsted from year to year until the same be paid To which the Defendant pleaded That the Plaintiff had levied parcel of the said sum c. and did not shew how And therefore the pleading was found vitious And it was clearly agreed by the whole Court in this Case That the Plaintiff at his Liberty might bring his Action upon the said Obligation or levy the said mony according to the Clause aforesaid CCC Seckford's Case Hill. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HEnry Seckford was impleaded in the Court of Common Pleas at the suit of a Widow in an Action of Debt and now came an Injunction or Writ of Priviledge out of the Exchequer reciting the said Seckford to be one of the Grooms of the Queens Privy-Chamber and Keeper of the Privy-Purse and so Accomptable to the Queen and that they do not hold plea of the said Action But that the Plaintiff sequitur poenas Scaccar But the Writ was utterly disallowed by the Court. See 16 Eliz. Dyer 328. Hunt's Case CCCI. The Queen and Littleton's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer INstruction by the Queen against Littleton and upon the general Issue As to the House The Defendant pleaded Not guilty and as to the Land and Park made Title That Anne Talbot leased the same to him for years c. and the Iury found this special matter scil That Anne Talbot was seised and leased the said House Land and Park to the Defendant for years rendring Rent with clause of Re-entry And that after the said Lease so made The said Anne said to the Lessee Although I have not excepted it in my Lease yet I mean to have the Chamber over the Kitchin to lay my Stuff in until my Son come of years To whom the Lessee answered That he was well contented with that Vpon which the said Anne put in her Houshold-Stuff there and afterwards she took to Husband Sir Robert Stapleton Knight After which all the Houshold-Stuff is removed out of the said Chamber by the said Sir Robert Stapleton and his Wife who afterwards by their Warrant authorized J.S. to demand the Rent due at Michaelmas who at the last day limitted for the payment of the Rent went to the Premisses and demanded the Rent to whom the Lessee said That if the said J.S. would shew to the Lessee his Name and make an Acquittance and also shew his Warrant he would pay him the Rent otherwise not but the said J.S. utterly refused c. wherefore the Lessee would not pay any Rent And as to the other Rent for several Rents were reserved The Lessee said to J.S. upon demand of the same I here say That there is already a forfeiture committed upon the last demand and therefore it is to no purpose to pay the Rent and further said he had not any monies Shep. Touch. 387. It was moved by Popham Attorny General That these demands made in manner c. were good and that he who made the demand is not bound to shew his Warrant For he may be sufficiently authorized to make such demand without any Warrant in writing no more than to tell his Name or make an Acquittance but the Lessee ought to pay his Rent at his peril sub conditionis periculo as in Case of an Obligation And as to the Speech of Anne Talbot concerning the Chamber over the Kitchin and the answer of Littleton to that The same doth not amount unto a Surrender nor was it their intent but only a permission or sufferance for the said Anne Talbot to lay her Stuff there for a time as appeareth for after the Stuff removed the Lessee entred into the Chamber and occupied the same as he did the rest And afterwards exception was taken to this Verdict because that here are two Issues and but one Verdict scil as to the Land and Park of Not guilty and as to the House he makes a Title by Lease and the Iury have found the Lease the Condition and the Re-entry for the breach of the same If the special matter aforesaid doth amount to the same and if c. then they say that the Defendant is guilty of the whole It was moved That here is but one Verdict for the Lease and the other Issue is not enquired of and then all is discontinued See 5 H. 5. 3. in Dower the Tenant pleaded as to one part Non tenure and as to the Residue Ne unque seisie and afterwards the Seisin was found by the Verdict but
nothing found of the Non tenure and therefore a Venire facias de novo was awarded c. But it was answered by the Court That this Verdict had determined both the Issues for the Changeableness of the Entry as the Court conceived upon the special matter aforesaid did determine both the Issues CCCII Scot and Scot's Case Pasch 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THE Case of Scot and Scot in a Replevin 1 Cro. 73. 2 Len. 128. 4 Len. 70. the which see Mich. 29 Eliz. Leon. 2 Part 129. was argued again by Egerton Sollicitor General And he said In some Case This word Proviso is not a Condition but only an Explanation of the Sentence precedent If it be in the Negative and makes restraint of the Common Law then it is a Condition As a Lease for years Proviso That he shall not alien or do Waste And if the Proviso be in the Affirmative and by that the party be bound to do a thing which of common Right he is not bound to do it is a Condition A Lease for years or for life Proviso That he shall pay such a sum Lessee for years Proviso That the Lessee shall pay his Rent generally without limitation of any day it is on Condition And he held by way of Argument in the principal Case That Cestuy que use should take adgantage of conditions which are knit to Estates as for payment of Rent but not concerning collateral things And such exposition of the Statute of 32 H. 8. hath been made there before And admit it be a Condition Yet the Lessor cannot re-enter for the Rent was not well demanded For 20 l. Rent is reserved yearly payable at four Feasts and here the Lessor hath demanded 10 l. scil The Rent of two several Quarters whereas only Rent was demandable in point of the Condition Cook conceived That it was a Condition but every Proviso did not make a Condition The Lessor Covenants That the Lessee shall take sufficient Wood Proviso that he shall not take great Timber that Proviso doth not make the Covenant Conditional but only explains the same A Lease without Impeachment of Waste Proviso that the Lessee shall not do voluntary Waste is not any Proviso but a restraint of the Liberty given before and doth but qualifie the Liberty As Littletons Case Grant of a Rent-Charge Proviso that it shall not extend to charge the person of the Grantor that Proviso doth not make the Grant Conditional so that if the Grantee bring a Writ of Annuity against the Grantor the Grant be determined c. A Lease for years Proviso that if the Lessee shall be disposed to Alien that the Lessor shall have the first offer c. The same is not a Condition which see by Fitzherbert and Baldwin 28 H. 8. Dyer 13. A Lease for years upon Condition That if the Lessee will hold over his Term That then he shall pay so much Rent the same is not Condition for it is at the pleasure of the Lessee c. and it is not compulsory A Feoffment in Fee with warranty Proviso that the Feoffee shall not vouch the same doth not make the warranty Conditional but only abridgeth the warranty Sir Richard Pecksall leased certain Lands for years and Covenanted That the Lessee should take at his pleasure the Trees there growing Proviso That he should not take Trees of such a bigness It was holden in that Case to be no Condition So in the Covenant for further assurance Proviso That the Bargainor shall not be compelled to travail for the making of the assurance above ten miles c. But admit that it be a Condition yet the Lessor upon the matter cannot take advantage of it For he hath not demeaned himself in the demand of the Rent as he ought For he hath demanded Rents due to him at several Quarters and that he cannot demand in point of forfeiture for then the Lessor may leave his Rent in the Hands of the Lessee until it amount to a great sum of 200 or 300 l. and then upon a sudden demand of the Rent when the Lessee is not so well furnished nor can be at so short warning to pay the same And it may be likened to the Case in 27 H. 6. A. granteth to B. ten Loads of Hay percipiend annuatim out of his Meadows in C. for 21 years there the Grantee cannot stay and take all his Hay and the Arrears of it in the later year but he ought to take his Hay every year according to his Grant Causa qua supra And although the Lessor here hath demanded more Rent than he ought yet the Law shall construe the demand good for so much of the Rent which by the Law is demandable in point of forfeiture as where a Man is bound to perform the Award of such an one who awards That he and another shall be bound to another party for the payment of c. Although that the same Award be void as to the Stranger yet it is good as to the party himself and he ought to be bound by it Dr. Mollins Case A Lease for years rendring Rent to be paid at two days in the year Proviso That if the said Lessee do not pay the said yearly Rent that then a Re-entry that Rent is not demandable upon pain of forfeiture but the last day of every year only and not every year according to the Reservation of it The words of our Condition are Provided That if the Lessee do grant his Term to his eldest Son that he shall pay but so must Rent the same without doubt is not any Condition yet he shall pay so much Rent doth amount to so much Note In the Argument of this this Case was put A. is bound to make such an assurance to B. of such Land as C. shall devise C. deviseth That A. and his Wife shall make such assurance A. is bounden upon the peril of his Obligation to do it See as to this point of the Proviso 5 Eliz. Dyer 222. The Archbishop of Yorks Case It was adjourned CCCIII. Mich. 31 Eliz. In C. B. THis Case was put to the Court a Copyholder did alledge the Custom of the Mannor to be That the Lord of the Mannor might grant Copies in the remainder only with the assent of the Tenants and not otherwise and that Copies in Remainder otherwise granted should be void It was demanded of the Court If this were a good Custom or not The Iustices did forbear to deliver any Opinion in the Case Walmesley Serjeant That it was a void Custom for that the Law doth not take notice of Copyholders Estate they being but Tenants at Will in the Iudgment of the Common Law and therefore it was not reasonable that their Wills and Pleasures should limit the Lord of the Mannor in granting of Estates by Copy and therefore he said such a Custom was void and he compared it to the Case in 2 H. 4. 27. That a Custom That a
thereupon But then the Question was If the Tenants should be put to plead the same in discharge or that the same should be discharged without pleading because it appeareth upon Record That he who aliened was but Tenant in tail in Remainder For there was an Office found of that which was pleaded by another in another Cause The Opinion of the Court was Where such matter appeareth of Record as by Office Livery c. there the party needs not to plead such matter in discharge for the pleading of it is to no other purpose but to satisfie the Court by the Record that the matter is so as the party hath alledged and therefore the Barons gave Order That the Process against the Tenants of the Lord Dacres should be stayed CCCXXXVI George Ap-Rice's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN the Case of one George Ap-Rice The matter was Ante 121. That Tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct assigned over his Estate unto A. against whom he in the Reversion brought a Quid juris clamat and Iudgment was given that he should attorn and upon his refusal he was committed to Prison and divers Fines set upon him and estreated in the Exchequer It was moved That these Fines were imposed upon the party against Law. And the Opinion of the Court was That when Iudgment is given in a Quid juris clamat for the Plaintiff Distresse infinite shall be against the Defendant to bring him in to attorn and when he comes in if he refuse he shall be imprisoned until he attorn It was also holden by the Court That the Fines were not lawfully assessed and imposed upon him And it was said That it had been adjudged in a Court of Wales That the Assignee of Tenant in tail after possibility of issue should attorn upon which Iudgment a Writ of Error was brought in the Kings Bench and there upon good advise the said Iudgment was affirmed For although it be true That Tenant in tail after possibility shall not be compelled to attorn yet that is a priviledge which is annexed to his person and not to the Estate and by the assignment of the Estate the priviledge is destroyed CCCXXXVII Harris and Wing's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. More Rep. 4. 5. IN the Case between Harris and Wing The first point was That the Lease made by Queen Mary was void 1. Because a former Lease of Record was not recited in the Letters Patents of it The reason wherefore such recital ought to be is not as hath been alledged by Cook Quia circa solium Regis subsistunt justitia veritas and then when there is a former Lease in Esse the King makes a Lease in possession the same cannot stand together so as there is not Justitia Veritas but the very reason thereof is so high that he cannot take c. but by matter of Record and if that he mistaken it makes all void and therefore In Petitions of Right Ante 5 6. and Monstrans de Droit If the King be not enformed of all the Titles all is void And therefore in the Case between Sir Moyle Finch and Throgmorton which now depends in the Exchequer which was this The Queen made a Lease for years rendring Rent with a Proviso That if the Rent be behind That the Estate shall cease the Rent is behind the King granted the same over to Sir Tho. H. It was first moved If the same Lease should cease without Office. And it was holden by Popham and many other grave and learned Men upon a Conference That the said Lease should cease without Office for the Contract which is upon Record is determined and ceased by which the Estate which was created by the said Contract shall also cease without Office. But yet the Lessee continued in possession notwithstanding that and took the Profits but thereof after office found he rendred recompence to the Queen And it was holden there upon the said Conference That the Queen in her Grant to Sir T.H. of the said Estate which was now ceased ought to recite that Lease For the Tenant is in possession and could not be punished for his occupation before Office. So in the Case of the Vicarage of Yatton 17 Eliz. Dyer 339. The presentment being devolved to the Queen by Lapse the Ordinary collated A. and afterwards the Queen presented B. who brought a Quare impedit depending which A. proved another Presentment of the Queen without mention or recital of the first Presentment and the same was holden void For in that the first Presentment is not recited nor the pleasure of the Queen to revoke it and therefore it was in disceit of the Queen So the Case 18 Eliz. Dyer 352. An Abbot leased for 60 years the Lessee made a Lease for 80 years the Reversion came to the King the 60 years expired the second Lesse surrendred to the King ea intentione that the King would re-grant the same to him for 20 years remaining The King reciting the Indenture and Surrender ex certa scientia granted for 20 years It was holden by the Court That the Grant was void because the King was misenformed c. It hath been Objected That here needs no recital for that the Lease to be recited is ended eo instante that the new Lease beginneth Sed distinguenda sunt tempora aliud est facere aliud perficere the first Lease is ended when the new is perfected and the Great Seal put to it The second reason wherefore the Lease shall be void is because otherwise the Grant of the Queen shall enure to two Intents 1. To make a Lease 2. To accept a Surrender and how can the Queen accept a Surrender of an Estate of which she hath not notice for She is not enformed of it by any Record without which She cannot take notice of any thing See 7 E. 4. 30 31. Baggotts Assise The King granted an Office to an Alien the same shall not enure to make him a Denizen for then it shall enure to two intents c. The words of the Grant of Queen Mary are Omnia tenementa nostra and If by that a Reversion shall pass was the Question Certainly In verbis ambiguis Intentio sumenda est Then here in our Case by this Patent is other Land which should pass and the Reversion is nostra but in property not possession Wherefore here Nostra shall be restrained to that which is in possession Where there are general words in Grant of the King they ought to be served but if they can be served they shall be taken in a common and general sense but the words shall not be stretched But if they cannot be served then they shall not be void but the King shall be rather prejudiced and always the Grant of the King either may be served or taken to a common intent 2 H. 3. 4. Quaelibet Concessio Domini Regis capi debet stricte contra Dominum
Regem quando potest intelligi duabus viis As if two be joyntly endebted to the King and the King pardons to one of them Omnia debita the same shall not extend to joynt-Debts but to those Debts of which he is only Debtor 40 E. 3. The King granted to a Subject the Fines and Amercements hominum suorum All which hold of him by Homage may be said homines suos and also his Villeins are homines suos but because the general words may be served the said Grant shall be taken to extend to his Villeins only So in our Case the general words may be served with Lands in possession and shall not extend to Lands in Reversion At another day the Case was argued by Popham Attorny General and he conceived That by the Lease made 2 Mar. both the former Leases as well that which was made by Henry the eighth as that which was made in Reversion by the Bishop of Bath and Wells are gone Lessee form term of years to begin at a day to come accepts a new Lease in possession which is to continue until the future Interest shall commence the future Interest is gone and in Barkings Case 2 Eliz. It was holden by Dyer and Brown that where Lessee for two years accepts a new Lease to begin two years after this new Interest of a term determines the present Interest For as the Lessor cannot contract with a Stranger for the Interest of a Term which is to have continuance during a former Term by the same reason when the first Termor will accept an Interest of a Term from his Lessor to begin at any time during his former Estate this new Interest determines the first So if one hath an Interest of a Term to begin at a day to come and he before the beginning of that Interest accepts a Lease for life his first Interest is gone The words of the Patent are All her Interest Lands and Tenements in the Parish of St. Cutbert in Wells and parcel of the possession of the late Priory of R. and if these general words will carry Lands in Reversion where other Lands in possession pass c. was the Question General words shall have a special understanding if the special Construction may agree with the proper signification and sense of the general words as the Case 2 H. 3 4. before cited and yet in the Case of a common person all manner of Debts were released thereby for that it shall be taken strongest against the party Also he conceived That the Lands in Reversion should pass as well as the Lands in possession And he said All former Leases of Record needed not to be recited c. but such Leases only which are made by the King For Subjects may have Leases of Record as by Fine Deed enrolled c. but such Leases need not to be recited For such Leases may determine without matter of Record as Surrender Re-entry c. and then to compel the King or the party to search for such Leases which might be so determined by any Act in pais should be as absurd as to compel him to search by what means and for what matter in pais such Leases are determined And he conceived That this Lease needed not to be recited which was made by King Henry the 8th For after the said Lease made the King granted the Reversion to the Bishop of Bath and Wells and his Successors and during the time that the said Land was to the Bishop It might be that the Lease was determined by matter in suit in pais by Surrender Forfeiture c. and then notwithstanding that the King obtained the Reversion after and will make a new Lease if he should be driven to recite the former Lease whereas perhaps it is determined by an Act in pais it should be very inconvenient Also here if any recital should be in the Case how might the party interested know such former Leases but by search and how long ought the party search for his search ought to have an end Non excrescere in infinitum tempus And in our Case the most equal time for search is the beginning of the last Title of the King and no further that is from the present time till the time of the Title of the King begins and in this Case the Title of the King doth begin from his repurchase from the Bishop and if the Law be such then here nothing is to be recited for no Lease is mean between the re-purchase and the new Lease For no Lease made before the re-purchase need to be recited For admit That King Henry the 3d had made a Lease of a Mannor for 500 years and afterwards granted the Reversion to an Abbot and afterwards the Mannor by suppression came again to the King and he will Grant a new Lease of the same such Lease shall be good without any recital of the Lease made by King Henry the 3d for such Lease might have been determined in the hands of the Abbot by Surrender or other matter in fact So King Edw. the 2d made a Gift in Tail and afterwards granted the Reversion to another the Grantee disseised the Tenant in Tail One who was Heir to the Grantee was attainted of Treason the Grantee died by which the Land came again to the King who made a new Patent of the same without recital of the Gift in Tail and the Patent holden good for the Cause aforesaid And in some Cases there needs no recital of Leases As if the King makes a Lease for years rendring Rent to his Receivor and for default of payment that his Estate shall cease Now if at the day the Lessee tendreth the Rent and the Receivor will not accept of it and afterwards it is found by Office that the Rent was not paid by which the Lease should be void yet he may traverse the Office and afterwards the King Grants this Rent to a Stranger there he needs not to recite the Lease for it appeareth by the Office That the same is void and yet in truth the Lease was in Esse c. and so a Lease of Record in Esse in some Case needs not to be recited So if the King Lease for years to J.S. and he assigns his Interest over and afterwards Surrenders the same to the King Now if the King will make a new Grant of it he need not recite that Lease for the Surrender of it appeareth of Record and the Assignment of it is but matter in fait which cannot be known by any search So on the other side void Leases which are not in Esse shall be cited until it appear as in the Case of Throgmorton cited before by Egerton And in such Case where the Queen granted the same to Sir T.H. the Grant ought to be in possession and not in Reversion because then void for the King had not a Reversion Also this Lease ought not to be recited for the second Patent is granted to
the first Lessee and so by acceptance of this new Lease the first Lease is determined And now we are to see if the things in the former Grant are necessary to be recited the Estate in the Land and the Tenant not necessary The Reservation Condition Covenant and the Date The reason wherefore the Estate ought to be recited is to this purpose that the King might know and be enformed how far the Land is encumbred with other Estates c. but that reason is of no effect in our Case when the second Patent is made to the first Lessee for by the acceptance of the new Estate the first Interest is gone wherefore of that there needs no recital The second reason wherefore such former Lease ought to be recited is to the intent That the new Patentee may not have colour or countenance by reason of his Patent to do wrong to the first Patentee who hath the present possession by disturbing of him by Entry or Suit for all the truth of the matter appears in his own Letters Patents and the true Estate of the Tenant in possession But that reason hath not any force in our Case for the second Estate is made to him who hath the former Estate The reason wherefore the present Tenant ought to be mentioned in the second Letters Patents is so as the Queen may be ascertained what manner of person he is who is the present possessor for it may be he is such to whom the Queen hath given such Estate upon special favour for his good Service and in recompence thereof and that she will not disgrace the party so much as to give his Farm to another over his head which might be much to the discomfort and prejudice of him in possession which the Queen peradventure would not do if she had full intelligence of it but rather advantage him with it and not let it to any other person But in our Case here there is not any such matter of mischief But it is good to consider what Tenant ought to be specified in the Recital Assuredly the most sure way is the Patentee himself to whom the Lease was originally made although he be dead or hath assigned his Interest over For it may be dangerous to rely upon the Tenant who hath the possession for it may be that another hath the Interest although he hath the possession and then the recital is false wherefore it is best to say by way of recital Cum dimisimus c. And as to the Land the same also ought to be recited by the same name in such form and by the same words as it was granted before in the former Grant and yet if the name was mis-recited in the former Grant it ought not to be so in the second As if the King Grant the Mannor of Little-Court by the name of the Mannor of Litt-cote or the Mannor of Wellington by the name of the Mannor of Welton the same is good by the Statute But if a new Grant is to be made of the same in which the first Grant is to be recited now the former mis-recital shall not be put in ure but the very name but in this special manner that is where the King hath demised the Mannor of Little-cote by the name of the Mannor of Litt-cote c. So where a Mannor is known by two names and the Queen leaseth the same by one of the said Names and afterwards Grants the same by the other name The Recital ought to be That whereas the Queen hath demised the Mannor of D. by the name of the Mannor of S. c. And as to the recital of the Estate the Habendum in the first Patent ought to be recited and all that which preceeds the Reddendum for in that the Estate is fully contained But here in our Case such recitals are not necessary for it is impertinent to make recital of the same which is determined eo instante that the new Patent is made and that by reason of a matter precedent although that all be done eodem instanti and as to an Instant the same is not to be considered in Law as it is in Logick as a point of time and no parcel of time But in our Law things which are to be done in an instant have in consideration of law a priority of time in them As Lessee for life makes a Lease for years they both Surrender to him in the Reversion the same Surrender which is made in an instant shall in Law be understood to have degrees The Surrender of Lessee for years to the Tenant for life and then the Surrender of Tenant for life So in our Case the determination of the first Lease shall be first 1 E. 3. 6. The Tenant took the Seignioresse to Wife had Issue the Wife died the Husband shall not be Tenant by the Curtesie for although the Seigniory was in him at the time of the Marriage yet by priority in Law it ceased so as no seisin of the Seigniory was during the Coverture So in our Case eo instante that this new Patent is made the first Estate is determined yet in construction of Law the Surrender shall be said precedent and then the said Estate needs not to be recited For if there had been an express Surrender in fact there had not been any doubt that recital was not necessary Ergo neither in the Case of a Surrender in Law. As to that which hath been Objected That the Grant of the Queen cannot enure to two Intents scil to make a Surrender and also to make a new Lease The same Rule is true where both Intents enure and work against the King But whereas the one Intent serves and works for the benefit of the King it is otherwise As in our Case This Surrender is for the benefit of the King therefore it shall be taken c. as 6 H. 8. The King Grants Land to another durante beneplacito and afterwards the same Patentee purchaseth a new Estate from the King here needs not any recital of the former for the second Estate is made to the first Patentee and the first Estate is determined by the acceptance of the second 3 Eliz. The Case of the Earl of Arrundel was this The Lord John Gray being Lessee for years of a House called Hull-rake of the Lease of the Queen afterwards took a Grant from the Queen of the Custody of the same Messuage with a Fee for it and that was without recital of the former Lease and the Grant holden good and yet it did enure to two Intents to a Surrender of the Lease and a Grant of the Custody but both the Intents were not against the Queen for the Surrender was for Her benefit As to the Lease made 13 Eliz. it is utterly void for mis-reciting of the date of the former Lease made 2 Mar. for the very date of the said Lease was the 11th of May and in the Recital it is the 21 of May. For
although the date is not necessary to be recited yet here as this Case is the same ought to be truly recited For the Surrender of the said Estate which passeth by it is the Consideration of the new Grant then if the same be false the Patent is void for it was made by reason of that for there is a more ample Lease recited than in truth it is by ten days And so the Consideration scil the Surrender not so beneficial as the Queen expected also this new Patent doth contain in it self a Grant of such Lands as were demised formerly by Letters Patents dated 21 of May scil Omnia praemissa in forma praedict dimissa and nothing was demised in forma praedict scil by Patent bearing such date Ergo nothing passed by the later Patent For the Patent of 13 Eliz. is in consideration of a Surrender of a Lease made and bearing date 21 of May whereas no such Lease was and then no Surrender and then no Consideration Also here the Consideration is false for the Lessee who is supposed to have surrendred his Lease before the same Surrender assigned parcel of his Term to one Hagget and afterwards purchased a new Lease in consideration of the Surrender of the former and of his full Interest in it whereas he had not the whole Interest and so this false consideration destroys the whole Grant. For in all Cases where the considerations are real and savour of the Land or extend to such a real thing if it be false it destroys the Patent But where the consideration is personal as in consideration of Mony paid or for Service done although it be false yet the Patent may be good So here forasmuch as the consideration is real in respect of this Surrender and is false as appears before the Patent is void And as to this point there is not any difference between Consideration and Suggestion for if it be real and false the Patent is void contrary where personal But in some Cases where the Letters Patents are Ex certa scientia c. such falsity in the reality shall not hurt Which see 18 Eliz. Dyer 352. So the Case between Manxel and Turvil where Lessee for years his Lease being expired supposing that he had twenty years of his Lease not entred in consideration of such Interest took a Patent de novo the same was void So Owens Case Terril being Lessee for years of the Parsonage of P. in the County of Sommerset of the Grant of the King for certain years In consideration of his said Interest obtained a Grant of the Queen of Lands in Wales whereas in truth he had before assigned his Interest in the said Parsonage to another and it was adjudged That the said Grant of Lands in Wales was void for the Consideration was void and so the Consideration being real was false And in some Cases a Consideration personal if it be false shall destroy the Patent if it be future and executory as if the King Grants Lands to J.S. ea intentione that he shall pay to J.D. 10 l. Now if he do not pay it the Patent is void and the Estate given by it void also It hath been Objected by Godfrey That by this Surrender the Patent was cancelled and so the parcel of the Term which was assigned to Hagget was defeated and avoided forasmuch as the Original Letters Patents out of which the Estate of Hagget was derived are cancelled and so there is a good Surrender and then the Consideration is true especially forasmuch as Hagget being Assignee but of parcel of the Term cannot have a Constat by the Statute of 4 E. 6. As to that I conceive That the Assignee of part of the Interest may have a Constat by that Statute notwithstanding the Surrender of the Letters Patents and the cancelling of them and for that matter the difference is If the Roll remains a Constat may be although that the Patent be cancelled See Brook Patents 89. 32 H. 8. If a Vacat be entred upon the Roll then no Constat can be afterwards and therefore in Sydnies Case the Assignee could not have a Constat because there was a Vacat entred upon the Roll. But a Constat had before any Vacat entred upon the Roll such a Constat is good notwithstanding the Vacat afterwards And it doth not appear that any Vacat is entred upon the Roll so for any thing that appears Hagget may have a Constat and then his Interest is saved to him and then the Surrender is void and the Consideration false and although there be other Considerations in the Letters Patents which are true and good yet that shall not help the matter For if any part of the Consideration be false the Patent is void in all and so it was holden in Manxell's Case cited before and so be prayed Iudgment for the Plaintiff Egerton Sollicitor to the contrary Where the words ex certa scientia are not put in Letters Patents they shall be intended to be made at the suggestion of the Patentee and so the Grant shall be taken beneficially for the King and strictly against the Patentee But where such words are put in the Letters Patents there the Grant shall be taken beneficially for the Subject These words Ex speciali gratia imply the bounty of the King certa scientia excludes all ignorance and mero motu shew the voluntary and liberal benevolence of the King without suit of the party and where the words in such Letters Patents are general they shall be construed liberally for the Subject but with limits and bounds that nothing pass in such case but such things which are aptly signified by such special words as to pass two things where the meaning of the King was to pass but one And if the Patent be conceived utroque modo tam ex certa scientia c. as upon the suggestion of the party If the Suggestion be in any part false the whole Patent is void for the Suggestion extenuates the force of the other words Juris forensis est si quid falsis precibus obtentum acquirenti non proderit and to that purpose he cited the Case 18 Eliz. Dyer 352. before cited And he conceived That the Lease made by Queen Mary is utterly void 1. Because the first Lease of Record is not recited 2. If the same shall be good the Queen should accept a Surrender where she knew not of it and so the Patent should enure to divers Intents 3. This Lease is made by general words that is Of all the Lands in the Parish of St. Cuthberts For these general words may be well satisfied with the Lands which the King hath in possession and therefore they shall not extend to the Lands which are now in Question of which the Queen at the time of the Grant had but a Reversion and first I conceive That general words without any restraint or limitation will pass nothing As if the King pardons all
Demands or Grants Omnia terras tenementa sua But general words qualified with a restraint where the Limitations are effectual As if the King Grants Omnia terras tenementa sua in D. which he hath by the Attainder of J.S. or which were the possessions of such dissolved Monasteries such Grants are good And where the Case is That Queen Mary hath the Lands in possession of the annual value of 19 l. and other Land there in Reversion of the annual value of 6 l. and then she Grants Omnia terras tenementa nostra rendring 19 l. per annum I conceive That upon these words the Land in possession only passeth because that the said general words may be aptly served and satisfied with the Lands in possession if no other Lands pass And I agree That this word Nostra extends as well to the Lands in Reversion as to Lands in possession but most properly to Lands in possession for Land in Reversion cannot dici simpliciter Nostra but quodam modo tanquam terra revertens and not to take the natural profits of it for the Termor hath such properly that he shall have an Action of Trespass Quare clausum fregit But the intent and meaning of the Queen is to be regarded and that is the surest way to have right intelligence of the Grants of the King For here the Queen hath reserved but 19 l. Rent which is the proper and ancient Rent of the Lands in possession and if Lands in Reversion should also pass the Rent of which was 6 l. per annum then upon the whole Grant but 19 l. being reserved the Queen should lose 6 l. per annum of her ancient Rent which should be contrary to the intent and meaning of the Queen and the intent of the Grantor even in the Case of a Subject shall direct the construction of Grants As 9 H. 6. Br. Grants 5 by Babington A Man grants Common in his whole Lands he shall not have Common in his Orchards Gardens or Meadows for such was the meaning of the Grantor a fortiori in the Case of the King. It hath been argued That the former Lease ought not to be recited because that after the first Lease made by King Henry the 8th the Inheritance hath been in a Subject that is the Bishop of Bath and Wells but the same is not so For if the King makes a Lease for years and afterwards Grants the Reversion upon Condition which after is broken and so found by Office by which the Reversion is reduced to the King If now the King will make a new Lease he ought to recite the former Estate notwithstanding the mean grant of the Reversion or else such second Lease is void Another matter hath been Objected wherefore the former Lease ought not to be recited and that is because it is determined by surrender in Law before that the new Lease takes effect Sir the same is not so for the former Lease is in being as the Case betwixt Fulmerston and Steward 1 Mar. Plow Com. 106. upon the Statute of Monasteries 31 H. 8. See the words of the Statute whereof and wherein any Estate or Interest for years at the time of the making of any such Lease had his being or continuance And an Abbot made such a Lease to one who had a term for years of a former Grant although here be a Surrender yet this Case is within the said Statute and the said former Lease shall be said to have his being at the time of the making of the later Lease and the Surrender shall not be said so to preceed the making of the Lease but that the former Lease shall be said in Esse at the time of the making of the later Lease And in our Case it shall not be taken for any Surrender for then the Queen shall lose 6 l. of her ancient Rent and Revenue and always when the Title of the King and of the Subject concur the Title of the King shall be preferred as 43 E. 3. The King Lord Mesne and Tenant The Tenant pays his Rent at the day to the Mesne before Noon and then the same day before Night the Mesne dieth his Heir within age the King shall be paid the Rent again for here the Title of the King and the Subject concur together at one time and in that the King shall be preferred and so he prayed Iudgment for the Defendant And afterwards at another day the Iustices declared their Opinions and by Wray Chief Iustice We all agree That the first Lease ought to be recited and the reason which hath been urged against that point hath reduced us to be of that Opinion scil That the second Lease was made to the first Patentee and the King doth not make the recital but the party ought to inform the King of all former Estates of the said Lands and that he might well do for he is well knowing of them and although that the Reversion after the first Lease made hath been conveyed to a Subject the same is not material here forasmuch as the second Estate is made to him who had the first Estate and might know whether the first Estate were determined or not Also by the re-purchase the King is in Statu quo prius Gawdy Iustice although that the former Term be drowned by the taking of the second Lease yet it was in being at the time of the taking of it as it is holden by Bromley in the Case of Fulmerston and Steward It is determined by the second Lease and yet it was in being at the time of the making of it Fenner Iustice to the same intent Clench Iustice If the Grant of the Queen shall enure to two intents then the Queen should lose 6 l. per annum of her ancient Revenue It was agreed by all the Iustices That the general words in as much as they are restrained to a certainty would pass the thing si caetera essent paria contrary if they had remained in the generalty and afterwards Iudgment was given Quod querens nihil Capiat per Billam CCCXXXVIII Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 4 Len. 233. A Man 30 Eliz. made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his Son and his Heirs The Father and the Feoffees before issue for Mony by Deed granted and enfeoffed J.S. and his Heirs who hath not notice of the first use The Tenant for life hath issue and dieth the issue entreth Glanvil the use limited to the first Son is destroyed for without regress of the Feoffees it cannot rise and it is gone by their Livery See the Case in Plowden 349. and also he vouched the Case of the Earl of Kent where by the Release of the surviving Feoffee 2 Roll. 797. Plow 347. a Sleeping-Vse was destroyed and could not after be revived Harris the use may rise without entries of the Feoffees and he put a difference between an
the Plaintiff That the Grant was before the Lease It was holden by the Court That this Release was meerly void for here was not any Interest to be released but a power to present and an Authority annexed to the person And afterwards by the Award of the Court the Writ was abated See 11 Eliz. Dyer 253. CCCXLI Woodward and Bagg's Case Hill. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. WOodward Libelled in the Spiritual Court against Bagg and Nelson for Tythes of certain Lands called Christen Hill. Roll. 63. 2 Len. 29. 3 Cro. 188. Owen Rep. 103. The Defendant sued a Prohibition and surmised That one Pretiman was seised of the said Land and in Consideration of 5 l. by him paid to the said Parson It was agreed betwixt them That the said Pretiman and his Assigns should be discharged of Tythes of the Land during his life and afterwards the said Pretiman leased the same to the Defendants upon which a Prohibition was granted And it was holden That the party need not to make proof thereof within 6 Months for it is not within the Statute because a Composition with the same Parson But now a Consultation was granted because the Agreement is shewed but no Deed of it which cannot be any discharge But if it had been for a time scil unica vice it had been good but for life not Also it is not an express grant of the Tythes but only a Covenant and Agreement that he shall be discharged upon which he may have an Action of Covenant but not a Prohibition It was said on the other side That although without Deed Tythes cannot pass in point of Interest yet by way of discharge they might Cook It was holden betwixt Pendleton and Green That upon such words of Covenant and Agreement the party should hold the Land discharged of Tythes which was denyed For if the Grantee of a Rent Charge will grant it to the Tenant of the Land the same without Deed is not good And there was very lately a Case between Westbede and Pepper Where it was agreed betwixt the Parson and one of his Parish That for 20 s. Rent by the year the Parishioner should be discharged of Tythes for 20 years if he so long lived And it was holden That no Prohibition should lie upon it a fortiori where the Estate is for life Gawdy In the Case of grant of Tythes for life a Deed is requisite but here it is noâ— but a Contract for Mony c. See 21 H 6. 43. Wray If it had been for years it had been good enough but here is not any Contract but only a discharge for life which cannot be during his life without Deed. And afterwards the Record was read which was That Concordatum aggreatum fuit between the parties pro omnibus decimis during the time that the one should be Parson and the other Occupier of the said Land That in Consideration of 5 l. the said Pretiman and his Assigns should hold the said Land discharged of Tythes Wray The same is no Contract but a Promise for he doth not grant any Tythes Afterwards a Consultation was awarded CCCXLII Sanderson and Ekins's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Debt upon a Loan by Sanderson against Ekins who waged his Law and at the day being ready to wage his Law the Court examined him And upon examination it appeared That the Plaintiff and Defendant were reciprocally endebted the one to the other And upon Conference betwixt them before the Action brought there was an Accord betwixt them That the Plaintiff should give to the Defendant such a sum which he had done and that the one should go quit against the other And it was the clear Opinion of the whole Court That upon the matter the Defendant could not wage his Law for a Debt cannot be extinguished by word CCCXLIII The Dean and Chapter of Windsors Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN this Case It was moved If he who hath a Rectory impropriate 1 Len. 146. and by the Statute of 26 H. 8. is to pay an Annual Rent for the same in the name of a Tenth and thereby is discharged of all First-fruits and Tenths shall have the Priviledge of the Exchequer for he is to pay the same sum yearly And it was the Opinion of the Barons That he should not For so every one who is to pay any Tenths or First-fruits should draw other who have sued him into the Exchequer And so all Controversies concerning Tythes and Parsonages should be drawn thither which should be a great prejudice to the Spiritual Courts But Egerton Solicitor vouched a Case viz. Coniers's Case The King gave a Parsonage to a Priory in Frankalmoign and the Tythes thereof being withdrawn The Prior impleaded him who withdrew the Tythes in the Exchequer And it was holden That the Prior should have the Priviledge for the King is endangered to lose his Patronage or rather his Foundership if the Rectory be evicted Gent Baron The Kings Tenant in Chief or he who pays First-fruits or he who holds of the Queen in Fee-Farm shall not have in such respect the Priviledge here CCCXLIV Sledd's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. SLedd of Great Melton in the County of Oxon 2 Len. 146. was assessed to 7 s. for a Fifteenth And upon refual to pay the same the Collector distrained the Beasts of Sledd and sold them Thereupon Sledd brought Trespass against him the in the Kings Bench. And the Collector exhibited a Bill against Sledd Who shewed by his Counsel That the Statute of 29 Eliz. which enacted this Fifteenth Provides That the said Fifteenth shall be levied of the moveable Goods Chattels and other things usual to such Fifteenths and Tenths to be Contributory and chargeable And shewed further That his Beasts distrained fuerunt tempore districtionis upon the Glebe-Land of a Parsonage presentative which he had in Lease which Glebe-Land is not chargeable usually to Fifteenths granted by the Temporalty nor the Cattel upon it It was the Opinion of the Iustices That although the Parson himself shall pay Tenths to the King yet the Lay-Farmor shall pay Fifteenths and his Cattel are distrainable for the same upon the Glebe-Lands of the Parsonage And therefore it was awarded That the Distress and the Sale were lawful CCCXLV. Sir Walter Water's Case Pasch 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer IT was moved in this Case 2 Len. 77. 4 Len. 44. That if one hath a Iudgment in Debt and upon the same within the year sueth forth a Capias ad satisfaciendum although that he doth not prosecute it by the space of 2 or 3 years yet when he pleaseth he may proceed upon it and shall not be put to a Scire facias And of that Opinion was Philips Manwood I grant That if one hath sued forth a Writ of Execution and the same be continued by Vicecomes non misit Breve for 2 or 3 years yet the Plaintiff may proceed upon
it and shall not be put to a Scire facias but if such a Writ be sued forth and not continued but discontinued by a year and a day he shall be put to a Scire facias for it is the negligence of the Plaintiff of not continuing it which within the year and day he may do without Order of the Court but not after the year by any Order of the Court c. CCCXLVI Evans Godfrey and Arnold's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was Evans and Godfrey were bail for one Kemp at the suit of Alice Arnold Kemp was condemned and a Capias ad satisfaciend awarded against the Sureties By which process Godfrey was taken and he suggested to the Plaintiff That Evans the other bail was sufficient to satisfie him but that he himself was not sufficient but utterly unable to do it Vpon which surmise the Plaintiff was content that Godfrey should go at liberty so as he did procure Evans to be arrested who did it accordingly And now Evans being arrested sued an Audita Querela upon that Escape of Godfrey and they were at Issue upon the Escape And afterwards It was espied That the Venire facias was to summon 12 in Actione Transgressionis super Casum whereas it should be in Audita Querela It was said by Kemp Secondary That the Venire facias upon every Original Writ in this Court as this Audita Querela is ought to contain in it the Issue But when the suit is upon a Bill then the words are ad recognoscend in Actione Transgressionis super Casum And afterwards by the Advice of the Court a Iuror was withdrawn by Assent and so the matter was stayed CCCXLVII Cheney's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer NOte by the Barons in this Case If Rent-Corn be reserved upon a Lease for years Roll. 591. and it is behind for 2 or 3 years That the Lessor may have Debt for the Corn and shall make his Declaration of so much Corn and the same shall be in the Detinet but yet he shall not have Iudgment to have Corn but so much Mony as the Corn was worth every several year being accounted Clark Baron doubted If he should recover the price of the Corn as Corn was at the time of the Contract or according to the price which it was at the time when it was payable or as it was at the time of the Action brought Manwood The Law is clear That the Lessee shall pay according to the price which was at the time of the payment and delivery limited by the Lease Clark A. is bound to deliver to the Obligee 10 Bushells of Wheat and no place is limited where the payment shall be made the Obligor is not bounden to seek the other party wheresoever as in case of paymene of Mony For the importableness of it shall excuse him Which Manwood granted CCCXLVIII Philip Fines and the Lord Dacre's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer THe Case was Tenant in tail of Lands 4 Len. 97. Ante 241. the Remainder in Chief levied a Fine without the Kings Licence And If the Tenants of the Lord Dacres should be chargeable by the Fine For the Case was that the Lord Dacres was Tenant in tail the Remainder in tail to Philip Fines was the Question It was holden by the Barons That the Tenants should be discharged But it was holden That if the Conusor had any other Land within England the Fine might be levied thereof But the Question was If the Tenants shall be put to plead in discharge of that which would be a great charge or should be discharged without plea because it appeareth by Record that he who aliened was but Tenant in tail in Remainder For there was an Office of it which was pleaded by another in another cause It was said Where such matter appeareth of Record as by Office Livery c. there he need not to plead such matter in discharge because the pleading of the same is to no other purpose but to satisfie the Court by a Record that the matter is so as the party in his discharge hath alledged And therefore In this Case the Barons gave Order That the Process against the Tenants of the Lord Dacres should be discharged CCCXLIX Hill. 32 Eliz. In the Court of Wards THe Case was A. gave Land to B. in tail rendring Rent B. suffered a Common Recovery with voucher unto the use of a stranger and his Heirs It was the Opinion of some That the Rent remained And it was resembled to Littleton's Case 231 232. Lord Mesne and Tenant The Lord purchaseth the Tenancy now the Mesnalty is extinct yet he who was the Mesne shall have the surplusage of the Rent of the Lord now Tenant of the Land as a Rent distrainable of common right And it was said by Heskith late Attorny of the Court of Wards That it was lately the Case of the Lord De la Ware That in such case notwithstanding such Common Recovery the Donor should have the Rent although that his Reversion was gone But Cook was of Opinion That the Rent was gone For the Rent was incident to the Reversion and there is not any question but that the Reversion is gone CCCL Gardiner and the Hundred of Reading's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. ANdrew Gardiner brought an Action upon the Statute of Winton of Hue and Cry against the Inhabitants of the Hundred of Reading in the County of Berks and declared of a Robbery committed by persons unknown on his House It was the clear Opinion of the whole Court That the Action would not lie For that this Offence is not properly a Robbery intended by the said Statute to be pursued but rather a Burglary And Robberies committed in the High-way only are relieved within this Statute And by Anderson Every Man is bounden to guard his House at his peril for his own safety CCCLI Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin The Defendant made Conusans as Bailiff to Greves and Rockwood and said That one A. was seised and 6 Eliz. enfeoffed certain persons in Fee to the use of his last Will By which he willed That his Feoffees should stand seised of the said Lands until Greves had levied of the profits thereof 100 l. And against this Conusans It was Objected That here is no Devise For A. at the time of the Devise had not any Feoffees But the Exception was disallowed by the Court. And they cited the Case 15 Eliz. Dyer 323. Lingen's Case A. made a Feoffment in Fee to his use and afterwards devised That his Feoffees should be seised to the use of his Daughter that the same was a good Devise of the Land. See 29 H. 8. Br. tit Devise 48. CCCLII. Hambleden and Hambleden's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 Len. 166. 3 Cro. 163. 1 And. 38. NOte The Case of Hambleden and Hambleden For the principal Case see Mich. 31
1 And. 234. every one ought to assent Wray There the Ordinance made was to charge the Inheritance but here it is only to charge their Goods wherefore the assent of the greater part is sufficient And afterwards a Procedendo was granted CCCLV. Pendleton and Green's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. PEndleton sued Green in the Spiritual Court for Tythes Ante 203. 1 Len. 94. who pleaded That Pendleton was not lawful Incumbent but one Taylor and that plea those of the Spiritual Court would not allow to the Parishioner to plead to the right of the Incumbency and thereupon he prayed a Prohibition for otherwise he should be twice charged for Tythes and therefore a Prohibition was granted CCCLVII Knevytt and Cope's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. KNevytt brought Ejectione firmae against Cope and declared Quod 4 Len. 59. cum John Hopkins by his Indenture bearing date the 20 of May 32 Eliz. had let to him his House and two yard-Yard-Lands containing 40 Acres of Land Meadow and Pasture apud Tythingham de Forecomb in parochia de S. c. upon Not guilty pleaded The Venire facias was de Tythingham de Forecomb Exception was taken by Cook That the Declaration had not any certainty for it is not shewed in certain How much there was of Meadow how much of Land and how much of Pasture there was contained in the said two Yard-Lands and the Iury may find the Defendant guilty as to the Land only but not to the residue Also he hath not shewed in the Declaration When the Lease was made but only saith That by Indenture bearing date the 20 of May c. but doth not shew any day of delivery of the Indenture for then the Lease takes effect To which Exception It was said by the Court That the Declaration as to that was good enough for it shall be intended to have been delivered at the day of the date Ante 193. Another Exception was taken to the Visne Because that the Visne ought to be of the Parish and not of Tythingham c. See 11 H. 7. 23 24. Forcible Entry in the Mannor of B. in B. the Visne shall not be of the Mannor of B. but of B. Gawdy Iustice You shall never have a Visne of the Parish for divers Towns may be in one Parish but here the Visne is good of Tythingham c. for it may be that it is a Town Cook It is but a Ville Conus from which a Visne cannot come CCCLVIII Taylor and Fisher's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. TAylor brought an Action of Trespass against Fisher for entring into his House and taking and carrying away of his Goods To which the Defendant pleaded That before the Trespass supposed one A. was possessed of the said Goods and the said Goods being in the House of the said Plaintiff the said A. sold them to the Defendant by force whereof he was possessed And so possessed came to the Plaintiffs House where c. And by assent and licence of the Plaintiffs Wife he entred into the said House and carried away the said Goods c. Vpon which there was a Demurrer It was holden That the same is no plea for there is no Colour given to the Plaintiff and the licence given by the Wife is not any matter for the justifying of the Entry And as to the Goods the plea was holden good For if A. might sell them being in the House of another and not in his own possession is scrupulous to the Lay-people Wray If the Goods of the Defendant were in the House of the Plaintiff with the knowledge of the Defendant it had perhaps been a good plea but that is not alledged here Cook 30 E. 3. 23. In Trespass for breaking of his Pound the Defendant said That he came to the place where the Cattel were impounded and there found the Plaintiffs Wife to whom he offered Pledges for the Cattel impounded to make Amends according to reason and prayed to have deliverance of the Cattel and the Plaintiffs Wife delivered them without that that he brake the Pound c. And it was said That this want of Colour is but matter of form which he ought to have alledged upon his Demurrer or otherwise he shall not have advantage of it Wray Iustice The Defendant in his plea doth not meet with the Plaintiff Therefore the plea is not good in substance It was Adjourned CCCLIX Downhall and Catesby's Case Pasch 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Formedon by Downhall against Catesby 4 Len. 113. the parties were at Issue And it was tryed by Nisi prius It was moved in Banco because that some of the Iurors did eat and drink before that they gave their Verdict That the Court would not receive the Postea The Court said That we cannot do here for we do not know if your Information be false or not and that matter ought to have been examined by the Iustices of Nisi prius and they ought to certifie us of it and then we shall have good cause to stay it And it was then said there That if any of the Iurors eat and drink before the Verdict at their own Costs that the same doth not make the Verdict void but otherwise if it be of the Costs of the Plaintiff or the Defendant CCCLX Withrington and Delabar's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Appeal of Murder by Withrington against Delabar of the death of her Husband The Defendant pleaded never accoupled in lawful Matrimony And pleaded over Not guilty The Plaintiff replyed Lawfully accoupled but did not reply over to the Felony It way moved as a discontinuance of the whole Wray If the Defendant pleads matter tryable at the Common Law and over to the Felony there the Plaintiff ought to reply to both but where the first matter is not tryable by the Common Law there the same is not needful Quod caeteri Justiciarii concesserunt CCCLXI. Lake's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. STephen Lake Commissary of the Bishop of Canterbury Fr. Alredge Register and R. Hunt Apparitor were endicted of Extortion that they colore officiorum suorum had malitiose accepted and received 11 s. 6 d. for the Absolution of one B. who was excommunicated where they ought to have but 2 s. 6 d. And Exception was taken to this Indictment because that all their Offences are put together scil colore Officiorum suorum whereas the particular Offence of every Offendor ought to be specially set down but here they are confounded Which see by the Statute of 25 E. 3. 9. That Ordinaries shall not be impeached by such general Indictments unless they say and put in certain In what thing and of what and in what manner the said Ordinaries have committed Extortion But that Exception was not allowed for of that the party grieved cannot have notice for they took in gross and afterwards parted it betwixt
them Another Exception was Because it is not shewed What is their due Fee And that was conceived to be a good cause of Exception And if no Fee be due the same ought to appear in the Indictment And afterwards the Opinion of the Court was That they should be discharged CCCLXII Doughty and Prideaux's Case Hill. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Action upon the Case by Doughty against Prideaux 4 Len. 101 for these words Thou art a Wicked and perjured Fellow and art forsworn in the Court of Star-Chamber as appeareth by an Exemplification here under the Seal of this Court. The Defendant justified because of a Bill exhibited in the same Court by one Brooks against the now Plaintiff for conspiring with another to endict the said Brooks of certain Felonies And the Defendant now Plaintiff in his Answer to the said Bill denyed upon Oath the said Conspiracy And sentence was given in the said Court against the now Plaintiff ubi revera such a Conspiracy was The Plaintiff Replicando said That the said Brooks was Arraigned and Convicted upon the said Indictment and prayed his Clergy Whereupon it appeared because the said Brooks was not Legitimo modo acquietatus that the same could not be any Conspiracy in the now Plaintiff to procure the said Brooks to be Indicted Walmesley and Periam Iustices This Replication is not good For it may be that Brooks was acquitted and yet the Plaintiff did Conspire upon which a Writ of Conspiracy perhaps would not lie but an Action upon the Case without doubt For the Replication doth not prove That the Plaintiff did not Conspire but that the Plaintiff was not punishable for such Conspiracy c. CCCLXIII Pasch 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was An Abbot leased Lands to three Men for 80 years and in the end of the said Lease was a Clause That if they died within the said Term that then the Lessor might enter The possessions of the Abby came unto the King who granted the Reversion to J.S. who made a new Lease thereof to J.D. for 21 years to begin after the expiration determination or surrender of the said former Lease The 3 Lessees died within the Term If J.D. might now enter before J.S. hath entred was the Question And it was the Opinion of all the Iustices That he could not For it is in the Election of J.S. if he will take advantage of the Condition and defeat the Lease but that ought to be by Entry and none can make such Entry but the Lessor himself or by his express direction c. CCCLXIV Bond and Bayle's Case Pasch 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Len. 328. 1 Roll. 926. BOnd brought a Scire facias against Bayle's Administrator of one T.B. upon a Recovery against the Intestate in an Action of Debt The Defendant pleaded before the said Iudgment given The Testator acknowledged a Statute-Staple to one B. and that the same was not paid in the life-time of the Intestate nor ever after and that they had not Goods of the Intestate in their hands above to pay the said Statute Vpon which it was Demurred in Law. Crook argued That the Bar was not good for here no execution upon the Statute is pleaded and then the Iudgment and the Statute being things of as high nature that of which Execution is first sued shall be first satisfied And if this Action had been brought upon the Obligation the Plea had not been good For although that Brian saith 21 E. 4. That Recognizances shall be paid by Executors before Obligations yet that is to be intended when a Scire facias is to be sued upon it otherwise not See 12 E. 3. Fitz. tit Execution 73. In a Scire facias upon a Iudgment in Debt given against the Testator Enquiry was What Goods the Executors had at the day of the Garnishment And he said It was moved 20 Eliz. by Anderson in this Court In Debt upon an Obligation against an Executor The Defendants pleaded That the Testator was endebted to one A. and that they had not more than to satisfie the same And it was holden no plea unless they had pleaded further That a Scire facias was sued forth upon the same But Wray said That was not Law And there is a difference when the Iudgment is given against the Testator himself and where against the Executors For where Iudgment is given against the Executors the Iudgment which was first given shall be first executed But if two Iudgments be given against the Testator he who first sueth Execution against the Executors shall he first satisfied because they are things of an equal nature and before suit it is in the Election of the Executor to pay which of them he pleaseth See 9 E. 4. 12. As if two Men have Tallies out of the Exchequer he who first offers his to the Officer shall be first satisfied for before that it is in the Election of the Officer which of them he will pay And a Iudgment is a higher Record than a Statute for the Statute is not a Record but Debitum recordatum recognitum And therefore 19 H. 6. If the Release enrolled be lost the Enrollment of it is not of any effect And Pasch 20 Eliz. Our very case was moved in the Court of Common Pleas In a Sire facias upon a Iudgment given against the Testator the Executor pleaded That the Testator had acknowledged a Statute before not satisfied ultra which c. And it was holden no Plea For a Statute is but a private and poquet-Record as they then called it And 32 Eliz. Between Coney and Barkham the same Plea was pleaded and holden to be no plea. Also if this Plea should be allowed great Mischief would follow for then no Debts should be satisfied by Executors For it might be that the Statute was made for performance of Covenants which Covenants peradventure shall never be broken And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCCLXV Butler and Baker's Case Mich. 33 34 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. SEe the principal Case Reported in Cook 3 Part 25. Poph. 87. 1 And. 348. 3 Co. 25. The Argument of Egerton Solicitor General in the said Case under his own hand was as followeth viz. The disagreement by the Wife in pais is good by the Common Law. An Agreement may be by word Ergo a Disagreement If Husband and Wife Lease for years rendring Rent the Husband dieth the Wife accepteth of the Rent that Acceptance shall bind her 15 E. 4. 17. 3 H. 6. 48. 48 E. 3. 13. 16 E. 4. 8. 11 H. 7. 13. 9 H. 6. 44. 10 H. 6. 24. Tenant in tail makes a Lease for years not warranted by the Statute rendring Rent and dieth and afterwards the Issue accepteth the Rent the same shall bind him 21 H. 7. 38. 21 H. 6. 25. 14 H. 6. 26. 19 H. 6. 43. An Enfant Leaseth for years rendring Rent and at his full age accepts the
years or for life with the ancient Rent reserved is sufficient and is a good and immediate descent of the third part And this word here immmediatè to be construed ratione temporis is a frivolous Construction for the wore Descent implys that For there cannot be an expectant and future descent For descent is clearly immediate without mean time But here in this case the word immediate is to be taken in both senses et re et tempore For by the Relation of the Waiver it is as if no Ioynture had been made and the Heir is to have the profits of the Land from the death of his Ancestor And so the descent of Hinton immediatè et re et tempore And that the same time hath had such reasonable Construction is now to see The Statute of 18 H. 6 Cap. 1. is That the Chancellor shall make Patents to bear date the same day that the Warrant was made and not before It hath been taken That if the Patents bear date after the Warrant entred they are good Which see 19 Eliz. Plow Com. 492. in Ludford and Gretton's Case The Statute of Acton Burnel is That if the Extendors extend the Land too high statim respondeant illi qui fecerunt extent This word of time statim shall not be construed that the Extendors shall pay presently but that they shall pay without delay i.e. at the day limited in the Statute See 2 H. 4. 17 18. It hath been Objected That it is a great inconvenience that the King for his third part should attend the pleasure of the Wife the time of her Election and therefore the Will shall be void But the same is no inconvenience for the Ioynture never was actually in the Wife to her prejudice until she entred into the Land c. And now by the Waiver the Ioynture is avoided ab initio to all intents as if it never had been made So as the King shall be answered of the entire profits after the time of the death of the Husband and may seize the whole Land presently without staying the Election of the Wife or taking notice of her Ioynture And so are the words of the Diem clausit Extremum Tibi praecipimus quod omnia Terras Tenementa of which c. et ea salvò Custodias donec aliud tibi praeceperimus And that may be before any Office found And those who have any Interest in the Land or otherwise may shew the same upon the Traverse of the Office or in the Court of Wards and have allowance of it And so there is not any prejudice to the King No more than when Tenant in Knight-service Deviseth all his Lands There Division is to be made and the King hath not any prejudice by it In the true Construction of this Statute it is very necessary to consider the intention and meaning of both Statutes And it is certain That the said Statutes were made for the benefit of the Subjects to enable them to dispose of their Lands for the preferment of their Wives advancement of their Children and payment of their Debts whereof they were restrained by the Statute of 27 H. 8. of Uses The Savings in the said Statute are for the benefit of the King and the Lords So as Provision is made not only for the benefit of the Subjects but also for the profit of the King and other Lords The disability of the subjects to dispose of their Lands to the intents aforesaid appears in the Preface of the Statute of 32 H. 8. And the favour and grace of the said King towards his Subjects to supply the necessity of Subjects appeareth by the Prefaces of both Statutes The later Statute is an Explanation of the former in divers Points The first Statute to persons Having Mannors c. Ex vi termini includes Tenants in tail Ioynt-Tenants Enfants Idiots Feme-Coverts but the same is explained by the later Act to be of Feesimple only and of sole Estates and to persons of sound memory not of Coverture And so If the Kings Tenant Deviseth all his Land the same is good for two parts of it so if he Devise all which he hath in Feesimple and leaveth the third part to descend in tail This Statute shall be taken strict against the Heir For the whole Scope and Intent of the Parliament was to bind the Heirs and to enable their Fathers to dispose so as the third part be saved to the King and the Lords And that is manifest For the Estates made by Collusion are preserved and by an express Clause in the Statute kept in force against the Heir but void as to the Lords As to certain Readers Cases which have been put to prove That these Statutes ought to have a strict Construction I conceive Nihil operatur A Man seised of one Acre by Disseisin and of two Acres by good Title all holden in chief by Knight-service Deviseth the two Acres which he hath by good Title and dieth so as the Acre which he hath by Disseisin descends to the Heir being within age the King seiseth the third Acre is devested by Eigne Title the Devise of the other two Acres is good against the Heir for it is within the express words of the Statute Having a sole Estate in Fee-simple And yet by another Branch of 34 H. 8. the King for his time shall have recompence out of the other two Acres and he agreed the Law to be so but the same doth not conclude our Case A Man seised of two Acres in Socage and of one Acre holden by Knight-service in Chief of equal value is disseised of the Acre holden in Chief and Deviseth the other two Acres in Fee the same is a good devise for it is within the first branch expresly Having a sole Estate in Feesimple and not having any Lands holden by Knight-service for during the disseisin he hath not the Land whereof he was disseised and therefore the devise is good for the benefit of the Devisee and the Lord is not at any Mischief For the Disseisee notwithstanding the Disseisin remains Tenant of the Lord as to the Avowry and the Lord shall have the Wardship of such Heir and may enter upon the Disseisor and so have a third part And that Case was put out of Gilbert's Reading A Man seised in Fee of two Mannors of equal value holden by Knights-service in Capite and a third Mannor of the same value is conveyed to him by Deed of Bargain and Sale acknowledged and before Enrollment he deviseth the two first Mannors to J.S. in Fee and dieth and afterwards the Indenture is enrolled yet the devise is not good for the said two Mannors by any Relation of the Bargain and Sale enrolled That Case may well be agreed to be Law For the Estate doth not vest in the Vendee before Enrollment and so the Estate was not perfectly in the Devisor at the time of the Will For although that the Enrollment shall relate
nor his promotion can be properly called a Benefice A. 277. By-Laws Made by the Homage of a Court-Baron must be rationi legi consonan A. 190 C. 8 40 41 42 43. What By-Law is good in a Corporation C. 264 265. Made by the major part of Commoners binds all if it tend not to bind the Inheritance C. 265. C. Certainty WHat shall be sufficient Certainty to describe what Lands are granted though part of the descriptions be false A. 119. B. 226. C. 18 19 162 235. The like in describing the person of the Donee Devisee C. 48 49. Promise in consideration the Plaintiff would repair quandam partem domus is good C. 91. Certiorari To certifie a Warrant of Attorny A. 22. Granted at the request of the Defendant in error ex officio c. after a Nihil returned ibidem C. 107. If grantable after in nullo est erratum A. 176. B. 2 3. Cessavit Against the Tenant of the King B. 144. It is a good Bar to this Action that the Lord accepted the Services of the Alience of the Tenant C. 272. Challenge By a Bishop for that no Knight was retorned A. 5. To the Array for affinity whether principal challenge or not A. 88 89. No challenge to the Polls in a Writ a Right but at the time of the arrayment A. 303. The Statute 27 Eliz. cap. 6. A. 55. For want of Hundredors where there are many Hundreds in one Wapentake or Lathe B. 109. Of the Array for that the Sheriff married the Plaintiffs Cousin which the Plaintiff confessed C. 222. Chancery Ought not to give relief after Judgment B. 115. C. 18. Charge and Discharge If a Man marry an Inheritrix and hath Issue and then acknowledges a Statute and they sell the Land be Fine the Land shall not be charged for the Conuseels in by the Feme C. 254. Tenant for life granteth a Rent-Charge and cesseth after recovery in Cissavit the Lord shall hold the Land charged C. 255. Chattels A special property for a time in them A. 221. Are bound by the Teste of the execution A. 304. Chose en Action What is a Chose en Action A. 176. C. 196. The King may grant it and how and by what words A. 271. B. 56. C. 17 18 196. A void Church is a Chose en Action and one Grantee thereof cannot release it to his Companion A. 176. C. 256. Church-Warden Whether the Successor shall have Action for Trespass done in the Predecessors time A. 177. Cinque-Ports Issue triable there tryed by a Jury of the next County C. 3. How Execution of Lands must be made there C. 3. Clergy Not grantable for a second Felony if the first Conviction appear by Record A. 295. Collusion See Fraud Colour Defendant justifies by a gift of Goods which were then out of the Vendors possession if that being out of possession be a good Colour C. 266 267. Common Special Common at certain times when the Land is not sowed A. 73. Shall not be to any House built on a new Foundation B. 44 45. The Lord or his Tenant shall have no Common to Lands improved by the Statute of Merton cap. 4. B. 44. If a Commoner may kill Conies B. 201 202. May distrain a Strangers Beasts Damage Feas B. 201. If some Commoners let their Corn lie beyond the usual time the other Commoners may put in their Cattle B. 202 203. Commission and Commissioners The second Commission of the King repeals the first A. 270. Nisi prius out of the Exchequer by Commission 110. Commandment The Commander not punishable unless his Command be strictly pursued B 75. In what case traversable B. 215 216. Conditions Lease upon Condition that the Lessee shall not alien doth not bind an Administrator Secus of a Feme whose Baron alieneth A. 3. In a Feoffment of Lands held in Capite that the Feoffees shall not alien A. 8 12. What acts shall be defeated by entry for breach of it A. 8. That the Lessee shall not do voluntary waste what is a breach of it and who shall enter for the breach A. 67. The difference where the Condition is Quod dimissio vacua foret and where only a re-entry is given A. 61. B. 134 to 145. To pay 20 l. or to give Cows how tender is to be pleaded A. 68. contra 70. The difference in pleading to a Condition to discharge and to save harmless c. A. 72 324 325. Shall not be averred to be against Law unless it appear so A. 73. 203. To pay the 29 of February not payable until a Leap-Year happen A. 101. To make such assurance as J. S. and such as the Plaintiffs Council shall devise the diversity A. 105. To perform all agreements in Articles is broken by not performing or by the falshood of a recital A. 122. To pay Mony at the Feast of St. Thomas the later Feast is the day of payment A. 142. con C. 7. What makes a Condition what a Limitation A. 167 168 174 244 269 283 299. B. 38 114 138. C. 152 153. When an Estate which is to begin upon a precedent Condition impossible or possible shall commence A. 229. What Covenants shall amount to a Condition and defeat an Estate A. 246. That the Feoffee shall enfeoff J.S. in Fee or in Tail J. S. refuseth who shall have the Estate A. 266. That the Donees in tail shall not do any act to discontinue c. and what is a breach thereof A. 148 207 257 292 298. A true diversity between the nature of a Condition and a Limitation A. 299. To make reasonable assurance and to levy a fine the difference therein A. 304. Must be pleaded by him who will take advantage thereof A. 306. To pay Mony at a day and place certain it need not be found to be paid at the very day or place so it were paid before the day A. 311. The force of a Proviso coming after the Habendum to alter an Estate A. 318. To perform all Agreements in an Indenture obliges the Obligor to all things though contained in the Obligees Covenants A. 324. To defend the Plaintiff for the Title of such Lands what is a breach A. 325. That a Devisee shall not alien for a time is good and what Estates are a breach thereof B. 82 83. Where the word Proviso makes a Condition or an Exception or Limitation B. 128 129 138. C. 16 225 226. Condition that the Lessee shall not occupy for a time is void B. 132. Of what Condition in a Lease Grantee of the Reversion shall take advantage of B. 136 to 144. Devise to his Son towards his education in Learning is no Condition but the Devise is good though he be not so educated B. 154. Become unpossible to be performed by the act of the Law or of God B. 155. A. bound that B. shall pay before Mich. B. dies before the Bond is forfeit B. 155. To maintain and keep in good repair the Lessee cannot pull down and
ad satisfaciend against him in his hands yet escape lies not A. 263. If it lies where the party was charged in Execution while he was Prisoner for Felony A. 276. It lieth not for escape of a Bail if no Scire facias issued against him B. 29 30. Was first given by equity of the Stat. W. 2. cap. 11. B. 9. No Costs upon non-suit in this Action B. 9. If the old Sheriff keep any Prisoner after he is discharg'd of his Office it is an Escape B. 54. If one escape upon an illegal Writ the Court will aid the Sheriff though he cannot deny to execute the Process B. 86. The Sheriff cannot seise the party who escapes by his consent B. 119. Escheat If a Remainder depending upon an Estate for life Escheat the Seigniory is extinct A. 255. Essoine In an Ejectione Firme adjorned A. 134. The Term in the eye of the Law begins the day of Essoines cont as to lay gents A. 210 211. In Quare Impedit B. 4 185. The office and force of an Essoine B. 4. If the Defendant appear and be essoined no Amerciament ought to be against him B. 185. An unnecessary and feigned delay C. 51. per Dyer Estoppel Count of a demise generally Defendant pleads nihil habuit in Tenementis the Plaintiff may estop the Defendant by pleading the Deed A. 156 204 206. Who shall take advantage of an Estoppel A. 157 158. The Jury ought to find it though the party hath not pleaded it A. 204 206. If Deed enrolled be an Estoppel to the party to plead Non est factum A. 184. Where the Court will take notice thereof if not pleaded A. 184. What Deeds made void by Statute are good by Estoppel against the party who made them A. 308 309. By matter of Record B. 3. Where one shall be estopped by a recital in a Bond Indenture c. where not B. 11. C. 118. What Estoppel made by the Ancestor shall bind the Heir B. 57 58. A Verdict for the Plaintiff upon a plene administravit estops the Sheriff of that County where the Tryal was to retorn nulla bona B. 67. By Deed indented B. 73. One seised in Fee takes a Lease of the Herbage of his own Land he is not estopped to claim Fee B. 159. No Estoppel by a Record if the Judgment be reversed C. 52. Jurors are not estopped by an Estoppel implied unless pleaded in the Record C. 209 210. Estovers Prescription for them within a Forrest A. 2. To a Messuage new built upon an old Foundation B. 44. What Estovers Lessee for years may take of common right C. 16. If Lessor grant Fire-boot Lessee may take Trees if there be no Under-wood C. 16. Evidence What Evidence may be given upon a Not Guilty in Trespass A. 301. C. 83. What upon a Nil debet in Debt for Rent B. 10. He who is in the affirmative must give Evidence first C. 162. Exception Count of a Demise of Demesne Lands and Evidence that the Demise was with an Exception yet good Evidence A. 139 140. Where in a Writ there must be a Forsprize B. 162. What may be excepted out of a Lease for years A. 49. De grossis arboribus crescen ' A. 61 116 117 246. Where a Praecipe shall demand a House with or without an Exception for part A. 252. Exchange By Baron and Feme who levy a Fine of the Land taken in Exchange the Feme may enter into her own Lands A. 285. Execution Where the Defendant taken by a Cap. pro fine shall be in Execution for the Plaintiff A. 51 276. The Defendant rendring himself shall not be in Execution unless the Plaintiff pay it A. 58. Execution shall be of the Goods which the Defendant had at the time of the Execution awarded A. 144 145. By Fieri facias good after the Defendants death A. 144. By Writ of Possession the Sheriff must turn all persons out of Doors A. 145. By Capias ad satisfaciend after Elegit retorned that the Lands were first delivered to others by Extent A. 176. The Sheriff upon a retorn Habendo may enquire the kinds of the Cattle if the Count or Avowry be incertain A. 193. One in Prison by Utlary against whom the Sheriff hath a Capias ad satisfaciend Escape lies not though the Sheriff do not charge him with the Capias ad satisfaciend ' A. 263. Stayed by Rule of Court after Judgment A. 276. Where the Defendant taken and in Prison for Felony is chargeable in Execution A. 276 277. B. 85 86 87. What are well executed not being retorned and what not A. 280. B. 49 50. But one Execution upon a joynt Praecipe in debt Secus upon a several Praecipe A. 288. After Execution sued the Defendant cannot sell his Goods bona fide A. 304. One attaint of Felony and also charged with Executions shall not be discharged of the Executions contra of Actions A. 326 327. B. 84 to 89. If the Execution be continued no Scire facias is necessary B. 77 78 87. In what Cases a Capias in Execution lay at Common Law and in what now per Statute B. 86 87. Capias lies against the Bail in B. R. and C. B. in a common Action and upon Audita Querela B. 88. If the Body of a Lord be liable to Execution B. 173 174. Executors Scire facias Executoribus c. without their names is good A. 17. How Judgment shall be against them where part only is found in Assets A. 67 68. Where Assets is found for part and after Goods come to the Executors hands how the Plaintiff must sue forth Execution scil by Scire facias A. 67 68. No plea against an Executor that the Executor was cited to appear to prove the Will and made default and that adm was com to the Defendant A. 90 91. Where Judgment shall be de bonis propriis where de bonis testatoris A. 94. The Executor gives his Bond for Mony a good Administration C. 111 112. Debtor makes the Creditor his Executor A. 112. What is a good refusal of Executors to prove the Will A. 135. Devise that Executors shall sell a Reversion sale by Parol is good and the Vendee is in by the Will A. 148. Debt by single Contract lies not against them though they do not demur but plead A. 165. Action by them de bonis asport in vita testatoris and the form thereof A. 193 194 205. One made Executor if he shall permit J. S. to hold a Term for three years when his power begins A. 229. By grant of Bona Catalla Goods of the Testators pass A. 263. Executor of Executor how to be named A. 275. In what case they shall recover Arrears of Rent in Fee by the Statute 32 H 8. 37. A. 302 303. Plene administravit before notice of the Suit the original being in a forein County A. 312 69. B. 60. The Executrix of the Debtee marries the Debtor she may have an Action for the
Debt against the Debtors Executor A. 320. They may have Error of an Utlary in Felony against their Testator A. 325. Good resolutions for their pleading of Statutes Judgments c. A. 328. 329. What Debts must be first paid 328 329. Are liable to account to the King. B. 34. The manner of prosecuting a Devastavit in a forein County against an Executor B. 67. If they plead plene administravit specially by paying Debts upon Bonds they must shew how the Bonds are discharged B. 155. What intermeddling with the deceaseds Estate makes one Executor of his own wrong B. 224. Conditional if he pay all Debts owing to the Testator to the other Executor C. 3. If Executors enter or claim generally it shall be taken to be as Executors and not in any other capacity C. 36. It is said that a promise cannot be good to bind an Executor if he hath not Assets C. 67. Sale of Goods by an Infant Executor is good and binds him C. 143. One Obligor makes the Surety his Executor who pays the Mony generally Quaere C. 197. How he must be sued who being Executor of his own wrong takes Administration C. 197 198. One Executor cannot give the Goods of the Testator to the other for nothing passes by such Gift C. 209. Release of one Executor binds both C. 209. Executor of Executor not chargeable with a Devastavit made by the first Testator C. 241. Exemption A Juror sworn at the Bar notwithstanding he produced his Charter A. 207. Ex gravi querela In London in what case A. 267. Ex parte talis In what case it lieth B. 93. Exposition of Words Dedi Concessi in a Deed A. 29. Where the word Or in a Deed shall be copulative e converso A. 74 244. Of the word eundem in a Grant A. 15. Divisus dividend in an original Writ A. 169. Of Adtunc A. 172. I agree to surrender my Lands spoken by Tenant at will A. 178. Of the word Tenement in Grants A. 188. Of the word Covenant in a Bill of Debt A. 208. Uterque in Indictments A. 241. Quousque A. 244. Suus A. 271. Right A. 271. Factum implies sealing and delivering A. 310. Exponere ad culturam gives no Estate in the Land A. 315. In portum ad portum all one A. 335. Covenant with two quo ibet eorum B 47. In manner aforesaid is a Devise B. 69. By the word Licet may be made a good allegation B. 108. C. 67. A mile is accounted in Law 1000 paces and every pace 5 foot B. 113. Assurance to what Conveyances it doth relâ—te B. 130. Selion of Land is uncertain B. 162. Puer if it relates to both Sexes B. 217 218. Firma C. 12 13. Whether the word Mille may be joyned to a Genitive or Accusative Case C. 94. Tenementum is of an incertain signification C. 102. Of the word until as a Lease until Michaelmas includes the Feast day C. 211 Curtillage quid C. 214. Where a word in the singular number includes the plural C. 262. Immediate C. 273 274. Term of years C. 112. Extent If it be well executed though not retorned A. 280. Executed though not retorned in what case it is a good Execution B. 12 13. Lessee for years may pay the Rent to the Extendor C. 113. Scire facias to remove the Conusee C. 155. If the Conusee can in any case be removed without a Scire facias C. 155 to 158. What kâ—nd of Interest is left in the Conusor during the Extent C. 156 157. If an Extent be avoided by a Prior Statute the puisne Conusee may enter when the other is satisfied C. 239. If a Debt be assigned to the King he shall have all the Conusors Land C. 240. By the Statute of Acton Burnel the Extendors are to take the Lands if they appraise too high and must pay the Debt statim But when that statim means vi C. 274. Extinguishment Of Rent by Entry what act amounts thereto A. 110. Estate for life extinct by a Fee coming to the same person A. 174. A Prescription of non decimand in a spiritual Person is not extinguished by the Lands coming to lay hands A. 248. If a Remainder depending upon an Estate for life escheat the Seigniory is extinct presently A. 255. Where an Action once suspended is extinguished A. 172 320 330 331. Of a Use A. 257 259. A Rent granted in Fee and that it shall be suspended during the nonage of every Heir A. 266. Executor of the Debtee takes to Wife the Debtor how adjudged A. 320. Where personal things once suspended shall be revived B. 84. Lessor mortgages his Reversion to the Lessee in Fee the Term is utterly extinct C. 6. Where a Warrant is suspended and may be revived C. 10 11. A Term for years comes to the Lessor as Executor and he dies the Term is revived C. 210 111. If Unity of possession in the King of Abbey Lands extinguish a Common C. 128. If Devisee of a Term remainder over purchase the Fee the Term is not merged C. 92 93. Condition of re-entry is not suspended by assigning part of the Land for part of the Term C. 221. By destroying a Reversion a Rent depending thereon is extinct C. 261. A Mesnalty extinct by the Lords purchasing the Tenancy C. 261. Extortion Against whom it lies and the several Statutes against it A. 295. C. 268. It must be set sorth in the Judgment whether any Fee or no Fee was due C. 268. F. Faux Imprisonment See Iustification FFaux Imprisonment lies if a Capias be made out of the Courts at Westminster to a County Palatine B. 89. Faux Iudgment Lies upon a Justicies not Error B. 34. Upon a Writ of Right Close prosecuted in nature of an Assise C. 63. Fee-simple Where it may be created without the word B. 27. C. 216. Devise that the elder Son shall take the Profits until the younger come of Age is a Fee conditional in the eldest C. 216. Feoffment Vide Vses Good by the words Bargain and Sell with Livery A. 25. Fine and Amerciament Upon alienation without Licence A. 8. B. 55 56. In what case a Vill shall be amerced for the escape of a Felon A. 107. C. 207. If a Pain upon a Presentment must be afferred A. 203 204 217 242. In what case a Steward may Fine in a Court-Leer A. 217 242. Grantee of Post-Fines if he may distrain for them and sell the distress A. 249 250. The manner of pleading in Trespass where the Defendant-justifies for such Fine A. 249 250. By what words such Fines pass A. 249 250. If a Defendant make several defaults in one Suit he shall be several times amerced B. 4 5. Fine set in a Court for a contempt in not retorning of Cattle in a Replevin B. 174. Debt lies for a Post-Fine by the Kings Grantee B. 179. cont C. 56 234. A Defendant may be several times amerced for several defaults in one Suit B.
Middlesex may inquire by inquest of Office of the Customs in London C. 127. Inrollments If a Lease enrolled be lost the Jur. is not of any effect A. 329. Where a Deed may operate both by the Statute of Inrollment and of Uses C. 16. What is a good Plea against a Deed enrolled A. 183 184 B. 121. How the time is accompted for the six Months A. 183 184. If it be enrolled non refert if it were acknowledged C. 84. How a Corporation must acknowledge a Deed C. 84. Intendment Where two several quantities of Acres shall not be intended all one A. 44. Where the intent of a Man is traversable ib. 50. Where issuable B. 215. Where and how the Law construes the Intent of one who enters in Land A. 127. Where mentioning a Rent of 8 l. and after saying 8 l. Rent is intended the same Rent without the word praedict ' A. 173. How far the Law takes matters by Intendment in Wills Deeds c. A. 204 210 211. St. Martins and St. Michaels day what Feasts by Intendment A. 241. Where want of an Averment is aided by Intendment A. 281. C. 42 43. Where Baron and Feme are vouched it is intended to be in right of the Feme A. 291. If a Service be reserved according to the value of the Land it is intended the then present value B. 117. C. 114. Seisin in Fee is intended to continue until the contrary appear C. 42 43 96. Intrusion Bar therein by Grant of the King A. 9. Into the Rectory and receiving the Tithes A. 48. Disceit is no Bar therein for nullum tempus occurrit Regi B. 31 32. The Information is prout patet per recorda If the Defendant plead a Title If he need to traverse nul tiel record B. 30 31. If every continuance is a new Intrusion where the first Entry was lawful B. 206 207. Joynt-Tenants and Tenants in Common One Joynt-Tenant of the next avoidance to a Church Ecclesia vacante releases to his Companion nihil operatur A. 167. Cannot sue one the other in Trespass for their Lands A. 174. C. 228 229. Where two shall be Joynt-Tenants or Tenants in Common of an Estate tail A. 213 214. Two Joynt-Tenants are disleised by two to one of whom one Joynt-Tenant releaseth the other enters he is Tenant in Common to the Relessee A. 264. One Joynt-Tenant cannot grant to or enfeoff his Companion A. 283. If a Joynt-Tenant and a Tenant in Common may joyn in debt for Rent and make a general Count where one is to have a greater share B. 112. Devise to two to be equally divided if it be an Estate in Common or a Joynt B. 129. C. 9. If one Joynt-Tenant accept a Lease of the Land from his Companion he is estopt to claim by Survivor B. 159. Pleading of Joynt-Tenancy in abatement by Fine or Deed Stat. 34 E. 1. 8. B. 161 162. Joynder en Action Action Plea. Three Tenants in a Praecipe cannot vouch severally A. 116. Two Defendants justifie severally and the Plaintiff says joyntly de injuriis suis propr ' c. and good A. 124. Tenant for life and he in remainder in tail joyn in prescription A. 177. Where two Joynt-Tenants or Tenants in Common shall joyn in one Formedon A. 213 214. In what real Actions who shall joyn or sever A. 293 294 317. In a Writ of Error the like A. 293 294. Who shall joyn in a Writ of Error or in Conspiracy or Attaint A. 317. Three joyn in Action upon the Statute of Hue-and-Cry and adjudged good Quod est mirum A. 12. Covenant to two quolibet eorum both must joyn B. 47. C. 161. If one is obliged to account to three he may do it to any one B. 75 76. Debt upon a Judgment against three cannot be brought against one only B. 220. Two Infants Joynt-Tenants cannot joyn in a Dum fuit infra aetatem C. 255. Ioynture What alienation of a Feme of her Joynture is within the Statute 11 H. 7. 20. A. 261 262. Iourneys Accompts If Error lies for the Heir upon death of his Ancestor by Journeys Accounts Quaere A. 22. Issues joyn One joynt replication de injuriis suis propriis to two justifications adjudged good A. 124. Is called in the Civil Law Lis contestata A. 278. If an Advowson be appendant or in gross A. 323. How it shall be joyned upon pleading Ancient Demesne A. 333. Upon special Bastardy A. 335. Issue in an Inferior Court triable out of their Jurisdiction not triable in the Courts at Westm B. 37. Mis-joyn for that the Plaintiff in Covenant altered a word from the Covenant B. 116. In Replevin upon absque hoc that he took them as Bailiff B. 215. Iudgment Upon the Defendant rendring himself in discharge of his Bail A. 58. The Defendant pleads a frivolous Plea which is found for the Plaintiff Judgment shall be entred as by Nihil dicit Nullo habito respectu c. A. 68. In a Sur cui in vita for part of the Messuage demanded A. 152. In Ejectment Quod quer recuperet possessionem is as good as Termin A. 175. Quod Capiatur well enough although pardoned by Act of Oblivion A. 167 300. Shall not be for the Plaintiff if by the Record it appears the Plaintiff hath no cause of Action or that the Action is brought before the Debt due A. 186 187. B. 99 100. C. 86 87. Entred as of a day past where the Defendant dies while after Verdict the Court takes time to consult of the Law A. 187. In what cases the Judges may give Judgment by sight of an Almanack A. 242. Judgment for the Plaintiff in Trespass although the Defendant died before the Writ of Inquiry returned A. 236. In Forcible Entry for treble Costs and Damages A. 282. Nihil de fine qui a pardonatur not good because the Defendant does not plead the Pardon A. 300 301. In Trespass or Case may be arrested after the first Judgment A. 309. Arrest of Judgment shewed in writing in the Exchequer B. 40. Judgment final upon a Verdict in a Counter-plea in Aid B. 52. Where it shall be reversed in part or in all B. 177 178. Against the Heir where his Plea is found against him is general against all Lands C. 3. Iurisdiction The Spiritual Court hath Jurisdiction where right of Tithes comes in question between two Parsons A. 59. In what Cases the Spiritual Court may have Jurisdiction for Slanders B. 53. If the Court hath not Jurisdiction of the Action all is void but other faults make the proceedings only voidable B. 89. One cannot plead to the Jurisdiction of the Court after Imparlance C. 214 215. Iour in Court dies Iuridicus What things may be done upon day extrajudicial B. 206 207. Iustices and Iudges Whether Justice of Peace in a Vill may be by Prescription A. 106. In what Inferior Courts who are Judges A. 217 228 242 316. B. 34. If a Judge may take
and when Notice must be given to a Patron of a Voidance A. 32. C. 46 47. Where necessary to perfect an Assumpsit A. 105 123. Where Notice of a Surrender of a Lease must be given to him who hath the subsequent Estate C. 96. Nusance See Action sur case Where an Action lieth for stopping of new made Lights where not A. 168. Action on the Case lies for it by Tenant of the Freehold although he may have an Assise C. 263. B. 184. A. 247. Con. C. 13. Where it lies for turning a Water-Course from a Mill new erected on an old Foundation A. 44 45. Every continuance thereof is a fresh Nusance B. 103. C. 174. The difference of exaltare erigere stagnum in such Actions B 180 181. It is enough to say obstupavit viam without shewing how C. 13. For stopping a Water Course so that the Plaintiffs Land was drowned C. 174. O. Obligation GOod without words Obligatory or In cujus rei testimonium A. 25. C. 119. To perform Covenants If the Deed be void the the Obligation is single A. 282. Obligation to pay Mony within a Mannor where J.S. hath bona felonum if the Obligee be attainted J.S. shall not have the Debt B. 56. What words in the Condition make the Obligation void by 23 H. 6. cap. 10. B. 78. With a Condition against the Law is void Cont. if the Condition be only impossible B. 189. Conditioned that one shall not use his Trade in such a Parish is void B. 210. One is bound for the faithful Service of an Apprentice A Release made to the Apprentice is a discharge of the Bond C. 45. Where a Bond is I am content to pay Debt or Covenant lies C. 119. What Bond is joynt what joynt and several C. 206. Bond taken of one not bailable is void per Stat. 23 H. 6. C. 208. Obligation in ten Pounds to be levied by the Obligee of the profits of a Baillwick yet the Obligee may bring Debt C. 223. Made in France may be sued here C. 232. Occupancy Who shall be a special Occupant A. 310. C. 36. He who disseiseth Tenant pur auter vy who dies is a dispensor still and no occupant B. 121. None shall be an occupant but he in possession C. 36. It it shall be of a Use pur auter vy C. 35. Offices and Officer If a Steward of a Court may be deputed by Parol without Deed A. 228. What other Officer may be so deputed Ibid. Of what Office an Assise lieth Ibid. Vicar General of the Spiritualty Chancellor of A. Bishop what A. 312. The Office of Marshal of the Kings Bench and Marshal of England and who hath the Grant of them A. 320 321. If an Office ministerial may be granted in Reversion by any but the King C. 31 32. Office for the King. What Lands or Chattels shall be in the King by Attainder without Office found A. 21. B. 122 to 126 135 to 139 206 207. Or by alienation without licence A. 40. B. 126 135. C. 175. Must be pleaded under the Great Seal A. 65. To what purposes an Office is good not finding who is Heir Ibid. Upon Extent of Lease for years must find the certainty of the Term. B. 121. C. 204. In what case it may be traversed B. 122 to 126 187. C. 185 to 191. What Lands shall revest in the King by a Condition of re-entry before Office found of the Condition broken B. 134 to 145. C. 125 127. What a Common cannot have but by re-entry the King shall not without Office found B. 137. Of what force an Office is which is found after the King hath granted away all the Estate B. 138 to 145. C. 125 126 127. Upon assignment of a Debt to the King the Office must find but Goods since the Assignment C. 197. The Ter-Tenant shall not render recompence to the King for the profits of the Lands before Office found C. 242. P. Pardon IN what case a general Pardon not to be regarded unless specially pleaded A. 300 301. B. 28. Where the Kings General Pardon will not avail without words of Giant B. 123 124. C. 186 187. Parson and Patron What a Vicar is A. 182. They and the Ordinary joyn in a Lease of the Gleab if this bind the Successor A. 234 235. What an Arch-deacoury is A. 316. Partition Between Tenants in Common and Joynt-Tenants where good where bad without Deed A. 103. The form of the second Judgment A. 280. B. 50. Against whom it must be brought A. 291. If it may be made of a Use B. 25 26 27. The pleading thereof B. 24. What part is void what only voidable B. 25 26. Form of the Writ and where it must shew de qua haereditate B. 118. C. 231. If it lies by a Corporation upon the Stat. 32 H. 8. C. 162. Patent See Grant of the King. Perjury See Stat. 5 Eliz. May be punished at Common Law though the Jury give a Verdict against the false Testimony C. 170 230. Petition of Right See Monstrans Plaint In all Inferior Courts there ought to be a Plaint entred before the Defendant be summoned A. 185 186 302. Pleading and Pleas. Vide Bar and Iustification Of a Lease at will it 's good to aver the life of the Lessor A. 14. Of an Averment that the Rent c. was parcel of a Mannor A. 15. Of a Fine and Non-claim not needful to aver Infra Regnum sanae memoriae c. A. 18 76. What things must be shewed by the Plaintiff to enable his Action or must be pleaded by the Defendant A. 18 76 131 306. B. 5. C. 40 41 42 43. Of a Recovery in an Affise in Bar to Trespass A. 24 193. That a Rectory was appropriated to a Colledge A. 38. The Election of a Bishop Ibid. Where Ne unques accouple c. shall be pleaded and where Non fuit uxor A. 53. B. 170 171. Of an Utlary to entitle the King A. 63. Where Nient damnify is a good Plea to an Award which was That the Defendant should discharge and save the Plaintiff harmless from a Bond A. 71. The performance of a Condition to convey the Defendant must shew by what Conveyance c. A. 72. Of a Fine with Proclamation upon the Statute of 4 H. 7. 1 H. 3. and 32 H. 8. A. 76 77 78. Of an Agreement to an Estate Legacy c. A. 129. What matter ought to be shewed by the party who pleads or to come in on the other side A. 18 76 100 131 306. B. 5. C. 40 to 43. Of performance of a negative Covenant A. 136. To two Bars there must be several Replications or Demurrers A. 139. Of a Bargain and Sale must alledge a Consideration A. 170. Where it is not necessary to shew the beginning of a particular Estate nor to aver the life of Tenant for life A. 66 139 176 255. B. 50 94 95. Of a Recovery in a real Action it must be shewed that the Tenant was
Tenant of Freehold Contra in an Assise A. 193. Of Nient comprise in a Recovery A. 184 185. Avowry for Damage Feasant in Copyhold Lands leased to the Avowant The Plaintiff pleads a prior Title to the Mannor in Fee and Ill for he ought to have said he was seised until the avowant entred praetextu of the Lease A. 288. B 80. In what case one may plead Not Guilty in Trespass A. 301. Of a Feoffment by two or a Bond made to two where one is dead A. 322. B. 220. Where one may plead nil debet or the special matter B. 10. To let for Rent of an Eviction by Title B. 10. Where one must plead non concessit or that nothing passed by the Deed B. 13 Where in pleading a place certain must be alledged Vide Lieu County Where to an Information for the King the Defendant cannot plead Not Guilty but must answer specially to the Tort B. 34. Of performance of Conditions to make a good Estate repair a House c. B. 39. Where de injuria sua propria is good Replication with and without a Traverse B. 81 102 103. If a Stranger be bound that the Lessee pay his Rent he may plead entry and expulsion B. 115. Where a Plea must conclude Judgment if Action or If he ought to answer B. 160. That he paid all Debts owing by him to J.S. he ought to shew what Debts C. 3. No pleading of a thing conveyed per nomen c. but by Deed C. 9 10. Plea vicious in Debt upon a Recognizance concluding Judicium si Executio c. C. 58. Of Entry into Religion Resignation and Divorce C. 199. No pleading to the Jurisdiction of the Court after a general Imparlance C. 214 215. One cannot plead an Attachment after Imparlance C. 232. Pledges The King and an Infant need find none B. 4 185 186. Pluralities If an Arch-deaconry make it A. 316. Posse Comitatus Cannot be but out of the Chief Court at Westui C 99. Possession Unity of Possession of 3 purparts of a Mannor does not make the whole liable to a charge granted out of two parts A. 85 86. Unity of Possession of Land and Tithes out of which c. does not extinguish the Tithes A. 248 331 332. Entry of the Brother in one County into the Demesnes of a Mannor extending into two Counties does not make a possessio fratris A. 265. If the possession of a Reversion after a Lease for years make a possessio fratris of Copyhold Lands C. 70. Whether Unity of possession of Lands and Common in the King of Abbey Lands extinguish the Common C. 128. If recovery of Dower against the Brother take away a possessio fratris C. 155 156. What possession makes a possessio fratris C. 273. Power to make Lease by Act of Parliament not pursued C. 72. Premunire Lies not for the party If the Kings Attorny release A. 292. For trying a Freehold without Jurisdiction Ibid. For proceeding in the Admiralty for a matter done upon the Land it must appear in the Libel to be done on the Lands else this Action lies not B. 183. Prerogative See King. That the King shall have a Fine upon alienation of his Tenant in Capite A. 8. The Court ex officio must preserve it A. 63 322. Where the King shall have Primer Seisin A. 65 66. Lands come to the King which are charged with a Rent no distress lies but a Petition of Right A. 191. One cannot cross the King his Title but he must intitle himself A. 202 294. To present a Clerk upon a Lapse vested in the Bishop whose See is after void A. 235. Where the King shall have Primer Seisin and Ward A. 253 284 285. To charge Executors Ad. Computand ' B. 34. The King needs not demand a Rent to entitle himself to a Re-entry A. 12. B. 134. C. 125. May distrain for a Rent-Seek C. 125. May reserve a Rent to a Stranger C. 127. Shall have account against Executors C. 198. The King shall not have his Prerogative to be first satisfied of a Debt which comes to him by Assignment if a Prior Extent be executed C. 239. Upon such Extent the King shall have the whole Land though the Conusee could have but a moiety C. 240. Prescription For Estovers within a Forest A. 2. Cannot be to take all the profits c. but may be to have Fold-course or the like A. 11 142. For Common when the Land is not sowed A. â—3 No Prescription though no memory to the contrary if the commencement be known A. 10â— B. 28. That none shall exercise the Trade of a Baker in a Market Town without the Plaintiffs Licence A. 142 143. Laid in Tenant for life and him in Remainder in tail and yet good A. 177. Where good to have Suitors to a Court and to take Toll c. A. 217 218. Void because unreasonable A. 232 314. C. 41 42 81 82. Good and reasonable A. 232 233 314. C. 41 42. Spiritual Persons may prescribe in non decimando A. 241 248. Though such Prescription be interrupted by the Land coming to Lay-hands yet it is not destroyed A. 248. What words apt to make a Prescription what not A. 273. None against a Statute B. 28. Not a good Prescription That every Inhabitant in a Town shall have Common B. 44 45. C. 200. In pleading a Prescription in a Vill it must be pleaded that the Vill is Antiqua c. B. 98. How to prescribe for a Way with Horses and Carriages C. 13. In pleading it it must be said that the Prescription was once executed not only quod potest c. C. 83. Presentment to a Church Before Induction the King may repeal his Presentation A. 156. B. 164. Presentee of the King by Lapse dies before Induction Videtur that the King may present again A. 156. Grant of the next Presentment made when the Church is void is also void A. 167. The difference between it and a Collation and the definition of them A. 226. If the Bishop die after Lapse devolved to him the King shall Present A. 235. What kind of Interest it is Ibid. If an Archdeaconry become void by the Deacon being made Bishop the King shall present and not the Patron C. 151. The King cannot revoke his Presentment but by express words and reciting the first C. 243. Primer Seisin The Heir shall pay a third part of the profits for Primer Seisin C. 25 54. Principal and Accessary If the Attainder against the Principal be reversed the Accessary is discharged A. 325. Priviledge A person who is priviledged by reason of an Action depending in the Common Bench is priviledged for the Goods of Strangers in his hands so that they cannot be attached A. 169 189. What duty to the King gives a Subject the priviledge to sue in the Exchequer B. 21. If both parties are previledged in the Courts at Westminster allocatur querenti B. 41. One priviledged after Judgment quod computet B.
lies immediately upon a Recognizance in Chancery B. 84 to 89 220. If Debt lies upon it before or after Judgment upon the Scire facias B. 84 to 88 220. Debt brought upon a Recognizance but non constat where it was acknowledged C. 58. Record Of an Assise brought into the Common Bench by Error how to be remanded to the Judges of Assise for Error lies not in C. B. A. 55. Pleading of a Record in the same Court A. 63 65. Where and for whom Averment lieth against a Record A. 183 184. Removed by a vicious Writ of Error or before Judgment given the Record is still in the first Court B. 1 2. A Recordatur made per Car. of a Record mistaken B. 120. Recovery The form thereof where the Vouchee comes in by Attorny A. 86. Against an Infant per Gardianum A. 211. A Recovery by one Joynt-Tenant binds only his own moiety A. 270. The execution thereof necessary in some cases B. 48. By Estoppel B. 57. Recoveror is seised to the use of him who suffers it until other Uses are limited B. 63 64 66. See Stat. 21 H. 8. who may falsify a Recovery For what reasons Recoveries do dock remainders after an Estate tall B. 66. Recovery to the intent that the Recoverors shall make Estates if such Estates be not made in convenient time in whom the Freehold is B. 216 217 218. What issue is bound thereby per Stat. 32 H. 8. B. 224. Recouper If the Lessor covenant to repair the House and do not Lessee may do it and recouper out of his Rent A. 237. Recusant If Copyhold Lands were liable to seisure for Recusancy before the Stat. 35 Eliz. 2. A. 98 99. Within what time Action upon the Stat. 23 El. 1. must be brought A. 239. The Indictment needs not name the offender of a Parish but a Vill B. 167. Redisseisin Whether the Plaintiff may have it after Entry the Judgment therein A. 69. Relation Of a Participle of the present Tense without the word adtunc A. 61 172. Of an Attornment A. 265 266. B. 222. Of words in an Indictment B. 5. Of a Deed enrolled to vest Lands in the King B. 206 207. Of agreement to a Disseisin Feoffment c. B. 223. Release Where a Covenant in the same Deed shall release other part of the same Deed A. 117. C. 113. Of a chose en action nihil operatur A. 167. C. 256. If an Heir release to the Disseisor and after his Ancestor dies it does not bind the Heir B. 47 56 57. A promise may be released by Parol B. 76. See where a release to a Stranger may discharge a Bond C. 45. Release of Covenants before any broken discharges the Bond for performance C. 69. To what Tenant in possession it is available C. 152 153. One Grantee of a prochein avoidance cannot release to his Companion A. 167. C. 256. Relief The Heir of one Coparcener shall pay none because it is an intire thing C. 13. Remainder and Reversion In Fee after a Lease for life where not discontinued by a Fine levied by Tenant for life A. 40. Cannot vest in the right Heirs of one in the Feoffors life unless it begin first in the Feoffor A. 101 102. Where an Estate shall vest as a remainder where as a reversion A. 182. B. 33 34. A Reversion after an Estate for life passeth by Devise of all Lands and Tenements A. 180 181. When a Remainder limited upon an Estate which is void as a Gift to a Monk for life remainder over shall take effect A. 195 196 197. Lease for nine years determinable upon death of the Lessee and if he die within the Term the remainder of the Term to his Wife a void remainder A. 218. The difference between a remainder limited upon a contingency which may never happen and one that must and will happen A. 244. B. 82 83. Devise to J.S. haered to Uses in tail after the Estate tail spent The Devisor shall have the fee A. 254. If one of two Disseisees release to one of two Disseisors and the Tenant who released not do enter the Reversion is revested pro toto A. 264. If a remainder may be limited upon a Condition A. 283. Feoffment to J.S. primogenito filio suo If the Son be born after the Feoffment he shall take by remainder B 15. If the remainder of a Term for years be good B. 69. C. 110 111 197 199. Remainder executed by moieties upon a Gift to a Feme for life remainder to their Heirs C. 4. Grantee of a Reversion shall recover Damages only for breach of Covenant made since the Grant C. 51. What acts as Extents Grants c. do take a Reversion forth of him that had it C. 156. Remitter Where it shall be A. 6 7 37. C. 93 94. Tenant in tail creates a new intail upon condition which his issue breaks yet he is remitted after his Fathers death A. 91. Land given to Husband and Wife in tail before Marriage and the Baron aliens and takes back an Estate to him and his Wife for life both are remitted A. 115. C. 93 94. The Father enfeoffs the Heir who never agrees and dies the Heir is remitted B. 73. Father enfeoffs his younger Son who dies his Wife priviment enseint of a Son the elder Son enters he is remitted Quaere C. 2. If one may be remitted against a Warranty C. 10. Waived by the Wife who was Tenant in tail with her Husband her payment of Rent which was reserved upon a Devise C. 272. Rent What is a Rent what a sum in gross A. 137 138 269 333 334. C. 103. Rent reserved by a Lease for years becomes seck if it be granted over A. 315. Divers ways of suspending Rents and how they are revived 334. To what remainder or reversion it shall be incident B. 33 34. If a Rent may be divided to equal a devise of Soccage and Capite Lands B. 42 43. Shall follow the Reversion although reserved to Executors B. 214. Contrary to a sum reserved to Executors upon a Mortgage of Land C. 103. Rent payable at two Feasts is to be paid by equal portions C. 235. By destroying a Reversion a Rent which followed it is extinguished C. 261. Repleader None after Demurrer A. 79. After an unapt issue A. 90. Replevin and Avowry Avowry for Rent reserved upon a Feoffment in fee and for sult of Court A. 13. Bar by non Cepit and what is good evidence therein A. 42. By property in a Stranger Ibid. Where the Plaintiff or Avowant may vary from the number of the Cattle A. 43. Plaintiff cannot discontinue without leave of the Court A. 105. Avowry for Damage Feasant in Customary Lands leased to the Avowant A. 288. Avowry by the Stat. 21 H. 8. cap. 19. A. 301. Avowry for a Leet Fee B. 74. Bar to an Avowry made by a Bailiff that he took the Cattle de injuria c. and traverse that he took them as Baily B. 215.
laid before the Plaintiffs Title adjudged not good A. 104. Where one shall have time to do an Act during his life A. 124 125. Action appearing to be brought before Mony due how adjudged A. 186 187. Bargain and Sale of Trees Habend Succidend infra 20 annos how adjudged A. 275. Solvendum the value of the profits per annum is intended the then present value C. 114. Tithes Cannot be granted without Deed A. 23. B. 73. Are now become Quasi Laicum seodum A. 23 300. Vest in the Owner immediately after set out A. 39. If in trespass the right of Tithes come in question between two Parsous the Spiritual Court hath Jurisdiction A. 59. Who may prescribe in non decimando A 241 248. Release of all demands in the Parishioners Land does not discharge Tithes A. 300. What is a good discharge of payment of Tithes A. 332 330 334. B. 73. By the Civil Law the Parson is to have every tenth Land of Corn B. 70. In what case they shall be paid although the Lands were the Cistertians B. 71. Of what Wood and how Tithes shall be paid B. 79 80. Title Where the Defendant must shew a Title in pleading where not A. 45 46. He who pleads against the Kings Title must shew his own A 202. B 30 31. Toll For what Toll shall be taken A. 218. For what Goods it may be taken of Tenants in Ancient Demesne A. 232 233. Tort. Where a Man shall take benefit of his own wrong doing where not A. 339 331. Traverse Two Traverses in an Intrusion A. 38. Where the place is traversable A. 39. Plea vicious for want of a Traverse A. 44 78 79. Is but matter of form A. 44. Where a Mans intentions are c. A. 50. Where in a Quare Imp. the Appendancy or the Presentation is traversable A. 154. It is not traversable whether Mony were paid upon a Bargain and Sale A. 170. In Quare Imp. absque hoc quod disturbavit aliter seu alio modo A. 230. What matters are traversable in Assumpsits A. 252 253. Where the dying seised and where the descent is traversable A. 310. B. 185. Where a thing is to be done by Covenant upon request the request is traversable B. 5. An inducement to a Traverse ought to be matter traversable B. 32. Where the Defendant justifies in a local thing in another County he must Traverse the County in the Declaration B. 79. Where the Defendant is charged with a malicious Tort and pleads in excuse he must Traverse the malice or default charged on him B. 94 95. Per Executor that he administred about Funerals and Traverse that he administred aliter seu alio modo B 104. Prescription pleaded against Prescription not good without Traverse of the first B. 209 210. Where the Command of a Lord to the Bailiff is traversable B. 215 216. In Replevin Bar That he took the Cattle of his own wrong absque hoc that he took them as Bailiff B. 215. Trespass for driving Sheep per quod they lost their Lambs no Plea to say he took them as distress without a Traverse to the Tortious driving C. 15. If the Defandant may plead another promise and Traverse parcel of the promise in the Count C. 67. Trespass Done by two It is a good Bar that the Plaintiff had Judgment and Execution against one A. 19. C. 122. Bar by a Recovery in an Assise and the pleading thereof A. 24. Lies with Simul cum J.S. vel Cum quodam homine ignoto A. 41. C. 77. Lies against one intrusted to sell Goods in a Shop if he imbezel any to his own use A. 87. 88. Lay before the Plaintiffs Title accrued not good A. 104. Possession is a good Title for the Plaintiff if the Defendant have no better to shew A. 215. Lies for a Copyholder against his Lord for cutting his Trees A. 272. In Ejectione firmae is a good Bar against the same party in Trespass A. 313. C. 194. Trespass in domo New assignment may be made in a House and a Barn B. 184 185. Quare cuniculos cepit B. 201. Grantee of the Herbage cannot have a Trespass Quare clausum fregit C. 213. If Trespass lies for a Greyhound C. 219. For what things ferae naturae the Writ may say suos supposing a property Ibid. Trial. See Visne Quaere If Issue joyned in an Inferior Court tryable out of the Jurisdiction may be sent into the Courts at Westm to be tried there A. 91. It shall not B. 37. Whether Wise or not Wise a Church or not a Church Prior or not Prior within or without a Parish triable at Common Law A. 53 181. B. 170 171. C. 129. Where the Spiritual Court shall try incidents arising upon a matter triable there A. 181 182. Of Ne unque accouple c. non fuit uxor A. 53. Of an Executors refusal how A. 205 206. The Court may judge what day is dies Juridicus by an Almanack A. 242. Where it shall be of Men of two Counties B. 102 103. Temporal Courts try Si fuit uxor Cont. of Ne unques accouple c. B. 170 171. A. 53. Two several Jurors try Issues upon one Action there can be but Costs by one Jury B. 177. In what case refusal to be Executor shall be tryed per Pais and where by the Bishops Certificate B. 180. Trial of matter of Law as to make a sufficient release must not be left to a Jury B. 197. Trial of Ability or Disability of a Parson shall be by the Bishop But if the Parson be dead then by Jury C. 46 47. How an Issue Whether one be a Counsellor in â—eg eruditus be triable by Jury C. 238. Trover Bar by a Sheriffs Baily for executing of a Fieri facias good A. 144. Of Cart-Loads of Hay A. 178. What is a good Bar therein what not A. 178 189 222 223 247 248. B. 13 37. What thing is traversable therein A. 189 247 253. B. 13 94. What Act amounts to a conversion A. 222 223 224. Trover by the Feme and conversion by both The Action must be against both A. 312. What evidence the Defendant therein may give upon Not guilty pleaded B. 220 221. Utlary a good Bar in this Action C. 205. V. Variance BEtween a Suggestion and a Count in Attachment sur Prohibition is Error A. 128. What variance in recital of a Fine wrong shall prejudice C. 136. The like in wrong reciting of former Conveyances Ibid. View In a Writ of Right de Custodia Forestae the Forest must be put in View and of Rent the Land A. 86. Venire Facias De novo for the incertainty of a special Verdict A. 210. De medietate linguae B. 112. Where it shall say Quorum quilibet hab 4 l. in terris c. B. 112 113. Upon a special Writ as Audita Querela must be special C. 260. Verdict Void because a Juror received Mony of a Solicitor A. 18. Where surplusage
Len. 55. 1 Len. 333. The Abbot and Covent of D. 29 H. 8. makes a Lease of certain Lands for 3 Lives to begin after the death of one J.S. if they shall so long live And afterwards 30 H. 8. within a year before the Dissolution they make another Lease to JS If the first Lease in the life of J.S. be such an Estate and Interest which by vertue of the said Statute shall make the second Lease void was the Question For it was not in esse but a future Interest Manwood All the reason which hath been made for the second Lease is because the first Lease is but a possibility for J.S. by possibility may survive all the 3 Lives and so it shall never take effect But notwithstanding be it a possibility c. or otherwise It is such a thing as may be granted or forfeited and that during the life of the said J.S. And Note also the words of the Statute If any Abbot c. within one year next before the first day of the Parliament hath made or hereafter shall make any Lease or Grant for years life or lives of any Mannors c. whereof and in which any Estate or Interest for life or years at the time of the making of any such Lease or Grant then had his being or continuance or hereafter shall have his being or continuance and then was not determined c. shall be void c. And here is an Interest and that not determined at the time of the making of this Lease to J.S. And of that Opinion was the whole Court and all the Barons and divers other of the Iustices And therefore a Decree was made against that Lease c. CCXVII The Master and Chaplains of the Savoy's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer THe Master and Chaplains of the Savoy aliened a parcel of their possessions unto another in Fee and afterwards surrendred their Patents and a Vacat is made of the Enrollment of them It was now moved How the Alienee should be adjudged to make title to the said Lands claiming the same by the Letters Patents For the Clerks would not make a Constat of it For the Patents were cancelled and a Vacat made of the Enrolment And the Case of Sir Robert Sidney was vouched in which Case the Statute of 3 E. 6. was so expounded upon great advise taken by the Lord Chancellor who thereupon commanded That no Constat be made in such case Manwood If Tenant in tail by Letters Patents of the King surrendreth his Patent and cancelleth it and a Vacat be made of the Enrollment by that the Issue in tail shall be bound For no other person at the time of the cancelling hath Interest But in the Case at Bar a third person scil the Alienee hath an Interest And therefore he was of Opinion That he should have a Constat c. CCXVIII Inchely and Robinson's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione Firmae It was found by Verdict That King E. 6. was seised of the Mannor and Hundred of Fremmington 2 Len. 41. Owen Rep. 88. and granted the same by his Letters Patents to one Barnard in Fee rendring 130 l. per annum and also to be holden by Homage and Fealty And afterwards Queen Mary reciting the said Grant by King Ed. 6. and the Reservation upon it granted unto Gertrude Marchioness of Exeter the Mannor of Fremmington and the said Rent and Services and also the Mannor of Camfield and other Lands and Tenements Tenendum per vicesimam partem unius feodi Militis Gertrude being so seised Devised to the Lord Mountjoy the Mannor of Fremmington the Mannor of Camfield c. And also bequeathed divers sums of Monies to be levied of the premises And further found that the said Rent of 130 l. was the full third part of the yearly value of all the Lands and Tenements of the Devisor The Question was If by these words of the Devise of the Mannor of Fremmington the Rent and the Services pass i.e. the Rent Homage and Fealty reserved upon the Grant made by King Ed. 6. of the Mannor and Hundred of Fremmington And if the said Rent and Services are issuing out of the Mannor For if the Rent doth not pass then the same is descended to the Heir of the Marchioness and then being found the full third part of the value the King is fully answered and satisfied and then the residue of the Inheritance discharged and is settled in the Devisee And if the Rent doth not pass then is the Heir of the Marchioness entituled by the Statute to a third of the whole c. And Shuttleworth conceived That if the Marchioness had Devised by express words the said Rent and Services they could not pass For as to the Services they are things entire as Homage and Fealty they cannot pass by Devise in case where Partition is to follow for such things cannot receive any partition or division therefore not divideable For the Statute enables the Proprietary to give or devise two parts of his Inheritance in three parts to be divided As Catalla Felonum cannot be devised for the reason aforesaid Quod fuit Concessum per totam Curiam But as to the Rent the Court was clear That the same was deviseable by the said Statute and in respect of that the mischief of many distresses which the Common Law abhors is dispensed with and is now become distrainable of common right And as to the Devise he argued much upon the grounds of Devises and put a ground put by Fineux 15 H. 7. 12. Where every Will ought to be construed and taken according as the words purport or as it may be intended or implyed by the words What the intent of the Devisor was so as we ought to enquire the meaning of the Testator out of the words of the Will. And see also a good Case 19 H 8. 8 9. And he much relyed upon the Case of Bret and Rigden Plow Com. 343. See there the Case So in this Case for as much as such Intent of the Devisor doth not appear upon the words of the Will that this Rent shall pass It shall not pass for there is not any mention of any Rent in the whole Will. Fenner argued to the contrary and he argued much upon the favourable Construction which the Law gives to Wills. 14 H. 8. by Reversion for remainder e contra 17 E. 3. 8. A Man may make a Feoffment in Fee of a Mannor by the name of a Knights Fee a multo fortiori in the Cases of Devises And in our Case the Marchioness conceived That the Rent and Services reserved out of the Mannor of Fremmington was the Mannor of Fremmington and that the Law would give strength to that intent Walmesley conceived That the Rent did not pass by the name of the Mannor c. for this Rent noc in veritate nec in reputatione was ever taken for a Mannor